106 Comments

1. Tarnsman:

Question I wish was put before the candidates in one of the debate: Suppose increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was not the cause of the slight warming of the planet from the mid-70s to 2000, and in fact was due to recurring variations in the Earth’s orbit and the Sun’s output. Suppose too that the minor increase in the levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere were due in large part to the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warmed up along with the atmosphere. Given those two assumptions, how would you address the nation’s energy needs if concern over CO2 emissions were reduced to a minor consideration?

As far as Powell goes, he will play both sides of the fence and not state one way or another. If he were going go for Obama he would have done so by now.

Oct 18, 2008 - 1:01 am 2. no mo uro:

Re: the “Die Hard” thing…….

Loathesome smut pedlar though he may be, Larry Flynt once said that conventional wisdom dictates the notion that Republicans are all persoanlly obsessed with money and Democrats with sex, when the opposite is the truth.

FWIW.

Oct 18, 2008 - 2:28 am 3. no mo uro:

That’s “personally”.

Oct 18, 2008 - 2:29 am 4. Tom:

I tend to agree that it is in Powell’s interests to not show his hand. But if he were to make an endorsement my bet is it would be for McCain

He declined an invitation to address the DNC .
He has contibuted the max. allowed to the McCain campaign . I do not know if he also donated to the Obama campaign.
He also donated to the Republican Leadership Council PAC.
He recently gave testimony on behalf of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

All this indicates to me that he is still in the Republican camp.

Oct 18, 2008 - 3:43 am 5. ledger:

“…in the current crisis the push is to give more power over our lives to others. But the problem with that is the “agency problem”. In economics, the agency problem describes the difficulty which arises when the agent — a government bureaucrat, attorney or someone we have delegated power to — has interests which don’t quite line up with the principal. It is at the heart of doubts about whether all our problems can be solved by regulation. Our “agents” — the regulators — often have interests which don’t coincide with those the claim to represent.” -Wretchard

How true.

There are plenty of laws on the books to enforce said trading issues – but they are not enforced. New regulation will not help. New laws that go un-enforced will be the same as old laws that are un-enforced.

Although, Andrew Lahde traded in an unregulated market he now seems to say it would be better if it was regulated (at which point he probably would switch and become a long term buyer)

Andrew Lahde was short sell in down market. He got out quickly. Short sellers tend to have and advantage over pensions funds and long only funds. They are more agile and can spread deadly rumors of and impending decline with no repercussions.

There take the low hanging fruit and exit stage left (often to come back in due time). Andrew Lahde ran a somewhat small fund which exploited the heavy long only pension and other types of retirement funds.

Every bond fund manger is trying to increase profits by debauching bond issuers as “bad credit risks” thus decreasing the value of the bond which increases the effective interest rate (including derivates underlying the bond).

Andrew Lahde did so in a grand style.

People tend to think that “markets” or trading systems are “fair and orderly.” This is far from the truth.

Many players have different agendas and lie about their end goal. Andrew Lahde did quite well in down market – but how would he have done in a up-market?

The entire picture is not complete without a discussion of the role of Fannie and Fredie.

Lahde could have duped both of them and taken the profits and ran. Is Lahde a liberal? I don’t know but that should also be disclosed.

Let’s find out who looted Freddie and Fannie and sanction them – even if it requires Lahde (and other dems) to return his profits to Fannie and Freddie.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:07 am 6. ADE:

And then, of course, there is ignorance.

Not that I know, just that I like humility.

So we have had Freidman, and now Keynes is reborn. We’ve had Black-Scholes, and now Le Denoument.

Just as there is nothing more practical than a theory that works, there is nothing more destructive than a theory that is false.

So Colin/Kliener/Masters of the Universe know the truth????

I don’t think so. This is outsourcing belief to … well in the ultimate to God.

No, these are the guys who believe that whatever they hear three times is true.

I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible they may be mistaken…

and that we will eventually get it right.

ADE

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:28 am 7. wretchard:

So we have had Freidman, and now Keynes is reborn. We’ve had Black-Scholes, and now Le Denoument.

I should mention, out historical interest, that I took a course under Fischer Black, cross enrolling at the Sloan School of Management at MIT. The course was called “Problems in Finance”. The course consisted of more than a hundred questions which were handed out before the first day. As I recall there were not more than 20 students in it. Fischer Black himself came to class in a three piece suit. He had a very precise manner and a sharp analytical mind, and I recall, though it may be a trick of memory, that he had a notebook he consulted for some reason before turning to each student and ask him to tackle the next question on the list.

The questions were of the type ’suppose there exists this instrument with this risk profile (and you had better know your statistics) how would you price it vis a vis this other instrument’. You began to see that in theory at least, the family resemblance between certain kinds of transactions. Professor Black died before he could receive the Nobel Prize. I never met Scholes.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:41 am 8. slade:

Your world at work.

New TV series starring Timothy Hutton called “Leverage”.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:57 am 9. Panday:

Why does Colin Powell have to endorse anyone? Staying home and playing Cincinnatus, like he has for the last 4 years, suddenly isn’t an option for him anymore?

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:58 am 10. slade:

We’ve had Black-Scholes, and now Le Denoument.

Which is why that nefarious government-private interface functioned so well as a counter-weight to the “Black-Scholes” school of thought.

Until, of course, it didn’t.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:01 am 11. hdgreene:

Let’s face it: State Senator Obama’s judgment on Iraq was superior to Colin Powell’s. Realizing this, it is only natural for General Powell to endorse someone with superior strategic vision.

So: he will endorse Senator Obama and the color green will have nothing to do with it.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:12 am 12. ADE:

W

suppose there exists this instrument with this risk profile (and you had better know your statistics) how would you price it vis a vis this other instrument

And there is the problem. According to Financial Economics, identical cash flows are of equal value; true only if you could know the risk profile of each cash flow, and can put a value on it.

This is not the situation we face in reality. Missing is what is your confidence in your knowledge of the risk profile.

So the risk profile is Bayesian: Given that I don’t know the risk profile … etc. And in the case of MBS, I didn’t know (although as a Master of the Universe one would think they did), because the evidence shows that the risk of default went from Normally distributed with mean m and standard deviation sigma to almost 100% certain for selected groups.

Humilty. Given that I don’t know the risk profile, what is the probablity…

Under that statement, we are now not faced with a random process at all.

ADE

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:22 am 13. wretchard:

I’ve gradually come to believe that very little in life is simple and have come to distrust all the closed-form and neat models that purport to describe human life. Most people are guilty of something or are compromised in some way. This, I think, is what Christ meant when he said “He who is without sin let him cast the first stone”. But the fact that all men are sinners doesn’t mean that none of us can be judges. Christ doesn’t ask that we stand petrified. He asks us to act and to trust it will work out. Just because life is complex doesn’t mean we can reach no decisions. Nor is it true simply because we cannot be rid of corruption there can be no governance. The unfortunate situation is that we must act under conditions of imperfect information; in moral ambiguity and with misgivings. But we must act all the same.

So during this Presidential campaign, as with all else, there won’t be completely white and black hats. But there will still be a better and a worse choice. Maybe it would be better if Colin Powell endorsed John McCain, not because John McCain is perfect. He is far from it. Indeed, even if McCain were to win it would not diminish the case for a reform movement in the slightest. But under the circumstances it might be better than the alternative. Which isn’t saying much. But it is saying something.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:37 am 14. MrPete:

Clearly, Powell is a capitalist. KPCB leans strongly in that direction.

I don’t see Powell endorsing a far left socialist-if-not-marxist leaning liberal, any more than I see KPCB doing the same.

Don’t read anything into Gore as an advisor to a KPCB “green” fund. Meaningless politically.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:41 am 15. mac:

“Let’s face it: State Senator Obama’s judgment on Iraq was superior to Colin Powell’s.”

Uh, no, HD. Let’s face the fact that anyone who can write what you did with a straight face is a fool that completely misunderstands why we went to Iraq in the first place and what we accomplished there.

We took down a mass murderer and prevented him from using WMDs against one of our allies, beat and nearly destroyed the terrorist organization behind the WTC bombings, and gave the country with the second largest oil reserves on earth a really good chance at becoming a friendly democracy. That last of itself may be the difference in whether there is nuclear war in the Middle East.

The war was worth fighting and winning. Obama and the Dems would have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Bush, with McCain’s help, stopped that. It’s just one more reason why the Dems hate both of them so much. They wanted America defeated.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:53 am 16. aloysiusmiller:

Powell is one of the most shameless opportunists to ever play politics.

Oct 18, 2008 - 5:55 am 17. Thrasymachus:

I’m pretty sure Andrew Lahde is the first person to point out the problem is moronic rich kids with Ivy League degrees running everything. This will dawn on everybody else eventually but it will take a long time.

Colin Powell faces the same problem all the other bien pensant Republicans of the Northeast face, which is that to survive socially, and by extension economically, you have to have the right kind of politics. Obvious bailers are Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, but there are many others. Life has been hell for these people for years. They have to make excuses for Bush everywhere they go. If Obama wins it will not be enough to be for him after the election, it will be demanded that you were an open supporter. Harsh criticism of Bush may function as a partial substitute.

Endorsing Obama only really helps Powell if the race is close. Then he can take some credit for putting Obama over the top. If it’s a blowout latecomers will not be welcomed into the fold. Right now there is some chance of McCain pulling it out so it would be risky for Powell. Powell is not a risk taker. He goes with the prevailing winds. If Obama was well ahead he would endorse him. The fact that he has not endorsed him yet says something.

Oct 18, 2008 - 7:19 am 18. Gordon:

Lahde and his ‘Aristocracy’ reminds me of the old joke about a crooked poker game: if you’ve been in the game an hour and haven’t figured out who the sucker is … you’re the sucker!

Oct 18, 2008 - 7:40 am 19. BRENT E. WHITE:

AS A FORMER MILITARY MAN IF COLIN POWELL IS HONEST HE WOULD PICK MCCAIN AT THIS TIME OF TROUBLE IN ARE COUNTRY.WE DO NOT NEED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT THIS TIME.MYSELF AS A FORMER MARINE AND VIET NAM VET I DONT THINK GEN POWELL WOULD HAVE MADE GEN IF IT WASNT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.THERE WHERE WAY BETTER MEN FROM WEST POINT AT THE TIME THAT WERE PASSED OVER.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS KILLING THIS COUNTRY.

