Michelle Malkin » The Colin Powell endorsement: Triumph of hope over reality

The Colin Powell endorsement: Triumph of hope over reality

By Michelle Malkin • October 19, 2008 11:27 AM

Gravitas.

The media’s in a tizzy over Colin Powell’s Meet the Press endorsement of Barack Obama this morning.

It’s not a surprise to anyone who’s paid attention to his pro-Obama murmurings over the last four months.

How will people outside the Beltway bubble respond?

Yawn.

Here’s the vid:

Powell’s embrace of Barack Obama is a triumph of hope over reality. He told Tom Brokaw that Obama’s “steadiness” and “not jumping in and changing every day” convinced him that The One was ready to lead.

Hello?

Guess Powell relied on Obama’s website after he purged his surge criticism from it.

Powell then goes on to pooh-pooh Obama’s longtime “limited relationship” with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers as an “issue that is not central” to the campaign — just as evidence of the closeness of these two very chummy “neighbors” mounts.

Judgment, schmudgment, eh, Secretary Powell?

Finally, we arrive at the real reason Powell is endorsing Obama: The party, he complains, has become too “narrow” for his tastes. Pro-abortion Powell can’t stand the thought of two more Republican Supreme Court appointments. He thinks Sarah Palin is too conservative. He shares the Obama view of our base as racist and non-inclusive — but has nothing to say about the rabid pack of America-damning preachers who helped make Obama the “transformational” figure Powell has placed his faith in.

Powell also makes reference to all the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumors, blaming the Republican Party for all that. Never mind the Democrat Hillary backers like Bob Kerrey and on down to her grass-roots supporters who indulged themselves and trafficked in those very rumors Powell smears conservatives for spreading.

The orgy of Obamedia attention Powell will receive the next 24 hours is disproportionate to its importance.

The press only loves maverick Republicans when they jump in bed with Democrats.

Just ask John McCain.

***

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.

Posted in: Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Colin Powell, John McCain

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (729)

trackbacks (55)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

#701

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, hitcharide said:

I’m not denying, not for one second, that there have been members of the GOP guilty of various crimes. The main difference seems to be that when we have a criminal in our group, we get rid of that guy, send him to jail, etc. For liberals, it’s just resume building. The guy that replaced foley down in florida will probably not be prosecuted, or fined, or held accountable in any fashion. In fact, I understand democrat leadership in the house is working to help him get around the obvious crimes and will probably wind up nominating him for an important committee assignment, just like kennedy and frank. It’s a nasty double standard.
#702

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:14 pm, nyk said:

You don’t love this country. At least, that’s what you tell the pollsters. And your behavior and words tend to bear that out.

Because I know more about the history of, say, Jesse Helms than you do? Weird way of measuring patriotism but, whatever.

Your expletive filled, off-the-hinges answer in 3…2…1…
#703

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm, nyk said:

It’s a nasty double standard.

I disagree but hardly think we’ll come to an agreement tonight.
#704

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:16 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

Does that mean you still haven’t heard about RabbidSquirrelisasexybeast.com?

I see you found that one too ::sizzle::

I was young, nieve, and was trying to make ends meets at one time….. whenever I have enough money these days, I try not to encourage them as much. They’re animals I tell you!
#705

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, flenser said:

Sorry to be a Joanna-Come-Lately, but I keeps seeing this referenced. Can someone fill me in to what this is from?

A Republican woman was called by the Democrats asking her to vote for Obama. She said no. They called the FBI and told them the woman had made death threats against The Sacred One, and the FBI came to her her home to grill her.

Just the usual liberal thug-like behavior, hardly worth mentioning really.
#706

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:19 pm, hitcharide said:

We won’t come to an agreement, true, but I am assured that at least some liberals are not ignorant, and while they deny the facts publically, they still admit them personally. Until otherwise, I’ll consider you in the group that knows all too well what the liberals are pulling and get away with yet refuse to hold them accountable for whatever reason….said reason would hold no weight with me anyhow. I have no patience for those who betray the public trust, and even less for those who play silly political games for personal benefit or satisfaction when the security of the nation is on the line.
#707

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm, hitcharide said:

Too funny, rabbidsquirrel!
#708

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm, flenser said:

Because I know more about the history of, say, Jesse Helms than you do?

You don’t know the history of Jesse Helms. Nor do you know the history of the Southern Democrats, the vast majority of whom continued to be Democrats for decades after the Civil Rights Act was passed. That would include Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Connor, Al Gore, William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd. Remember them?

This is simple historical fact, something you are plainly unfamiliar with.

Your subject changing moronic and dishonest evasion in 3, 2, 1 …
#709

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm, flenser said:

Sigh. Let’s not bother arguing, you and I.

Sign. I knew you were stupid, but I see you are gutless as well. What’s the matter, afraid to get into a factual discussion of voter fraud? You’d rather leave your smelly little gift in the middle of the floor and not be called on it?
#710

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:32 pm, nyk said:

Nor do you know the history of the Southern Democrats, the vast majority of whom continued to be Democrats for decades after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Sigh. I do. You are really high strung. And it’s pointless to debate with you. You don’t so much debate as kick and scream and insult (and deny silly things like how Jesse Helms began his career, even when it’s obvious and you know the truth). Seems pointless, right? So, I’ll just save myself the time.

but I am assured that at least some liberals are not ignorant, and while they deny the facts publically, they still admit them personally.

