Seriously, folks, they don’t even *see* Obama’s race
Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell’s decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama’s status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.
“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”
No racism here, no, Sir, keep looking for it somewhere you paranoid liberals.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
The racist part is Colin Powell endorsing him because he’s black, not Rush calling him on it. Colin Powell, for those that forget, was one of the most vocal (if not MOST vocal with his UN role) supporters of the Iraq war. What, exactly, do he and Obama have in common? What does JC Watts, who also voiced his Obama support despite being a staunch conservative for years, have in common with Obama? Black people voting for the black guy, how crazy.
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
It’s not just black people, tons of Jews supported Lieberman in 2000 despite being Republicans. I thought they were all retarded, they thought I was a traitor.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I think the racist part is declaring certainty about another person’s motives because of the color of the speaker and the color of the candidate.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Maybe it’s not race so much as a big f*** you to the party that made Colin Powell damaged goods.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:35 am
In what way did they make him damaged goods? Did they force him to support the war? The poor guy, so easily tricked!
October 20th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I don’t feel that sorry for him either — he let them compromise him.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I don’t think that Colin Powell had the resources to fact check that bullshit dossier he presented to the U.N. The rest of the world did, however, and he was definitely made to look foolish.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
For one, I sincerely appreciate the likes of Dawn, Pearatty, et al, self identifying as racists.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I don’t even think he was compromised. He held pictures of WMD sites, he believed they were there. No one was lying to him. He chose to abandon his support for the war when things didn’t go as planned. It’s just so weak. And now he’s some hero of the same people who despised him for leading us into the Iraq war.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Why is it “Powell was betrayed”, but “Boooosh lied!” when both guys were looking at the same evidence? Bah. There’s only one black person Colin Powell cares about, and it ain’t Obama. This move has a lot less to do with racial solidarity than Powell cozying up to the guy who looks to be handing out good jobs in January.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Note, I did not say that Powell was betrayed, I said he is damaged goods.
Had he been a man of stronger character, he wouldn’t have hung himself no matter how much rope Bush gave him. He is damaged, because his lack of character came to light when he allowed himself to be used by a president who lied.
In the alternative, let’s say, as Karol suggests, that he was completely taken in by the CIA WMD “evidence.” In that case, he just showed extremely poor judgment. That poor judgment came to light when he allowed himself to be used by a president who lied.
Either way, damaged goods.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Just wondering – is Obama still planning on “probing Bush administration misconduct” or anything regarding “lying us into war,” or whatever variation he and/or his surrogates use when responding to people who want to see the whole Bush adminstration frog-marched into prison?
Cause if those investigations were going to happen, Powell would have to be on any genuine list of people being investigated, and I trust Obama will soon be reassuring people supporting such accountability that Powell will not be getting any special treatment whatsoever.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I think the racist part is declaring certainty about another person’s motives because of the color of the speaker and the color of the candidate.
Bingo.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“is Obama still planning on ‘probing Bush administration misconduct†or anything regarding “lying us into war,’”
I really really genuinely hope so. No matter who goes down.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“…he wouldn’t have hung himself…”
Hanged, Pearatty. There goes that darn public edju-ma-kation again.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Wow! You fuckin’ NAILED her on the hung/hanged thing, Snoop. NAILED HER!
Now NOTHING she says matters!
October 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
bingo
This might be true if we didn’t know Powell and hadn’t heard him rave about how amazing it would be to have a black president. And what other reason could someone like JC Watts have? He+Obama have near zero in common.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
you know what the best part is? When I defended “Bush is a racist” by pointing out he hiad high level african american adivors I was repeatedly told that Powell and Rice were barely even black but now that he has endorsed Obama he’s suddenly George Washington Carver.
Right.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I don’t even know what that means, Ari.
“I have black friends” has never been a defense to racism. The reason that Democrats think the Powell nomination is interesting is because Powell is a Republican. The reason Republicans no longer think it is interesting is because he is black.
Even though the only reason most Dems are glad to have this endorsement is tactical, not out of any great love for Powell, I’ll give Gib his charge of hypocrisy; Obama could have rejected the endorsement of the guy who publicly made the case for war. I’ll need a better explanation of how this makes the Democrats the racists in this equation that the nonsense I’ve seen so far here and in the AN comments.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Karol is right. Powell isn’t a complete unknown, and he’s certainly made comments to the effect of how wonderful it would be to have a black president. That’s only racist when white people do it, apparently.
Though I still think he’d endorse McCain if it looked like McCain was about to win. Why else would he wait so long? It’s like waiting until the two-minute warning to bet on a football game.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
A lot of people think that Obama asked Powell to hold back his endorsement until after the debates so that nobody would pay attention to McCain even during the last few weeks. Next Monday, the ghost of Ronald Reagan is also going to endorse Obama.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Because when Democrats scream racism in a crowded theater every .00000000004 seconds, it loses some of it’s weight, do you honestly not see that Ugarles? Do you not see what a turn off it is (not to mention what crap it is) to hear nothing other than RACISM and CHANGE every second? After awhile it doesn’t mean a damn thing, it’s just a neverending chorus to a pretty shitty song.