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:04 am 20. Privatius:

You really should be aware that in journalism school, the theoretical attack on “Objective Journalism” is at bottom responsible for the “Advocacy Journalism” now prevalent at the MSM. They are not even trying. This crowd took over w/o restraint sometime after 2003, when the poobahs felt they had somehow been co-opted by the administration over the iraq war. They really started to attack the war in spades and this trend has only grown since. Now it is out-right ridiculous to listen to a hourly radio news broadcast or read NYT political coverage. Yet it is not my type of humor.

Perhaps you could invite contributions on the Objective Journalism–Advocacy Journalism phenomenon.

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:06 am 21. Privatius:

Of course, this journalism thing is related to Colin Powell in that he also “feels” –he cannot really think it–that he was betrayed by Bush et al on WMD. ON the whole WMD issue, the last minute (just before the war started in March 2003) visits to Saddam by Ramsey Clark probably caused a lot of trouble for the USA. If we had a media, ther ewould be study of that treasonous relationship by a US citizen interfering with US military policy and actual ensuing events. Powell was the one who wanted to tarry with the UN which gave time for the WMD to be removed and for the insurgency to be planned and outfitted.

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:17 am 22. Privatius:

All praise to Comment #15 by mac.

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:22 am 23. Derek:

Wretchard: I wonder if your co-students, and by extension the Ivy League MBA’s actually know what ‘risk’ means? It’s a nice statistical term, and one can look at a sheet of paper showing a ‘loss’, while discussing over lunch with friends.

There is an old family in Canada, who made their fortune from selling liquor across the border during the prohibition. They would have one of the sons manage the family money.

The last one managed to take an $8 billion fortune and turn it into $4 billion last time I looked.

Back in the 60’s and 70’s the Columbia river was dammed for hydro electric power generation. There was a treaty between the US and Canada regarding water flows and usage. This area has these facilities all along the river, lake levels are controlled by these interests, and in the past whole communities were moved out of the way of the rising water.

Last time around a trust was set up to own the facilities, sell and manage the power, collect the cross border moneys that were coming in, and in some way put the money back into the communities. Of course a pile of money like that attracts flies, and the board has been stuffed with useless parasites. Nothing out of the ordinary.

The problem is that these facilities need to be managed, the power sold, etc. Real work for smart people. They got pinched in some deal with Enron which ended up in court. There were (and continue to be) serious management failures with construction and maintenance. So our brilliant leaders came up with an idea. We can sell our hard assets, invest the money, make more from investments than running the facilities, and more interestingly shower the communities and their friends with cash.

A public meeting was held, and the consensus was that the leadership could easily be drowned and replaced by more amenable seat warmers, so the whole idea was squashed, and they still own the facilities.

Risk? What risk?

Derek

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:54 am 24. fred:

Why is Colin Powell’s politics meaningful in any sense?

Just asking the question that Socrates would ask.

Oct 18, 2008 - 9:15 am 25. peterike:

Thrasymachus at #17 I think says all one needs to say about Powell. His social circle must be an unbearable weight on him. How lucky for him to at least be able to claim an “I told you so” to certain aspects of the Iraq war. But his viciously attacked UN speech probably gives him (social) nightmares to this day.

Powell can’t endorse McCain, it would be the nail in his coffin. He might endorse Obama, but Obama doesn’t need his endorsement. What would Powell bring to him? Votes from the 2% of blacks that might be voting for McCain? Pointless. Powell will keep quiet and siddle up to Obama as soon as his victory is in place, hoping he gets invited to the really good parties.

As for hdgreene’s hilarious remark: Let’s face it: State Senator Obama’s judgment on Iraq was superior to Colin Powell’s.

I’m not even going to go down the road of arguing if the Iraq war was “worth it” or not. I have a simpler take on this. Obama would be, automatically, against any war that is in America’s interests. This is the way of the Left, and they have been solidly toeing this line since before WWII (America’s entry into that war was only given Lefty sanction when it was necessary to pull Uncle Joe’s nuts from the fire).

In fact, it’s rather simple to know if a given military action is “worth it.” Does the Left oppose it? It’s probably a good idea. Does the Left oppose it with foaming mouths? Then it’s definitely a good idea.

State Senator Obama didn’t then, and doesn’t now, know jack about Iraq. But he sure knows how to diminish America’s strength.

Oct 18, 2008 - 9:33 am 26. Charles:

can anyone give a concise definition of the difference between gambling vs investment as a function of risk/reward.

Oct 18, 2008 - 10:16 am 27. NahnCee:

As (almost) always, agree with Fred.

Powell is a non-player. He has shown himself to be an accommodating coward and is not anyone I would ever listen to for advice.

A recommendation by Colin Powell would have the same amount of clout as one by Louis Farrakhan — as one relatively sucessful person of color endorsing another successful person of color on the basis of their shared skin color.

I’d give more credence to Mohammad Ali who at least has shown on several different occasions that he’s prepared to stand up for his beliefs.

Oct 18, 2008 - 10:26 am 28. fred:

Agreed, NahnCee. While I detest Islam and I think Farakhan’s Nation of Islam is a coterie of dopes, one cannot help but be moved by Ali’s willingness to pay the price for his beliefs, however misguided. He doesn’t try to figure out which way the wind blows and adjust accordingly.

Charles,

An investor does careful research and tries to buy at a price below the intrinsic value of an asset. A gambler/speculator employs the “Greater Fool” theory. That is the difference.

Oct 18, 2008 - 10:36 am 29. FreeBirdWil:

Secretary Powell is a very likeable guy with a “good heart”, a lot like Sen. McCain. Leaders need a tough, SEEMINGLY “mean” heart. Powell will, like myself wait until he feels the decision is made then endorse the expected winner. I said I like Powell, but I neither approve or trust or agree with him. He sounded the bugle to leave Saddham in power, he pushed for more “diplomacy” after at least 17 broken promises by Irag. He is, while allegedly a Republican, a victim of the one true difference between Democrats & Republicans. Democrats believe heaven on earth is an attainable goal (wrong). Republicans believe men must be corralled to the least required degree by laws, lest their “dark side” takeover. Oh how we all wish the Dems where right but they are not and never will be. Give me a strong,mean-hearted GOP anyday over a deceived “peace & lover” foolish one. As for me personally I’m a Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin fan, but that ticket’s not on my ballot. I was determined to vote McCain until I discovered he voted for Ginsberg to the Supreme Court. Now I will either suck it up picking the least of evils, McCain, write in Huckabbe, or vote a straight GOP ticket, leaving the Presidential section blank. Sorry friends.
freebirdwil
PS Every Presidential ticket I’ve voted for has won, hate to ruin my record. Did not vote during Clinton years. First legal age vote went to Jimmy Carter, wish I could take that back, but I was a young ex-hippie still hoping for heaven on earth. Now I’m a mean Vietnam Veteran who believes assassination is the best new method of warfare. Why not kill the leader/instigator rather than thousands of faithful troops and innocents.

Oct 18, 2008 - 10:58 am 30. Hutzul:

Richard Armitage is one of Mac’s favorite people who also is making a BIG play to be part of McCain’s National Security team probably Advisor. It would be highly unlikely that Powell would support Obama and leave his friend Rich A. flapping in the wind. I see him staying neutral.

Oct 18, 2008 - 11:08 am 31. Roy Mustang:

I guess we’ll find out soon if Gen. Powell likes his skin color more than his country.

We will see if he thinks himself as a Black-American or a just a American.

Oct 18, 2008 - 11:11 am 32. cedarford:

Richard – Normally you can’t go wrong “following the money”, but in this case Powell is 71 years old, has tons of money and a 4-Star general’s retirement bennies, doesn’t live extravagently and his kids are all set up by their own merits or a little nepotism in the case of Michael Powell.

I think if he goes with Obama, it will not be on racial “solidarity” or for pursuing his hedge fund’s quest for lucre – it will be to close the chapter on the Neocons.

Powell believes he was set up by the Neocons little inside the Pentagon “Iraq Study Group” and by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith. The latter being the 4 “F-ing Neocon Crazies” – he reportedly said to his counterpart Jack Straw.
He thought Israeli intelligence, banging the war drums hard and saying they had independently verified Iraqi WMD existence – was also a little too conveniently dovetailed to the Neocons bogus intel. After the war, remember, the Mossad announced it was shocked! shocked! that it got so much about Iraq and WMD wrong – and announced a “major investigation”. Which of course if they did it, it was never made public..

Remember, he was happy to let Rove and Cheney and Cheney’s chief of staff, “Scooter Libby” twist in the wind for the Plame Affair as a little payback for the Neocons making him their dupe and bitch to sell the war to the UN, some of America’s reluctant allies, and to the American public.

Now it come down to what he thinks of McCain. Powell admires him, but this is the guy that has the last of the Neocons working for him, advising him. McCain wants to abandon the Quartet Plan Powell was part of, continue a provocative path of conduct with Russia, and wants to attack Iran or assist the Israelis attacking Iran – which would wreck the peace we have achieved in Iraq so far. Everyone in the Muslim world, the world in general – would see America as complicit if we let Israel cross Iraqi airspace unchallenged to launch preemptive war.

McCain sends out his VP to say “Never 2nd-guess Israel” as her response when asked about ME policy.

Remember that McCain is now well to the right of Bush, who acted too late to save his reputation and the Republicans in 2006/2008 when he belatedly jettisoned the Neocon inner circle. McCain opposes “talking to our enemies”, and he is not close to the Gates-Baker-Kissinger-Shultz “realism” camp.

Obama and his team is now closer to what Bush, in his last year, is trying to do with military and foreign policy – save for Obama’s pledge to withdraw from Iraq..(which Secretary Gates states more diplomatically — we will wind down in Iraq within a short period of time, withdraw most US troops)

Colin Powell, IMO, will state that he sees Obama as pursuing the more realistic policies, and is less likely to use military force unless it is the only option left, and if it is in Americas vital interests (add the rest of the Powell Doctrine – with overwhelming force, hopefully within a strong alliance, in consonance with law, the support of the American people, and an exit strategy).