Uh, no. I’m pretty confident that most liberals think it’s the GOP that indulges in the most egregious forms of voter suppression. Both in private and in public. You guys don’t seem to get that people believe different things, and believe them with all their heart. You may disagree with their political views, but people really believe them. By and large, no one — liberal or conservative — honestly supports ideas or actions they genuinely believe to be dishonest or wrong.
#711

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:34 pm, nyk said:

I knew you were stupid, but I see you are gutless as well. What’s the matter, afraid to get into a factual discussion of voter fraud?

You’re excellent with name calling, which is really a sign of maturity and intelligence. And please — you don’t know from facts. Which is why it’s useless to talk to you (we tried this the other day, remember?). I don’t know why you’re want to bother arguing with someone you find so “stupid” to being with. You must be both a very lonely AND angry man.
#712

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm, nyk said:

Sign. I knew you were stupid, but I see you are gutless as well.

I just re-read this and realized you forgot to DOUBLE DOG DARE ME!

Anyway, if it’s only you here, I’ll pass.

‘Night all (if anyone else is around).
#713

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:43 pm, hitcharide said:

I have always respected the honest conviction of anyone, no matter how misguided I thought they were. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no republican in the house or senate who got drunk and killed a lady and yet was never charged. I don’t know of any GOP member running a gay prostitution ring. I don’t know of any GOP member who served in the kkk and is now the most senior person in the senate. Last I heard, acorn has come out for obummer, and we all know very well what acorn is being investigated for. Taking bribes from the chinese, stealing national archive documents, and so on and so on…. Just because someone believes something “with all their heart” doesn’t make it any more true or factual, and I really believe an HONEST reflection on the subjects shows where the greatest fraud and crime is. You guys on the left are supporting a candidate who is reprehensible in every way….if you aren’t man enough to admit it, that’s your problem, but it’s just silly to expect the rest of us to be as willfully deluded as you. It may take some time for liberals to understand that conservatives are not rolling over for anything and anyone anymore…that’s your problem! Have a great day…..
#714

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:45 pm, brad_sk said:

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, hitcharide said: at 701
I’m not denying, not for one second, that there have been members of the GOP guilty of various crimes. The main difference seems to be that when we have a criminal in our group, we get rid of that guy, send him to jail, etc. For liberals, it’s just resume building.

No unfortunately we got lot of RINOs in conservative party too…Just see what happened to restroom b@st@rd Larry Craig…Exactly nothing…
#715

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:49 pm, flenser said:

Just see what happened to restroom b@st@rd Larry Craig…Exactly nothing…

Legally speaking, nothing should have happened to him. What’s going on with him politically?
#716

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm, flenser said:

Anyway, if it’s only you here, I’ll pass.

Of course, “only me” is the person you’re scared of. So yeah, I’m sure you will “pass”.

Drop your little turds and scuttle off. “Poop-n-scoot”, it’s called.
#717

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm, hitcharide said:

I have high hopes that craig will be outsted by his constituency next election cycle. I don’t believe anyone should be above the law…it just seems for every member of the GOP that is dirty, there are 20 on the left. Bob Ney is a good example of a corrupt politician that was held accountable by his party leadership and is now serving time. What democrat, pray tell, has been held accountable recently in a similar way? Isn’t jefferson of lousiana still in office? Was sHillary nailed for all that campaign cash illegally raised? We already know frank and kennedy hold high office and were never censured in the slightest.
#718

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm, flenser said:

And please — you don’t know from facts.

Funny, I’m the person giving facts, while you’re the person giving lies.

For instance, I’m giving the fact that the vast majority of southern Dems stayed put in the Democratic party, which was delighted to have them. And you respond by engaging in the classic liberal evasion technique of declaring victory and running away.
#719

On October 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm, flenser said:

I have high hopes that craig will be outsted by his constituency next election cycle.

Who will he be replaced by?

I don’t believe anyone should be above the law

Is there a law against tapping your foot in a public restroom?
#720

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am, hitcharide said:

If it’s in a manner designed to solicit sex in exchange for money or favor, then yes it is.
#721

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am, flenser said:

I’m pretty confident that most liberals think it’s the GOP that indulges in the most egregious forms of voter suppression. Both in private and in public. You guys don’t seem to get that people believe different things, and believe them with all their heart.

People are not entitled to believe whatever their hearts desire. There is this thing called “reality” which the members of the so-called “reality based community” might want to acquaint themselves with.

Of course, you are a person who thinks that he is free to believe that the southern Dems switched to the GOP post 1964. So I guess it’s fairly clear that you’ll just go on singing “I can believe whatever I want, nyah nyah.”
#722

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:02 am, flenser said:

Don’t be absurd, hitcharide. You’re talking like a liberal who thinks he can read peoples minds.
#723

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:04 am, flenser said:

By and large, no one — liberal or conservative — honestly supports ideas or actions they genuinely believe to be dishonest or wrong

But the left does not believe that it is wrong to break the law and commit wrongs in pursuit of their higher good.