Is calling me (and every Nobama fan) a racist nonstop supposed to enlighten me or anyone in some way? How does this magical phenomenon supposedly work?
October 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Actually, either hung or hanged is acceptable use, although in the particular context used here, hanged is probably more common.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
On the other hand, I would never say that someone, say Snoop, was “well-hanged.” So I guess they aren’t interchangeable.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
My question was more along these lines – if Obama is planning on pursuing war crimes, is there a plan to flip Powell and have him supposedly dime out his higher-ups? Is he just getting a pass because he climbed on board the 57 State Victory Express? Or is Obama planning to smile, talk about how awesome it is to have Powell’s endorsement, then indict him right alongside everyone else? Or has Obama somehow already concluded that Powell is an innocent dupe unworthy of prosecution? If so, why?
October 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Obama is like Gob from Arrested Development, the answer to any question you have is magic!
October 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Gib:
I think all of the outcomes you suggest are possible. We’ll just have to wait and see how Obama’s character plays out, I suppose.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“Actually, either hung or hanged is acceptable use…”
No it’s not.
“Now NOTHING she says matters!” Now?
October 20th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Just out of curiosity, where do the Democrats (pearatty at least) think that road leads, the one that criminalizes policy differences? Have you thought it through?
In your zeal to punish a president you believe overstepped the bounds of office, you’re going to force future presidents to do so in a very egregious way, as surely as night follows day. If Obama actually puts Bush administration officials into jail, for any reason, he’d best make sure the next cell over has a good view, since unless he successfully suspends the constitution he’ll surely be there in a few years. That road leads to civil war, eventually. Do you just not care?
October 20th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Because when Democrats scream racism in a crowded theater every .00000000004 seconds, it loses some of it’s weight, do you honestly not see that Ugarles? … Is calling me (and every Nobama fan) a racist nonstop supposed to enlighten me or anyone in some way? How does this magical phenomenon supposedly work?
Just because you think it is an overused accusation doesn’t make it always false, even if the amount you care continually decreases. Fine.
That doesn’t change the fact that the claim is being put forward seriously that the only reason Powell supports Obama is their shared blackness. What part of that ISN’T racist? Do you think you get a pass because in your mind Powell was the racist first?
October 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“You” was used rather loosely there. Sorry about that, Ari. The implication wasn’t meant to be personal.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Snoop: Name your source.
Eric:
Criminalize policy differences, no. Punish criminal violations of the US constitution, and international law, as adopted by the US, yes. So sad that your camp doesn’t recognize the difference. Or, I guess, sad that for your camp, differences over torture and illegal searches and seizures are just policy differences.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Every assertion you’ve made is debatable. It’s so sad your side can’t see that through your Bush hatred. In point of fact it doesn’t matter – even if everything you’re saying is true, the result will be the same – banana republic. Why is that so hard to see?
October 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
Eric:
Is there any action an American president could take, in his official capacity, which you feel would warrant criminal prosecution?
Not a hypothetical question.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:06 am
Sure. If he tried to extend his term of office, say, or dissolve Congress. But your “criminal violations of the US constitution” is just silly. The constitution only specifies one actual crime, that of treason, and it doesn’t fit.
International law is absolutely meaningless to the extent it wasn’t signed by the president and ratified by Congress. Most provisions of the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to irregulars – under international law we can pretty much do whatever we want to them. International provisions against torture are pointless since there’s no useful legal definition of torture. Is waterboarding torture? I don’t think so.
Shall we prosecute Congressmen for abusing the commerce clause, or judges for ignoring the plain text of the Constitution? Or for dreaming up text that isn’t there?
I suppose I shouldn’t care very much, not having kids and being in relatively poor health. I’ll probably be gone before the worst happens, though I suspect Obama will take us about halfway there if elected. I’m really sort of morbidly curious whether you realize this ball isn’t going to stop rolling once you start it. You think you’re gonna put Bush in jail and that’s gonna be the end of it, right? Really? It won’t, you know. It just breaks a very practical taboo. Après Bush le déluge.
In my life there hasn’t been a single president, with the possible exception of Ford, that couldn’t have been sent to jail for things he did, provided you apply the same standards you intend to apply to Bush. Did you know the so-called “warrantless wiretapping” started under Carter and continued during the tenure of all succeeding presidents? So if Bush goes to jail for that, we’ll have to lock Carter, GHW Bush, and Clinton up too.
Reagan and GHW Bush had Iran-Contra.