Whereas he may also state Sunday that he questions the temperment of McCain and his advisors about use of military force – in a time when the US is overstretched, it must only be in compelling vital interest of the US, with a solid cast of allies – which we no longer have at the moment.

He may describe a war with Iran as winnable, but with a crippling loss of Gulf energy supply that might trigger a global Depression that would fully be blamed on the US if we acted unilaterally or were found complicit with the Israelis..To be done only in the last extremis – and he thinks McCain might rush in before that stage..

We shall see. I know that many diehard militarists and Christian Zionists hate Powell as “too moderate” and still back backed “Dear Rummy!!” and “the good old days of 2002″.

I also think that Powell’s reputation is over-inflated, he got a lot of the credit for the Gulf War, but it was Jim Baker, Bush I, and Schwarzkopf that did most of the heavy lifting. But he left the Bushies on policy disputes with the Neocons Cabal and being punked – and if he rejects McCain as likely to return to the Neocon era – I think he will be acting sincerely and stating what he thinks is best for America. And if he frames it that way, he will have an impact on the race and will regain a portion of his lost reputation.

Oct 18, 2008 - 1:36 pm 33. peterike:

cford: Colin Powell, IMO, will state that he sees Obama as pursuing the more realistic policies, and is less likely to use military force unless it is the only option left, and if it is in Americas vital interests.

Cford, I’ll make ya a ten dollar bet right now. Obama will never, ever, use force “in America’s vital interests.”

Meet me back here in four years to settle the bet, assuming we can both poke holes through the Great Obama Web Filter that will have been installed by then.

Oct 18, 2008 - 1:53 pm 34. Roy Mustang:

Cedarford is a typical white person. He doesn’t understand the racial soliditary of minorities. Hell, even Ward Connerly gave Obama a long look despite Obama’s obvious support of Affirmative Action. Ward didn’t jump off the Obama bandwagon until Obama explicitly stated his AA position.

Oct 18, 2008 - 2:05 pm 35. sgi:

On a somewhat related topic, I find it troubling that so many Republicans are endorsing or may endorse Obama because they think he has a “better personality”. It is said that Obama is calmer, cooler, and more thoughtful than John McCain and that this is better for the country at this time. The adjective that comes to my mind is “calculating”.

But most disturbing is that personality seems to have triumphed over policy. Being “charmed” into more income distribution and socialist medicine is still more income distribution and socialist medicine. A one trillion dollar spending spree by the charming and intelligent Obama is still one trillion dollars in spending.

This reflects one of the characteristics of modern life. The superficially attractive, charismatic personalities found in all walks of life come out on top, no matter how repugnant their values, beliefs or associations. And we fall for it, again and again.

There is something, maybe a lot, to be said for the anonymity of the internet and of books. And the impartiality of the truth, no matter who says it.

Oct 18, 2008 - 2:07 pm 36. Dennis D:

Powell could have been the 1st African American US President if he had the guts. In 1996 he led Bill Clinton in polls. Powell claims he did not run due to the wishes of his wife. In doing so he let down the African American community. Powell is also a War Veteran of Vietnam. He knows full well McCain was a POW while he was deployed in South Vietnam .Is there any affinity here? So its fellow war veteran or fellow African American? My Bet is Obama.

Oct 18, 2008 - 3:19 pm 37. whiskey:

Cedarford’s arguments boil down to “evil neocons and Jews.” As if our problems with the Muslim world were not the result of polygamy making excess young men, willing to conquer or die through Jihad. Problematic during Churchill’s Victorian era, catastrophic when these young men and would-be tribal leaders have access to Pakistani, and soon Iranian nukes.

“Whatever happens, WE have got
The Nuclear Weapon
And they have got … it too.”

Cedarford and the paleos and the Libs still live in a delusional land where Pakistani and Iranian tribal/factional leaders do not have the power to decide if NYC or Copenhagen lives or dies.

Israel will merely be the first to fall, not the last, since the problem: excess young men without wives in a polygamist system — remains.

Colin Powell will endorse Obama because both are Black. Racial solidarity trumps EVERYTHING else. Making by the way, any cooperation across racial lines pretty poor prospects. Since Powell’s endorsement is a signal that Blacks will always side with the most radical Separatists against interests of the White majority.

Just as we are seeing the end of the Cold War era/mindset in National Security policy with nuclear proliferation giving even poor tribal leaders the ability to kill Western cities with impunity (a failure of politics and elites) so too are we seeing the end of the Affirmative Action / Multicultural era. The savaging of “Joe the Plumber” and the anti-White Working class attitudes towards those who worship Obama and Obama himself are proof of that.

Oct 18, 2008 - 3:20 pm 38. Dennis D:

Colin Powell was a National Security advisor and TOP GENERAL on Planet Earth. He can read Intelligence better than most so lets stop cutting him slack on the bad intel.

Oct 18, 2008 - 3:24 pm 39. Cory:

As a fellow veteran of Colin Powell, I will consider an Obama endorsement by him to be a betrayal of every servicemember past and present. America is not just a place. Our nation (only) exists due to our belief in certain philosophies. While an attack by Al Qaeda on America would eventually be overcome, an Obama Presidency would destroy America forever. We would cease to exist because those philosophies that make us will have been betrayed. America is not supposed to be a Socialist nation. Powell’s efforts to help make it so would be a betrayal of America.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:18 pm 40. narciso:

He was also best buds with fmr Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar for more than a quarter century; which is more to the point.
He avoided prosecution in Iran Contra, as Weinberger’s aide. He eluded obstruction charges in the MyLai investigation,
He was one of the charter members of the Carlyle Group, a lead figure in the Azeri oil lobby; along with Scowcroft,Baker,
Armitage, et al. Most of whom seem to think we must curry favor with Iran in order to succeed in the Caspian basin; selling out Iraq, Kuwait, the Emirates in the process.
So I wouldn’t be surprised that he’s in Mr. Dunham’s corner.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:26 pm 41. Leo Linbeck III:

Charles,

can anyone give a concise definition of the difference between gambling vs investment as a function of risk/reward.

How about this:

Gambling: A use of capital that has a negative expected return*, usually as a form of current consumption (e.g. entertainment or looking like a big-shot with the ladies). You know the return is likely to be negative because the person who receives the capital owns a big, fancy hotel, a fantastic art collection, or a lovely beach house in the Hamptons.

Investment: A use of capital that has a positive expected return*, usually for the purpose of increasing future consumption (e.g. retirement or the kid’s college tuition). You know the return is likely to be positive because the person who receives the capital actually makes something that you want to use, like a toll road, a microwave oven, or a really fast search engine.

*return means net present value of future cash flows discounted at a risk-appropriate rate.

Whaddaya think?

L3

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:31 pm 42. cedarford:

Whiskey – You sound like you went into a panic attack the day after 9/11 and never recovered from it.

“The Muslims are 20-feet tall! They will kill us all! They are unstoppable unless we start 20 wars against them right now! –Err, but no Draft please, and we need more tax cuts! Plenty of shopping needs to be done!”

Fact – Pashtun tribesmen in Waziristan have no access to Pak nukes. Believe it or not, the average Pakistani hates India far more than the West, but is not advocating a nuke war even with them, because they know that Rawalpindi, Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad would all be smoking craters and the surviving Indians would likely come in to exterminate survivors.
And while some would not cry a river seeing NYC or Moscow or Copenhagen nuked – they know the consequences. Muslim populations follow the same rule as the Brits, Sun Tsu, the Romans – when you strike, strike surely, otherwise you only enrage the Beast as it turns back on you. (Ignored much to their detriment by Japs and Germans miscalculating in WWII, though the Japs plausibly argue that they had no choice – it was war with thin odds of winning vs. capitulation to the successful Brit/US/Dutch oil, strategic minerals, rubber, embargo.)

I know you are shivering in fear – and are advocating the same strategy as Red Menace folks scared out of their wits did – 1st Strike on the Soviets – “Otherwise we are all doomed, doomed! I tell you! Better 50 million die now than let the unstoppable 10-foot high Soviets conquer the world and flouridate our precious water supplies for mind control..”

Iran is another problem, but it is a problem we and the Iranians helped create by making Iran a nation surrounded by hostile foes, many nuclear-armed and Iran with natural military security and strategic parity interests. Iran’s history is that they do not act as initiating belligerants. For the last 2,000 years, wars Iran fought almost always began when someone else attacked them.

Nor does Ahmadinejad have any control of Iranian military – that rests with the Revolutionary Council and the Supreme Cleric – which have not joined in Ahmadinejad’s rabble-rousing but who have reprimanded him at times for using extreme language to get the Iranian version of the “warhawk” vote.

If you want to stop Iran, offer them a security guarantee. Otherwise they will do what they think they need to do to defend their nation on their own.

As for the Neocons – were you also not following the events before or after the Iraq War involving Powell and the Neocons? Were you in so much fear of the mighty Islamofascists that you failed to follow the domestic war over what the Neocons wanted done, and who they were – since most proudly and triumphantly announced their alignment in the Neocon cabal when the going was going their way??

Did you miss all the debate, the progressive loss of allies, Powell’s denunciation of the people now showing up in McCain’s camp? Were you so cowering waiting for the mighty Islamo-terror bombs to fall on you that your ears and eyes shut up?

Cedarford and the paleos and the Libs still live in a delusional land where Pakistani and Iranian tribal/factional leaders do not have the power to decide if NYC or Copenhagen lives or dies.

Yeah, just as the John Birchers and SDS in America had equal levels of access – on the goatherding village or terror group level, to nukes – and could similarly decide on what Soviet or American city lived or died.

catastrophic when these young men and would-be tribal leaders have access to Pakistani, and soon Iranian nukes.

So you are saying that angry young Muslim men and would-be tribal leaders of a village of 500 can simply walk into the nearest Muslim-Mart and pick nukes off the store shelf? Or walk onto a Pak AF base and carry a nuke off in a wheelbarrow as the Pak troops and chain-of-command sends them off with well-wishes and with the conviction that they and their families and relatives will all die if the “angry youth or goatherder aspiring to be a tribal leader” uses them on India or the West – but it would be a good thing?
You’re nuts, Whiskey. Your palpable fear has got you deep in the grip of a “loose nukes, everywhere!!” fantasy.