For instance, look at the way the left has treated a certain unrepentent terrorist who has been in the news of late. They have lionized him. Because he was a terrorist for their cause.
#724

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:04 am, hitcharide said:

Hmmm….if you say so.
#725

On October 21st, 2008 at 12:08 am, flenser said:

Great. Then tell me what critera you will use to distinguish foot tapping designed to solicit “sex in exchange for money or a favor” from foot-tapping which expresses boredom or impatience. Or even foot-tapping intended to solicit sex which is not in exchange for money or a favor.
#726

On October 21st, 2008 at 1:37 am, blacktygrrrr said:

I will not be covering the Colin Powell endorsement. It’s a non-story. I can sum it up right here.

George W. Bush fired him. This is payback. The timing is for maximum effect, coupled with the Jayson Blair Times savaging Cindy McCain.

Powell had a distinguished career, but this is just petulance from a disgruntled fired ex-employee. When he says he does not like the “direction,” of the Republican Party, what he means is that the direction did not include him.

Obama claimed he was against the war from the beginning, and now embraces the man that sold the rationale for war. Also, perhaps Powell got tired of being seen as “white.” This helps redeem him.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
#727

On October 21st, 2008 at 7:50 am, mike.musculus said:

Seeing MM’s note, I point out that in #636, I posted my $0.02 on Powell, I noted that the only thing that motivates him is his own aggrandizement. The only ref. to race I make is to point out, (though I heavily condense that part…), that while Powell’s POV fits best with the Dems, he remained an R as long as it would be a benefit to him. He knows that unless you are useful building power for their group, if you aren’t white & NEastern, you’re invisible in Dem’s world.

Indeed, the pile of careers that Powell has used to elevate himself contains all races & sexes of troop. Though, in reading my comment today, I realize the Eddie Haskle ref., (a character from the show “Leave it to Beaver”) maybe too obscure.

But as I wrote, the Powell endorsement is the least surprising surprise this election season. His spot in the would-be McCain admin. is already filled, & has been since before the winds shifted to grant McCain the nomination. Powell certainly wasn’t going to tie himself to McCain before it was assured JM would be the R’s candidate. It might close the doors he’d need down the road when the GOP picked its nominee!

Look at the public part of the Powell’s career, for goodness-sakes! He was a geneal who wouldn’t go to the latrine w/o a consensus being built 1st, and 2 dozen studies on the proper brand of tissue! He’d then spitshine his CO’s boots to make sure there was CYA paperwork incase he missed dumping his bombs.

Sorry. As I’ve said, I’ve no use for the man. I’ve served under COs of his stripe. They’re *always* a disaster, both for morale and for mission objectives. The current, almost insurmountable problm we face is the number of his type out number the General P.-types by a margin that exploded under Clinton. The politically-oriented, PC officers were the ones who benefited disproportionately in the 90s. The heavy-loading of the “yes-men”, afraid of rocking the PC-boat, at the top has hurt us more than I think the civilian population will ever know.
#728

On October 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am, Laree said:

J.B.White’s take on the Colin Powell endorsement.

http://rattlergator.typepad.com/rattlergator/2008/10/the-african-american-slide.html
#729

On October 21st, 2008 at 8:55 am, mike.musculus said:

Eric,
I agree w/most of your comments, save the one on his career. I simply can’t call a career distinguished that is built on stealing other men’s credit whn good, & pushing your errors off onto subordinates when the crap hits the fan. The PC effect helpd him accomplish this.

The Clintons, to a great extent, finished the color-sensitizing of parts of the service. Not the spear’s very tip: you don’t care your buddy’s color in a warzone. Dead is dead, regardless of color.

What I’m addressing is typified by an experience a few days ago:
I ws driving back on base. A female troop was doing IDcheck. She had an Obie button on her BDUs. We aren’t allowed to wear political endorsements while on duty! Since she obviously wasn’t active duty, but recently activated, (she has 2″ nails), I figured she was just ignorant of regs.

Informing her she was out of regs, I cited both the nails & the Obie button.

2 days later I encountered her again. No change. When I tracked down her CO, I found I wasn’t the 1st to see him about her.

He told me that after speaking to her about it, he got a phone call from above to overlook it. She’d complained to anyone who’d listen - starting with the JG - that she was being “racially targeted”.

I didn’t mention it, but she’s black. Being somewhat deep-brown myself, I don’t notice until its shoved in my face.

I’ve dinged others for being out of regs: hair too long, dangling earrings, etc. This is the 1st time I’ve encountered this, but I’m told that the incidents of “racial” claims among the support services is growing fast. A military can’t operate with these currents running through it! Talking to those who knew him, served w/him Powell playd every card to his political&career advantage. He gamed the system. I can’t help wondering if his example’s at work here, too. Its claimed that women’s strides today “are because of the sisters who’ve gone before”. Is the racecard gaming the system in the military? I pray not.