Clinton blew up an pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to divert attention from Monica. Can you imagine how many people probably died as a result? I mean, a country as poor as Sudan finally builds a factory to make medicines its people can’t afford and BOOM – blown up over a BJ. And that was without a Congressional authorization, something Bush had in Iraq. Then there were the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died under sanctions, and the thousands of Somali civilians killed in Mogadishu during the “Blackhawk Down” thing. My God, what is Clinton doing enjoying retirement when he should be facing charges at the Hague?
October 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
“what is Clinton doing enjoying retirement when he should be facing charges at the Hague?”
Good question. So, your answer is pretty much, as long as the President is acting within his or her 8-year term limit, no? Because that’s how all our presidents have acted?
How about having higher standards for our leaders, instead of saying, “Billy got to do it, and he got away with it, so you can’t punish me now because it would be inconvenient and chaotic to hold all our presidents to such a standard.”
And as I recall, the International Convention on Human Rights has been signed and ratified by the U.S. And there are lots of possible violations of U.S. statutory law that aren’t necessarily constitutional.
I have no problem, none, with good faith investigation and prosecution of any president who has done the things you claim. Good faith being the key, of course.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
How about having higher standards for our leaders, instead of saying, “Billy got to do it, and he got away with it, so you can’t punish me now because it would be inconvenient and chaotic to hold all our presidents to such a standard.â€
The place to exercise your standards is at the ballot box. And “inconvenient and chaotic” is gross understatement. It’s the road to civil war, with all that entails. Do you think there’ll be more justice after a coup? My isn’t that we shouldn’t have standards for elected officials. My point is the legal process is the wrong way to impose standards.
I have no problem, none, with good faith investigation and prosecution of any president who has done the things you claim. Good faith being the key, of course.
And what fantasy land do you propose to live in where this would happen? For that to work, not only do you need a good faith investigation, it also needs to be seen by everyone in the political spectrum as a good-faith investigation. I don’t see how that comes even close to happening in the real world. Did you see the Clinton impeachment as a good-faith process?
October 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I did not see the Clinton impeachment as a good-faith process. However, the process played itself out as it was supposed to. I am not in favor of doing away with the impeachment process merely because it can be used as a political tool.
I believe it is possible to invest, as a society, in processes whereby our leaders are held accountable for criminal conduct, if, indeed, they are legitimately suspected of committing criminal conduct.
Your comments indicate that rather than live in a society where standards of conduct for our leaders are enforceable and enforced, you prefer to live in a totalitarian state, just with term limits, where our leader has the right to act pretty much however he or she likes, with the only consequence being that they lose the office at the end of their term, if their criminal actions are such that they lose popularity and are not re-elected.
And who’s talking about a coup? I’m talking about legitimate criminal prosecution.
October 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Impeachment and criminal prosecution are two totally different things. Impeachment just removes a president from office, and if he’s done something that warrants removal, by all means a president should be impeached. There were plenty of people who advocated Bush’s impeachment, and while I didn’t support it I didn’t consider the notion dangerous to the Republic. I brought up Clinton’s impeachment because I wanted to point out Democrats and Republicans are apt to see things differently depending on who’s in office.
How would you have felt if Clinton had been prosecuted for perjury after he left office? After all, the evidence was on tape. The guy clearly committed a felony. Why wasn’t he prosecuted like the hundreds of people who were in federal prison, at that moment, for lying about sex?
I know you’re not talking about a coup. That’s what I’m trying to get you to see. There will be a coup if we go down this road. Maybe not by Bush, or Obama, but within the next decade or two. In countries where political leaders are prosecuted after they leave office it behooves them to never leave office. The reason we’ve always had orderly transitions of power is precisely because we don’t prosecute former presidents. It’s not that I prefer to live in a totalitarian state with term limits – it’s that the prosecution you’re advocating will bring us inevitably to that totalitarian state.
Imagine it from a president’s point of view. Let’s say I’ve been president for eight years, there have been a few scandals as there always are. The public is tired of my party and my political enemies are set to take over when I leave office. As a country we’ve had that situation several times in the last 100 years, and the president always steps down and writes his memoirs, or goes skydiving, or stumps for AIDS programs in Africa. Whatever.
In a country where the norm is payback by your political enemies, as president I have nothing to lose by staging a coup. My opponents are gonna throw me in jail anyway, so I may as well declare a state of emergency (a crisis like the recent financial crisis would do nicely), suspend the constitution (temporarily, of course), and put off elections for six months. Then another six months, then another.
Oh, that just couldn’t happen in the US. Why not? This is something that happens over and over all over the world on a regular basis. Do you think our leaders are less power-hungry than politicians anywhere else? Just like you didn’t believe the Clinton impeachment was done in good faith, half the country doesn’t believe any Bush prosecution would be done in good faith. And when Republicans prosecute Obama you, again, won’t believe it’s in good faith. How long do you think that will go on without consequences?