Colin Powell will endorse Obama because both are Black. Racial solidarity trumps EVERYTHING else.

Again you are nuts if you think black politics is only driven by racial solidarity, and that all blacks “think that way”. You likely know few blacks. I know many who were Hillary supporters to the end. Even a few well-heeled blacks that wanted Romney.

Making by the way, any cooperation across racial lines pretty poor prospects. Since Powell’s endorsement is a signal that Blacks will always side with the most radical Separatists against interests of the White majority.

Explain why Obama, getting 95% of his money and 80% of his support from whites and hispanics, surrounded by Jews and lond-time white liberal Gentiles forming “Team Axelrod” – is a radical black separatist sided “against the interests of the white majority”?

To you think that is the conclusion whites and hispanics believe? Or that blacks think Obama represents black supremacy?

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:36 pm 43. 3Case:

“…if you’ve been in the game an hour and haven’t figured out who the sucker is … you’re the sucker!”

I learned it as a Rule of Poker in the form: “If you sit down at the table and you do not see the pigeon, get up and leave.” Not a bad rule, IMO.

Oct 18, 2008 - 4:43 pm 44. Demosophist:

Powell will endorse Obama. He could play a key role in electing a President, by endorsing McCain, or could appear to play a key role by endorsing Obama. Long odds on the first. Short odds on the second. He’ll do what comes natural to him. He’ll do what he’s always done.

Oct 18, 2008 - 7:11 pm 45. Unsk:

After joe Wilson’s revelation that Saddam had not tried to purchase Uranium in Niger, when Colin Powell piled on and said be was “betrayed’ by bad intelligence and the Bush Administration, I had a bad feeling that something wasn’t right with Colin Powell.

That piling on gave credence to the “Bush Lied” notion that grew and grew, and grave consequences for the Bush Administration and for our effort in Iraq followed. It was the tipping point moment that changed a positive outlook of the American Public on the War to a negative one.

Only much later do we find out that:

• Joe Wilson lied and Colin Powell had to know it at the time.
• That the Plame leak came out of Powell’s office, by his #2 Richard Armitage.
• That Marc Grossman, Powell’s #3, was a good friend of Joe Wilson and his former college roomate.
• That Colin Powell was always against the War in Iraq, as he was against the Gulf War.
• That Iraq was actually much closer to a nuclear weapon that the “bad intelligence” alleged as evidenced by the 1.8 tons of enriched uranium at Al Tuwaitha, and the ongoing secret nuclear program Iraq operated with Libya.
• That Colin, Richard and Marc let Scooter Libby twist in wind for three years and eventually let Scooter go to Jail while they refused to reveal who the real leaker was.

The combination of these facts just leave a real bad taste.

It’s just too convenient to me, that Colin Powell made the central point of his argument for the War to the UN in February 2003, about weapons of mass destruction, and then four months later he complains he was betrayed by CIA intelligence and the Bush Administration on WMD. It’s feels too much like a set up. He could have emphasized a range of threats that Saddam posed and reasons to invade Iraq, but he chose to really emphasize WMD. A little too coincidental to me.

As far as betrayal goes, I think it’s Colin Powell who betrayed the men and women he once led, by undermining the whole war effort.
How many good men and women died at the hands of the insurgency and Al Qaeda because of the” Bush Lied” mantra he helped to instigate.

I really liked the idea behind Thrasymachus’s post of the “bien pensant Republican”. But I don’t think Powell was ever really a Republican in spirit. To me, he will always be more of a selfish self absorbed moderate leftist posing as a Good Soldier General and a moderate Republican, so when he would encourage leftist ideas, it would give the ideas credibilty and himself good pub in the media. But even more important to his ego , because of his”sensible” ideas, he could play the ‘reasonable” General and create the image of the “Wise Elder Statesman” before a fawning and adoring press. That was the real ticket.

To me, a Good Soldier and a real Republican owes his allegiance to the United State of America.

I think Colin Powell’s allegiance went first, and above all else to himself, just like so many other leftists.

Oct 18, 2008 - 8:44 pm 46. Ex-fetus:

Does it matter? I doubt that 1/3 of Ohhhh……BAAMA!’s potential voters even know who Powell is. The 1/3rd consists of those under 25, the voting dead and all those ACORN voters, who don’t actually exist. None of them have minds to change so obviously Colin can’t change them.
BTW, have any of you been polled yet? Or even know anyone that has been polled?

Oct 18, 2008 - 9:10 pm 47. Wadeusaf:

“He’ll do what comes natural to him. He’ll do what he’s always done.”

IOW, Powell will keep his cards close to his chest and not share his opinion. Leaving a lot of people guessing what his real intent is. Despite his business interests I do not think Powell feels he has a dog in this one, unless it is the military one.

Oct 18, 2008 - 9:56 pm 48. NahnCee:

Unsk – isn’t Colin the one who called Schwartzkopf back and convinced Bush I to call off Gulf War I without going into Baghdad and taking down Saddam while they were in the neighborhood?

Hell, just for that particular decision it’s real easy for me to fast-forward a couple of years and blame the whole of 9/11 on Mr. Big Shot General Colin Powell (who also happens to be a weasely black man — not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Oct 18, 2008 - 10:32 pm 49. FreeBirdWil:

“Michael Corleone do you renounce Satan?” “I do” <<>> The Micheal Corleone option is the only way America sees 2050! Russia, China, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, “The Tribal Areas” (whomever controls them), Syria, Hamas, Hezzbollah, leave em all all bleeding at the barbershop!!!

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:26 am 50. cedarford:

Nahncee – Unsk – isn’t Colin the one who called Schwartzkopf back and convinced Bush I to call off Gulf War I without going into Baghdad and taking down Saddam while they were in the neighborhood?

No, that call was based on Bush I Bush explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have “incurred incalculable human and political costs…. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.”

The key people that urged him to stop were Jim Baker III, DOD Secretary Dick CHeney, and Robert Gates. Colin Powell and Gen Schwarztkopf agreed because if we had marched on, it would have been without allies – since no Coalition member agreed to exceed the UN Resolutions calling for ejection of Iraq from Kuwait..but not to conquer Iraq.

Of course this became a passionate cause for the Neocons and the Likud Party of Israel – who argued that the taking of Iraq would have been a “cakewalk” and Bush failed to deliver “true victory”.

One defense was made by Jim Baker, who said in 2006 he was questioned for years on why he and G.H. Bush’s people “failed” to march to Baghdad…”I got that question all the time. But no one has asked me that since a couple of years ago.

Perhaps the best explaination was made by Cheney before his Neocon conversion:

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:

“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don’t think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

Oct 19, 2008 - 1:05 am 51. RattlerGator:

Calm down, people. The sky isn’t falling and America isn’t going to be taken over. Colin has been a tremendous disappointment to me vis-a-vis the Bush Administration. There’s obviously something very personal between he and Cheney. Maybe he was setup in some kind of inside-the-beltway manner but it doesn’t excuse his actions thereafter, where he clearly has been a direct or indirect participant in a clear setup of the Bush Administration over the Scooter Libby / Valerie Plame Wilson nonsense.

My bet is that he makes no endorsement.

He’s already seen as a sellout by the majority of leftists, black or white. I suspect John McCain probably is his favorite and will get his vote — but I doubt very much if he has any affinity for Sarah Palin at all.

What a weird election year; I’m still betting the overwhelming Obama money advantage ends up being neutralized because some of it actually is advertising for McCain (a life-long NRA member telling me Obama is the one? Go to hell!). I’m being bombarded in the Florida panhandle with Obama ads and virtually nothing from McCain. It’s off-putting to me, and I doubt if I’m alone.

Oct 19, 2008 - 6:04 am 52. Lifeguard:

And Powell endorsed Obama this morning: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:23 am 53. peterike:

Well dog my cats, Powell pimps for Obama!

WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president on Sunday, criticizing his own Republican Party for what he called its narrow focus on irrelevant personal attacks over a serious approach to challenges he called unprecedented.

Other reasons he goes with O? He doesn’t like Palin! What a shock. She’s just so not the right sort of person. Powell is making huge bid there to increase his cocktail circuit acceptability.

And then there’s this little tidbit:

Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

“The really right answer is what if he is?” Powell said, praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American society.

The contributions of millions of Muslims to American society? They don’t even contribute anything to Muslim society.

Powell proves himself just another stuck up jerk.

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:47 am 54. BRENT E. WHITE:

so much for trust and honor the affirmative action gen powell just sold out every fighting man,women and vet in our history for skin color and betrayed the country that gave him every thing. he knows what jane fonda and bill ayers did to this country when john mccain and his fellow fighting men were p.o.w. and the rest of us fighting on air ,land /sea then come home to people who treated viet nam vets like crap.powell supports obamas thinking as well as rev wright/ ayers/fonda.there were far better men out of west point that should have been a gen.before powell.we do not need a affirmative action president.acorn loves gen powell.

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:50 am 55. slade:

The other issue raised by Colin Powell is the composition of an Obama Cabinet. Glenn Reynolds references an article giving general pass for Lawrence Summers at Treasury but raises the tingly possibility of John Kerry at State and Chuck Hagel at Defense.

Summers would be interesting but my bet is still Robert Rubin based on personal compatibility alone (completely uninformed speculation on my part. I don’t think the Mrs cares much for Larry.)

Further uninformed speculation, I am guessing that Powell made his endorsement because Obama needed it.

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:28 am 56. fred:

Given Obama’s views and his advisers’ views about ballistic missile defense and every other major weapons system and new technological battlefield system that are going to be axed under President Obama, Colin Powell sure seems to have lost his feel for the U.S. military and our adversaries. This man is overrated. If he thinks Biden has better instincts than Palin, he is truly delusional and uninformed. Sen. Biden agreed with the House Democrats in 1974 to cut off funding for the South Vietnam, even with clear evidence that the Soviet T-34’s were stacking up on the DMZ for a renewed offensive in 1975. During the Eighties, Biden opposed the Reagan buildup of the military, opposed putting the Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, and opposed even the very concept of ballistic missile defense. He still opposes it. Sen Biden is for everything that gives our enemies an advantage over us.

As a lowly E-4 who served his three year enlistment, 1973-76, I now feel certain that I love the Army more than Colin Powell does.

Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:40 am 57. RattlerGator:

I see that my timing was impeccable as usual.

Damn, Colin.

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:10 am 58. twolaneflash:

The color is black. Colin Powell’s family will live in the black subculture of America as outcasts, or as good plantation Negroes. Colin Powell may have taken one for his grandchildren, or he may harbor some really deep animosities for all the opportunities afforded him by Republican presidents. Either way, in the big picture of history, this will be seen as a racist move by Colin Powell. It is by me.

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:34 am 59. NahnCee:

A black man endorses a black man. Color me shocked and amazed. Together, they will turn American society into red, black and blue.

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:36 am 60. Coyotl:

“52. Peterike:

The contributions of millions of Muslims to American society? They don’t even contribute anything to Muslim society.”

Peterike, you would really benefit from listening to Powell’s endorsement on Youtube or MSNBC.com. Powell cites his problem quite succinctly with racsim and Islamophobia; for him it comes down to a picture of a grieving mother on her son’s grave in Arlington cemetery. The son, killed in Iraq at age 20, is the recepient of a purple heart and a bronze star, and on his gravestone is the Islamic crescent.

Here is the ultimate contribution to our country. Peterike, you should be ashamed for your characterization, but I doubt it, since that would require patriotism, honor and decency.

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:48 am 61. JMH:

I think it’s useful to remember that the State Department is the biggest bungler in Iraq. Things started going south when State took over from the military, and didn’t start improving again until the military took charge again. State never supported President Bush, and as the Wilson affair shows, actively opposed him. Powell at least allowed that insubordination. For that, he has to be judged a failure.

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:49 am 62. Coyotl:

“58. NahnCee:

A black man endorses a black man. Color me shocked and amazed. Together, they will turn American society into red, black and blue.”

Nahncee, you truly are a delight. Every suspicion I’ve had of your base character and profound ignorance is proven in this comment.

Wretchard, you’ve allowed some fetid waters to fester on this, your blog. Any concerns?

Oct 19, 2008 - 10:53 am 63. Eggplant:

NahnCee said:

“A black man endorses a black man. Color me shocked and amazed.”

I’m very disappointed in Colin Powell. I know he has better judgement than this. Previously I thought he would make a good President (Wrong again!). It’s a shame that he can’t rise above his own skin color.

Oct 19, 2008 - 11:39 am 64. peterike:

coyotl: Peterike, you should be ashamed for your characterization, but I doubt it, since that would require patriotism, honor and decency.

You can always find an exception to pose as an example. Whatever. That says nothing about the larger point. Meanwhile, tell me what Muslim culture has contributed to the world in the past thousand years. Yeah, exactly, nothing.

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:21 pm 65. Eggplant:

Peterike said:

“Meanwhile, tell me what Muslim culture has contributed to the world in the past thousand years. Yeah, exactly, nothing.”

Don’t fall into that trap. The Moslems have produced some amazing architecture in Cairo and Istanbul (I’ve seen it). Also the Moslems made signficant advances in mathematics and astronomy. Unfortunately their civilization crashed and burned after the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Rephrase your point: “What has Moslem culture produced since the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Why is there almost no scientific or technological advancement coming from the Islamic world? Why do Moslems treat their women so badly?” With these questions, you’re on firm ground.

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:36 pm 66. wretchard:

Wretchard, you’ve allowed some fetid waters to fester on this, your blog. Any concerns?

You’re one of those not so rare birds of whom it was said he could see a mote in a neighbor’s eye without seeing a beam in his. If this blog comment section gets cleaned up, you’ll be the firstto know.

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:37 pm 67. Leo Linbeck III:

The fascination with Powell’s endorsement is actually more fascinating than the endorsement itself.

It would appear that this fascination springs from the same source as the celebrity endorsements of consumer products. It appears that many consumers use the endorsements of famous people as a substitute for informed decision-making.

There was a time when the consumer endorsements that mattered were from Good Housekeeping, Consumer’s Union, Car and Driver, and the like: organizations that had a vested interest preserving their brand value with consumers, and therefore could be reasonably expected to do a thorough job vetting a particular product. If I bought a product with the Good Housekeeping seal and it failed in the first week, the brand value of the seal – and therefore the magazine – would decrease. Sure, there could be corruption Not a perfect system, but one in which incentives were reasonably aligned.

But by substituting celebrities for economic entities we have transformed the endorsement from an economic to an identity decision. I don’t buy Reeboks because they’re better than Nikes by some objective, cost-benefit analysis, but because Allen Iverson has endorsed them. If I wear his shoes, some of his magic gangsta pixie dust touches my life and I’m a player.

Anyway, my assessment of the impact from the Powell endorsement, therefore, is that it depends which group you’re in:

1. Those who supported Obama already:
Proves that their man is the logical choice for the knowing, globally-sensitive sophisticate epitomized by Powell (i.e. confirmation bias).

2. Those who supported McCain already:
Proves that their man is the logical choice for fighting the egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, inside Washington elite epitomized by Powell (i.e. confirmation bias).

3. The rest: Colin who? I thought he left Weekend Update years ago…

L3

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:42 pm 68. wretchard:

Let’s keep the discussion at high level please, though I know many don’t need the reminder.

The major effect of the Powell endorsement will be to undercut claims that Obama is a national security liability. The endorsement is a valid datapoint in that debate. But each of us has our own sources on Obama and Powell and we should call it as we see it. Colin’s opinion shouldn’t be dismissed but we should know, after 9/11 and the subprime disaster, that the guys at the top often can’t see things coming, simply because they are at the top.

Oct 19, 2008 - 12:56 pm 69. WSL:

64. Eggplant: Perhaps you only meant to provide a sample of Moslem failings, but the complete list tells an even more discouraging story. Where, for example, is there a free press in the Moslem world? Where are the world-class universities in the Moslem world? Where are the manufacturing organizations with quality control to make the products marketable worldwide? And how wealthy would Moslem countries in the Middle East be were it not for western technology that makes it possible to extract petroleum from the earth? The list of failures is staggering in scope and heightens the contrast between what Moslem societies are capable of compared to the influence they have on the world economy.

Oct 19, 2008 - 1:09 pm 70. Leo Linbeck III:

A further thought.

To preface, I do not know Colin Powell. My only data is from observing his behavior from the comfort of my TV room, reading various interviews and op-ed pieces, and the occasional book on events in which he played a role. Admittedly a thin basis, but hey, it’s all I got, so humor me.

I think the notion of his endorsing Obama because of race is a huge stretch.

My sense is that Powell’s core identity is that of the diplomat: the seasoned, worldly, intellectual, and charismatic man who believes that he can smooth out the fault lines that burst forth in our ignorant, bitter world – and do this smoothing through the liberal application of his superior knowledge and aristocratic temperament. It would appear that this is the very identity to which Obama aspires as well.

Moreover, it has long appeared to me that Powell believes himself to be a Great Man – or at least his followers do (and they may be right, although that judgment will not be final for a couple of centuries). Obama appears to share a similar sentiment – or at least his followers do. And it is because of their shared status as Great Men that Powell and Obama see each other as natural allies.

So, I would propose not that Powell is endorsing Obama because he is black. Powell is endorsing Obama because he is Powell.

And vice versa.

L3

Oct 19, 2008 - 1:09 pm 71. Wadeusaf:

Well I think we won’t have to worry about the composition of an Obama cabinet, not yet anyway.

Oct 19, 2008 - 1:12 pm 72. slade:

I was hoping for a definitive victory – either way. Another recount could be more than a trip wire – it could be a tipping point with temperatures running so high. At a minimum not conducive to the health of the country at this point in time.

The real tipping point will come when a critical mass of level-headed normally sane people start to understand that the people who were supposed to be steering the ship of state were not – and these will be the same people we are asked to “trust” to pull us out of whatever-else-2008-has-in-store. A lot of margins being stretched thin.

Oct 19, 2008 - 2:01 pm 73. Coyotl:

65. wretchard:

“You’re one of those not so rare birds of whom it was said he could see a mote in a neighbor’s eye without seeing a beam in his. . . ”

Perhaps, but your comment would have more force and conviction if you did not then admit that I have a valid point, as when you issue your own admonition:

“67. wretchard:

Let’s keep the discussion at high level please, though I know many don’t need the reminder.”

A decorated Vietnam vet, high-ranking General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Republican Sec. of State, now derided by “57. twolaneflash” as “plantation Negro.” Classy. Or, as “62. Eggplant” put it, the poor man, despite his past heroism, is still a prisoner of his skin color.

Surely, Wretchard, a man of your moral standards and deep abiding faith can see the necessity of repudiating and rejecting these vicious comments.

Oct 19, 2008 - 2:13 pm 74. RattlerGator:

Wretchard #65: now, that’s what the hell I’m talking about!

And now, as our host suggested in #67, back to the high road. I’ve already had a call from a friend who previously talked all manner of foolishness about Colin Powell, now singing a different tune.

Unfortunately, Colin’s endorsement firms up some support for Obama on the margins. L3 (point #3, Colin Who?), I hope you’re right. Hopefully, the earthquake hits on November 4th and he’s left wondering what the hell just hit him.

Personally, I will never forget this shameful turn and he will never live it down in my miniscule book.

Oct 19, 2008 - 2:18 pm 75. Doug:

Steyn…
A reader wonders:

“How come when Colin Powell promoted Bush’s “lies,” he was not someone to be believed or trusted, but now that he’s endorsed Obama, he is someone to be . . . believed and trusted?
“

Oct 19, 2008 - 2:24 pm 76. fred:

I am mostly in agreement with Leo on this one. I think he explained it well – that Obama and Powell see themselves as Great Men who can, by the sheer power and subtlety of their persuasion skills, diffuse conflicts with our enemies. They share a common worldview. I don’t think race was a primary consideration in this matter, but we will never know if somewhere in the finer details of the subscript that it WASN’T. But, from my angle, it doesn’t matter all that much.

Powell’s tenure at Foggy Bottom was not a success. He allowed his department to subvert the President’s policy. He may have had people under him who cooperated in leaks of classified information. Langley and the Pentagon were not the only places where intel was going out to the press and to the opposition party. Nor were the staffers of Intel Committees on the Hill the only source of the leaks. No matter. Powell failed to carry out the President’s policy. He served at the President’s pleasure. His successor also has a similarly sorry record in a similar vein.

Powell is not a babe in the woods, some virtuous Marius or Pompey who is above the fray. He is not a stupid man. So, it is curious that he would favor a man (Biden)whose entire history of policy voting and opinion was always, unrelentingly, against the military and a robust confrontation of our nation’s enemies. That, gentlemen, is the crux of the matter. He says Biden has better experience and instincts than Palin has, when I think we can be reasonably certain that Palin would not have voted as Biden has during his illustrious 36 year senate history.

Palin thinks the common people either already are or can be quite capable of thinking about and being wise about the ways of world. She trusts that we can, as Ronald Reagan believed, raise correct opinion about things like threats to the nation and the world and the wisdom of critical weapons’ systems to meet those threats.

Why does Powell think differently?

Oct 19, 2008 - 3:11 pm 77. Coyotl:

Michelle Malkin steps up and swats down the racist commentators on her own blog:

“One last note: I see in comments that many believe Powell supports Obama because he is black. Powell has said electing a black president would be “electrifying.” He is a staunch supporter of government racial preferences.

It’s a mistake, though, to attribute Powell’s endorsement primarily to some kind of race loyalty.

It’s Obama’s social liberalism, not his skin color, that attracts Powell most.”

This took some moral vision and spine. Wretchard?

Oct 19, 2008 - 3:32 pm 78. wretchard:

Coyotl,
Michelle Malkin steps up and swats down the racist commentators on her own blog:

Read my “68. wretchard: Let’s keep the discussion at high level please, though I know many don’t need the reminder.”

Your illiteracy is only exceeded by your self-rightenousness.

Oct 19, 2008 - 4:22 pm 79. Leo Linbeck III:

Coyotl,

I’ll leave Wretchard to decide whether to defend himself, although I have not seem him endorse any race-based explanation. Maybe I missed something.

I think your taunting of W is interesting, however, in a meta- way. What you seem to be dancing around is – once again – the issue of Design Margin.

W has moderated a blog of interest to many, and part of that interest is the diversity of viewpoints and styles who alight here. For instance, I find value from hearing your viewpoint, even though I don’t often agree with it. Your style is provocative, which sometimes has entertainment value, other times not. I’m guessing that you might say the same thing about mine. So far so good.

Occasionally, people enter the community who say really offensive things. My observation is that those people are tolerated for a short while, and if their antics continue they are summarily dispatched. This may or may not be what they or you want to happen, but as a participant in the community, I appreciate it.

So W has to do the same thing we’ve been discussing wrt financial regulation: find the right balance between liberty and law. There are times, I’m sure, when he’d like to slap something down, but realizes that if he is too heavy-handed his community will become an echo chamber as differing viewpoints leave – there’s a lot of competition out there (a lot more than financial services these days, anyway). But if he lifts all constraints and allows an-hominem attacks to rule the day (a sort of bloggy might-makes-right), he will lose the people who hang out for serious discussion of ideas, and my sense is that it is interaction with those people that provide him with the rationale for his investment of time. So he tries to strike a balance; a dynamic, not a static, equilibrium.

Anyway, I find your comments an interesting object lesson in how we can better attune our sensibilities to the marketplace. If we demand perfection from our regulators, they will eventually deliver it – in the form of a boring echo chamber of self-selected ideas, an electronic version of Pravda or Al-Jazeera. I’ve lurked at both lefty and righty blogs with this style, and found them generally unsatisfying. But that’s just me.

But if we are willing to accept some failures as W attempts to maintain the proper amount of Design Margin, the entire BC community will be enriched. A good leader will tolerate some heretics, with the hope that the occasional genius will emerge. But tolerance of heretics doesn’t make him a heretic.

In the search for the right DM, however, our job should be to maintain good manners and a level of respect for the leader that demonstrates an appreciation for just how damn hard it is to lead. In Texas, we just call this being neighborly. And it ain’t a bad thing to be.

Regardless, I appreciate your contribution to The Club, and look fwd to your next thrust and parry.

L3

Oct 19, 2008 - 5:13 pm 80. NahnCee:

The reason I see Powell’s endorsement of B. Hussein as being race-based is because, increasingly, that is what the whole election is based upon.

Item – it is projected that at least 95% of African-American voters will vote for Obama BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, and only because of his race.

Item – ACORN is an organization that appears to be made up of blacks, founded by blacks and dedicated to registering blacks … or dead white people who can’t say “no”.

Item – As has been discussed here, Fannie/Freddie have been used for the past several decades to guilt-trip lending institutions into loaning money to people with bad credit histories and no foreseeable way of repaying the loans because owning a home is a human “right”. First of all, the “human right’ is a direct descendent of reasoning about Affirmative Action and giving those less fortunate preferential treatment.

Secondly, those with “bad credit histories” are probably minorities –I would love to see the demographics on which loan holders are in default, but I’ wondering how many of them are black.

Item – I’m seeing stories about AMerica’s labor unions threatening their members unless they vote for Obama. Said labor unions will not release the demographics of THEIR constituency but again I have a sneaking suspicion that they may be a majority black as in the black flight from the South to the North to work in the car factories in Detroit.

We saw black America willingly throw the law out the window when ALL of them acquitted OJ Simpson and then danced about it. I think we’re seeing the same phenomenon happening now, when black Americans are coming together to force the issue of their candidate winning, whether or not it’s good for America, for our military preparedness, for the system of voting and democracy, or for financial institutions.

I think people like Colin Powell are looking ahead to what their (black) grandchildren will ask him — “Did you vote for Barak Obama as the first black American President?” and it scares him to death to think about having to say “no”.

Oct 19, 2008 - 5:17 pm 81. E. Nigma:

Having read Colin Powell’s autobiography, “My American Journey” some years ago, I might venture a few comments as to why General Powell endorsed Barack Obama.

In ‘92, when the GHWB administration was leaving office, Powell hinted in his book that James Baker was quite the political infighter (no loyalty between those two), and that he had quite a strong bond with the “cowboy” from Wyoming, Dick Cheney (SecDef).
Powell started to become estranged from the Republican Party in ‘95 or ‘96, when Paul Weyrich publicly read him the riot act regarding running for President as a Republican because he wasn’t ‘Conservative enough’. I don’t think that Weyrich is a Jew or Neocon.
Fast forward again to the interval surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom, Powell’s doubts about “Intelligence” he read at CIA in the run-up to his UN address (retrospectively), keeping his skirts clean. Cheney still cleaved to GWB, but Powell starts to distance himself. He also becomes estranged from Cheney, with whom he was once close.
Further, if you (as I have) ever been guests in the home of any African-Americans (especially college educated), Powell is a strong cultural icon to them, and some can’t quite understand why he associated with Republicans.
Powell is quite aware of his iconic status, and does his best to protect it, and the image of the successful soldier and patriot. This is terribly important to many African-Americans, as their self-image is linked to him.

This endorsement is more about Powell (to Powell) than about Obama. Racial? Yes, it appears so on one level, but that was also why he was groomed as a Presidential Fellow in the ’70’s (under Nixon), and became NSA adviser under Reagan (at the end), and was given command of CONUS, after his term as NSA Adviser; then promoted to Chairman of the JCS under GHWB.

He is a fine man and officer, but never forget that officers in high command positions often have big egos, too. And this is really all about the egos involved. Colin and Alma (his wife) have burned a bridge, and there will be no going back now.

Oct 19, 2008 - 5:23 pm 82. Coyotl:

78. wretchard:
“. . .Read my “68. wretchard: Let’s keep the discussion at high level please, though I know many don’t need the reminder.”

Your illiteracy is only exceeded by your self-rightenousness.”

Requesting discussion at a high level is not the same as specifically disavowing or disagreeing with abusive, race based comments the way Malkin did. Compare Fernadez’s exceedingly vague “Please keep it nice” to the declarative of Malkin’s “It’s a mistake, though, to attribute Powell’s endorsement primarily to some kind of race loyalty.”

Note the difference Wretchard? This doesn’t require a close reading, even basic literacy will suffice.

L3: Cheers, in the spirit of J.S. Mill! I would only add that a moderator can both welcome heretics in a forum that encourages dissent and the worthy exchange of ideas while simultaneously opining: “I welcome all opinions, and find this one reprehensible, so let us learn from its poor example.” It helps to establish a moderator’s own moral authority, a step even Michelle Malkin saw as necessary when her blog attracted the same kind of procrustean crud that the BC has.

Oct 19, 2008 - 5:55 pm 83. fred:

“Colin and Alma (his wife) have burned a bridge, and there will be no going back now.”

So, does ego and burning a bridge mean that we fellow Americans do not matter? Our security, and that of allies, from rogue regimes about to get the hydrogen bomb gets thrown under the bus, because he has to protect his cherished honor?

Let me submit that a truly great man puts aside his ego and his understanding of his own honor for the sake of the people and the nation he once swore to protect. I have no axe to grind with Powell. Race means nothing to me. If it does mean a lot to him, then he is a prisoner to another time.

I do not see Powell as a great man. If his political moves are aimed at settling scores, then it reveals a petty side to him. John McCain was not my first choice for the Republican Party’s candidate, but he bled for this country – painfully so. I’m sure John does have his self-serving side too, but when he says that he puts his country above all other considerations and will not leave us open to the evil actors baying for our blood I believe him. And that makes him a greater man than Colin Powell.

Oct 19, 2008 - 5:59 pm 84. Doug:

– Praying and Preying –

Oct 19, 2008 - 6:08 pm 85. wretchard:

Requesting discussion at a high level is not the same as specifically disavowing or disagreeing with abusive, race based comments the way Malkin did. Compare Fernadez’s exceedingly vague “Please keep it nice” to the declarative of Malkin’s “It’s a mistake, though, to attribute Powell’s endorsement primarily to some kind of race loyalty.”

Any thoughts on the punctuation or grammer? Any words you prefer so that it is just so? What is it that you’re hoping for Coyotl? A position as the new enforcer of blogosphere political correctness under your hoped for new dispensation? That would suit you to a T. You could of course have set up your own site and express such views as anyone might care to read. But that would be beneath you. You must set yourself up as an arbiter on somebody else’s site and tut-tut when things don’t meet your expectations. Just wait until you have the power to file a complaint before some US Human Rights Commission of the sort they have in Canada and haul anyone you want before it with two choices: spent $100,000 in legal fees defending your grammar or opting for an abject apology that must be suitable in its abjection.

I realize that this is now a likelihood, absurd as it may seem. Please contain your excitement for now. But that all the more reason to live now; to speak now and to think now before the threadbare little curtain comes down. Not yet, Coyotl. Not yet.

Oct 19, 2008 - 6:13 pm 86. whiskey:

First, after Rev. God Damn America, and the reaction — it’s not “racist” because Wright is Black — any endorsement of Obama by Powell is akin to the OJ jury acquitting him of double murder of Whites, because OJ is in fact, Black.

It’s akin to the 95% support among Blacks for Obama. Racial solidarity trumps everything, and given that 75% of the US population is White, bodes ill for the 12% that is Black. Particularly since Obama’s background is of White-baiting racism, laced with Farrakhan and Wright and Trinity and hefty doses of radical White Yuppie endorsement (Ayers) of Black Nationalism/Separatism. Obama is not, in actual practice, a post-racial candidate but rather a hard-core believer in Black Nationalism. All his grants doled out per the Annenberg Challenge were for Black nationalism/separatism projects, with NO math/science teaching efforts funded.

As for Cedarford’s response, he can’t address the central issue: with deeply tribal, factionalized, decentralized Muslim/tribal “tribes with flags” having nukes, they CAN and WILL kill major Western Cities. It is in fact inevitable though quite preventable.

Notice btw how he projects his own image of centralized, top-down, unitary America onto Iran and Pakistan. Anyone familiar with the tribal and ethnic and family and factional differences in the latter two would laugh. For example, America does not have a Baluchi separatist rebellion. Iran and Pakistan both have that lovely issue. Iran has a “supreme” Authority, Ayatollah Khameni, but separate military organizations, the IRGC, and regular Army. Indeed, the IRGC itself is split into various factions, and directly runs various commercial enterprises.

That the Pakistan Army does not even control vast swaths of Pakistan, and indeed surrendered great parts of it by treaty to the Taliban, Cedarford ignores. Like the Maxine Waters / Chris Dodd praise for Fannie/Freddie, real problems are ignored in the hope that they will just go away.

Real deterrence, pushing down to the tribal level the threat of retaliation in the event of a Western city being nuked by unknown actors, can and eventually will prevent (though with great loss of life) more Western Cities from dying.

But the course of human history suggests that weapons are always used, unless deterrence by other weapons prevents them.

In fact, the experience of 9/11 suggests that it could have been far worse. The 1993 WTC bombers hoped to kill 50,000 by toppling one tower onto another. Imagine a nuke in say, Times Square. Cedarford argues that it would never happen because both Iran and Pakistan are modern, sophisticated, unitary nations with top-down control over every aspect of life, and that further Muslims are not really polygamy-fueled societies looking for conflict.

The parallels with Fannie/Freddie are uncanny.

Coyotl — the success of “Life on Mars” in both Britain and the US suggests strongly that people are sick and tired of PC — they would prefer to get things done than submit to the equivalent of the Scarlett Letter’s Rev. Dimsdale. It’s not as if I’ve blogged about it though.

Oct 19, 2008 - 6:31 pm 87. E. Nigma:

Fred,
I think that Whiskey has the answer to you:

“Like the Maxine Waters / Chris Dodd praise for Fannie/Freddie, real problems are ignored in the hope that they will just go away.”

Colin Powell’s perception of the “real problems” facing America might be very different than yours or mine. I think that he believes (honestly) that a lot of our problems with “the World” will disappear when GWB is no longer President, and Obama is advised by those “cooler and wiser heads”. Fat chance.
I said I thought he was a fine man and soldier, not a Great Man. He saw himself (in his own words) more in the image of George C. Marshall (a great American); I don’t share that view of him. In the end, he will be a foot note in history; his impact and deeds just have not been that substantial, regardless of his race and singular achievements he has made.
The Gulf War ‘victory’, for which he has received undue credit, has turned out to be just one chapter in the ongoing struggle in that part of the world. It was a false victory for many reasons.
Just as now, we are close (within 3-4 years, IMHO) to a real strategic victory in the Middle East (collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran), I believe that an Obama Administration will fumble it away, purposely, for other intangible and ephemeral benefits (empty praise by the worldwide Mass Media).

Oct 19, 2008 - 6:50 pm 88. Doug:

Even some Brits get it:
A PINCH OF REALITY
From Melanie Phillips.

“You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States.

And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.”

- via Dr. Sanity

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:01 pm 89. StargazerA5:

Interesting timing. I’m attending a professional conference which opened tonight and the keynote speaker was none other than General Powell. ( http://congresses.pmi.org/NorthAmerica2008/TheCongress/Keynote.cfm )

He did not go into his endorsement other then a couple of minor comments. The closest he came to discussing it was when he said he believed both Obama and McCain would make good presidents.

Several times in his speech he hit the topic of minorities in the workforce. He laid his words very carefully, but tone and context strongly suggested (to my not entirely unbiased mind) that he was advocating affirmative action. It was something that was obviously on his mind and it made me wonder how strongly it played into his decision.

He also talked a bit about the US’s standing in the world, and how we had lost some of it. Unfortunately I haven’t followed him closely enough to know if this is something he has been discussing for a while or if it is a new topic with his endorsement.

Take of this as you will, but I thought the timing of the speech he gave made it relevant to the discussion.

SargazerA5

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:07 pm 90. fred:

Stargazer and E.Nigma,

If Colin Powell has set before him Affirmative Action and appeasing the Euro socialists and Arab states as the priorities, then he really is a small man. In the first issue he selects from the pantheon of problems, he is rejecting the evolved meritocracy that has come into fruition in this country. He buys into the logic of Jeremiah Wright, even if he perhaps winces at the kind of language and invective uttered by that heretic. The evidence is there that affirmative action is no longer needed, and is indeed an infringement upon freedom. It is a government intrusion (one among many) into the private sector.

In the second prioritized problem he thinks needs to be addressed, he caves in to clearly bad faith arguments and propaganda advanced by countries that do not have our best interests at heart. These are the concerns that preoccupy the diplomatic corps he came to be so fond of over at State. Their culture is deeply embedded in his mind and soul. He is not truly a soldier first. In fact, so it would seem that other countries set the standard for what we should be. Also, he displays a paucity of true understanding and knowledge of Islamic scripture and theology, a fault that is shared by his successor.

Having said all of this, I agree that he is a minor footnote in American history. Not because I have harbor ill will towards the man. Rather, his priorities, while they remain his priorities, mark him as a man who is not a visionary and has no more that ability than a gopher does. For that is his field of vision.

If he believes that Iran can be talked into some kind of permanent hudna he truly does not get it. And that goes for all of the elites whose intellectual sloth the people are now in growing rebellion against. People are flocking to Sarah Palin because she is one of us, not one of THEM. It is THEM that despise her, and we who love her. It isn’t that we so much dislike the graduates of our elite schools as much as we believe they have betrayed us. Not all of them, mind you, but it would seem that the policy elites who are drawn more to Obama’s vision are loaded with graduates of the prestigious universities.

There are a lot of reasons for this nation being on the threshold of crisis and disaster. And the policy elites are one of them. Colin Powell is one of THEM. He is not one of us. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with him being black. Nada.

Oct 19, 2008 - 7:39 pm 91. fred:

I read this a few moments ago over at americanthinker.com:

General Powell & The Long Patrol
Lee Cary
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama and walked off his long patrol with the political party that made his career.

LBJ said it was OK to piss from inside the tent facing out, or from outside the tent facing in. But it wasn’t OK, he said, to piss inside the tent.

Secretary of State Powell and his close friend, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (who was the real leaker in the Valerie Plame saga, and not Scooter Libby), made a vocation out of pissing inside the Bush administration tent during the Iraq War. For reasons that remain a mystery, George W. Bush tolerated it until both men resigned.

However you feel about Bush, the President deserved loyalty from the two people he appointed to high government positions. Or, more importantly, the Nation and the Military deserved their resignations the moment they opposed the war.

Instead, both men stayed in the administration, dragging their sea anchors all the way. This reflects honorably on neither man.

Now Powell steps outside the Republican tent and pisses in. He was inclined there a long time ago, and waited until now to open fire so as to do maximum damage to a man whose service to the country is at least as laudable as is Powell’s.

Recently, Powell appeared as a character witness at Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) corruption trial. About Stevens he told the jury, “As we say in the infantry, this is a guy you take on a long patrol.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/general_powell_the_long_patrol.html

When I read the last few lines of this article I was absolutely stunned. Sen. Stevens is a disgrace to Alaska, the nation, and the Republican Party. For Colin Powell to utter such effusive praise for this scoundrel at the very least casts doubt on Powell’s ability to judge character and see things at some depth of field in the wide angle lens. As per my criticism in the above post.

Now, is this a sign of personal corruption or a sign of simply being a bad judge of character?

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:05 pm 92. Dave:

If there is a single reason for the Powell
endorsement, I would call it Sarah.

In the Powell circles, Sarah is an uppity Cissy who doesn’t know her place. Colin Powell rather liked Dick Cheney as a superior
but disliked him as an equal.

In contrast, Powell finds Joe Biden, and by extension Barack Obama, comforting. After all, they are not from that Cow Culture
where authority comes ONLY from responsibility successfully assumed. (See T. R. Fehrenbach on the enduring legacy of the Trail Boss.) This is a dynamic culture but a demanding one. Colin Powell fell short.

Rattler Gator: Have I got this one right in your judgement?

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:11 pm 93. Unsk:

What amazes me is that how many thoughtful black people have not thought through the consequences of an Obama Presidency. In all probability, he will lead us into a debilitating foreign policy disaster overseas and a depression at home. Obama epitomizes the image of of a refined, slick Ghetto Hustler who hates whites with a passion. His marxist, class and race driven lies, schemes and resultant failed presidency could well be projected on to well meaning blacks everywhere. Obama could set back race relations decades.

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:12 pm 94. DJB Rizalist:

Well, Collin Powell himself has spoken, calling John McCain erratic and temperamental and questioning his judgment for choosing Sarah Palin. Both are patriotic Americans and either would make a good President, but the GOP has moved too far to the Right. I agree on all points and it seems most Americans do too. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s certainly time for reflection on the course that’s been taken…

Oct 19, 2008 - 8:56 pm 95. fred:

“but the GOP has moved too far to the Right.”

Please specify. Generalities leave one to hazard too many conjectures.

Oct 19, 2008 - 9:25 pm 96. Belmont Club » God’s green earth:

[...] will recall the post Who will Colin Powell endorse for President? in which I wrote: Powell is McCain’s friend, but his professional interests suggest that his [...]

Oct 19, 2008 - 9:27 pm 97. JMH:

Obama could set back race relations decades

He already has. He has exposed a one-way-street mentality that says it’s okay for Blacks to be racist, small minded and bigoted while expecting not only open-mindedness, but outright favoritism from Whites. Of course, that attitude has been around for a long time, but Obama’s campaign has exposed it as wide-spread, not limited to a few malcontents but pervasive in our society.

On the other hand, this may be what’s necessary to move race relations forward again, forcing us out of the local maxima of affirmative action that we’d been stuck in for a generation. So while Obama himself is most definitely not a post-racial candidate, he may be the catalyst that takes us to a post-racial world. Or not. We’ll see.

Oct 19, 2008 - 9:28 pm 98. Wadeusaf:

The general has always been a social liberal, fiscal conservative so the only surprise ever was when he revealed he was a GOP’er and not a Democrat. I think he was ill used and abused by the denizens of Foggy Bottom, and ego along with a dose of honesty stands in the way of saying it ain’t so. I have always viewed the man as being more conflicted then decisive.

He went with making history, for transitioning (to what?), and sticking it to the people who did not protect him from his own shortcomings at DoS.

Well, that is how I see it, and how I have always seen General Powell. He did however, finally, make a decision rather than waiting to have it made for him.

His perception displays a puddy-like quality not becoming of a seventy one year old.

Oct 19, 2008 - 9:52 pm 99. Gary Rosen:

“Cedarford’s arguments boil down to “evil neocons and Jews.”

That’s all he’s ever boiled down to, because he’s a classic antisemitic misfuck and nitwit who blames everything on the Joooos. There are too many lies and deceptions in his posts to deal with them all, I’ll just pick two:

1) Why did Cheney “convert” to “neocon”? Was he bought out by the Jooooos, or did 9/11 cause him to look at the world in a different way? Apparently C-fudd is jim-dandy with a bunch of savages murdering 3000 civilians on American soil.

2) “Iran’s history is that they do not act as initiating belligerants.” Aside from the numerous terrorist groups supported by Iran including Hezbollah, beloved by C-fudd for smashing in the heads of little Jewish girls, the “moderate” Rafsanjani threatened Israel with nukes long before anyone even heard of Ahmedinejad. C-fudd couldn’t tell the truth if you put a gun to his head (not that it would hit anything significant).

Oct 20, 2008 - 1:05 am 100. NahnCee:

How is Obama’s financial Affirmative Action and “spreading the wealth around” any different from the concept of R E P A R A T I O N S ?

In the man-on-the-street interviews with demonstrators chanting “O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!”, they are out-right using the word “socialism” now. I wonder how many of them even understand what “socialism” is, other than to vaguely grasp that it means a direct transfer of entitlements and money from the hard-working and well-off to the not-so-hard-working and poor (I wonder how many of the sad Katrina victims are still sponging off the government and the taxpayer years later).

I really think this is the sort of “affirmative action” that both Obama and Powell envision — a direct transfer of dollars rather than an opportunity to educate and then work for self-betterment. And that, my friends, is “reparation”.

Oct 20, 2008 - 6:30 am 101. RattlerGator:

Yes, Dave, you do have that basically right. Essentially, Colin and Alma may be asking themselves and their friends, “Who is this Cracker, Sarah Palin?” The problem we have in the black community is the universally accepted academic concept of the Talented Tenth (associated with W.E.B. DuBois). It took me years to realize this concept has no faith in the average man or woman (this is why DuBois opposed Booker T. Washington, who had complete faith in the average man and woman). It dictates that we be led from above. By our betters, and betters is defined as the more book-smart.

Do you see the problem here?

Do you see the plantation?

The susceptibility to totalitarian instincts and the requirement to act as a herd?

And it runs contrary to the concept of America, does it not?

Peggy Noonan, George Will, Brooks, Frum et al. — they have that same mentality. There is a vibe in the black community that is completely rattled by Sarah Palin. In actual, objective fact Sarah Palin is far more representative of black American women than (for example) Hillary Clinton ever will be. Understanding the talented tenth myth explains the apparent “mind meld” with the far left reaction to Sarah Palin as well as the elite reaction to her.

Admittedly, all of us (as humans) are tribal in one way or another. To the detriment of this nation, no American political bloc is as tribal as African Americans. And without black folks content on the political plantation, we would never have heard of Howard Dean and the absurdity of Bill Ayers being this close to a nominee for President would never have occurred.

The liberal left desperately needs us and we’re apparently too complacent to take a step back and do an objective assessment *EVEN* as we see an ever growing population of saggy pants idiots languishing all around our communities, young men with no real concept of respect for women, females who don’t know how to respect themselves, and though black adults will never admit this to you — a recognition that we have an epidemic of black kids acting out some crazy-ass liberal and completely foreign concept of what real black kids act like.

It is bizarre to witness, it is pure minstrelsy and it is heartbreaking. Our only “out” is to assume personal responsibility and begin the hard work that must be done. But our entire political class is enslaved to the bitch-and-moan shackles of the liberal left, 24/7/365, and so we do their bidding instead of ours.

The result? A “can-do” people who consistently had to make a way out of no way during the entirety of our existence in America has been infantilized at the very moment of greatest opportunity in our history.

And it is a self-inflicted wound; truly heartbreaking.

Oct 20, 2008 - 6:51 am 102. FreeBirdWil:

After re-reading all these responses to the Colin Powell endorsement of Barrack Obama, I have two comments:

1.) I do not now and have never understood “racism”. God made people exactly like him wanted them (i.e. set out the evolutionary process by which our physical developement would “paint” us”, and “God saw that all He had made was good.” Why “thinking men” and even governments would select a physical characteristic to reduce, enslave, exterminate, or otherwise demean one group of humans over another loses me completely. My conclusion on this is that because of the “sin gene” (passed by the male as a sex-linked trait to all children of earthly fathers), humans (and indeed all of creation) has been under steady decline in all areas, to the extent in which nothing (on evil behavior/thought)can be withheld from them. The Presidential Election has nothing to do with skin color, but sinful men will use that point and any other in which they think they can profit themselves. Personally I am not pleased with either candidate of the two major parties and am struggling to make my self vote. However you vote or don’t vote, please let it be based on wisdom towards what is best for our country, and I assure you a skin color determinant will be a foolish factor in such a goal.

2.) How should we deal with our enemies (active & inactive). Active enemies are those we are engaged in hostilities with, have threatened us, have taken threatening steps, or harbor/support our enemies. Inactive enemies are those that oppose us philosophically so strongly as to be as big a threat as one or all of the above active enemies. How should we deal with our enemies? Spiritually we should love them and pray for them. Physically we should “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”.
OK, I’m done here, thank you and goodnight.

Oct 20, 2008 - 8:45 am 103. fred:

Oh my God, Gary Rosen, that b***h slap to c-fudd, including the closer, left me in stitches. Best laugh I’ve had in days. His reflex to hate Jews is like a certain biological response between the sexes. Unfailing, save for organic or psychological dysfunction.

In fact, it would be unsafe to aim a bullet at his head. We NRA members and former military guys know what that means: be certain of your target AND BEYOND.

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:46 am 104. cedarford:

Fred, slinking sorts like Gary Rosen count on dumb people like you. Locked up in your dumb Christian Zionism, you are simply too stupid to understand your manipulation.

The simple fact is the American public will not back a preemptive war on Iran. Nor are they at all keen to have what they thought started as a strike against a terrorist attack transformed into endless war to “liberate Muslims even if they kill us as we try”. Or unlimited dead Americans and lost treasure to keep Israel’s regional WMD monopoly and continued Settlements going.

Even Bush has seen the light, now refusing to give Israel the bombs, refueling tankers, and air overflight rights over Iraq it requested. (That would make us complicit in a sneak attack.)

Poor dumb Fred fails to understand the Neocon course cost us all our allies (except, of course, Fred’s “Special Friend”).

Want Iran to back off? Find a way to give Iran, surrounded by hostile nations, a security gurantee.

Oct 20, 2008 - 11:28 am 105. Gary Rosen:

As usual, C-fudd can’t challenge me on substance so he tears off on yet another unhinged, witless rant.

“slinking sorts like Gary Rosen”

That’s rich coming from a gutless little shit who dishonestly slurred my family’s military service and is too chickenshit and yellowbellied to own up to it. One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are without exception halfwitted whiners and born losers like C-fudd and his idol Pat Buchanan.

Now Fudd and Peppermint Patty are trying to blame WWII on the Poles and Czechs, the intellectual and moral equivalent of blaming Megan’s Law on Megan. Not really surprising, though, coming from a pair whose view of the world is parallel to that of NAMBLA.

Oct 20, 2008 - 10:19 pm 106. Dave:

RAttler Gator and your 101: I do not know what to say except to commiserate with you.

In my youth, when a person had had to put in an especially hard day, he would often say
that he had “worked like a nigger”.

No matter what our prevailing racial attitudes were, there was that recognition that the black man sure could do a lot while putting up with a lot.

I am glad that the derogatory word is no longer fashionable. I am DEEPLY saddened that the image of a worker has been replaced by that of the permanently indigent.

I blame the welfare state and consequently a certain number of my fellow white men. They are the ones who need to apologize.

Oct 20, 2008 - 11:07 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.