Professional asshole Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama:
Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. 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.
Well, I think Joe Lieberman is only supporting John McCain because he’s white. I am now researching Lieberman’s past endorsements to see if I can find all of the pro-life, conservative, white Republicans he has endorsed in the past. If McCain is the only one, that must mean Lieberman is only supporting him because he’s white. It’s totally about race—Lieberman refuses to endorse a black guy.
Sunday on Hardball, Pat Buchanan asked whether Powell would be endorsing Obama if he were white (video at the link). When Chris Matthews pointed out that Powell went through a long list of reasons that he’s supporting Obama, Buchanan said:
This is why he threw in the whole kitchen sink, a lot of things that are silly and ridiculous—economics and Supreme Court justices. All the motives except for the one everyone’s wondering about.
Did you get that? Colin Powell used “silly and ridiculous” issues like economics and the Supreme Court to hide the fact that he’s only supporting Obama because he’s black. You know, just like Joe Lieberman used the silly and ridiculous issue of the Iraq war to hide the fact that he’s only supporting McCain because he’s white.
Oh, but Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan don’t read ulterior motives into Joe Lieberman’s endorsement. They just take him at his word. They believe that Lieberman made a principled decision based on who he thinks would be a better president. See, when white people vote for white people, we are presumed to make our decisions based on a careful examination of the issues. When black people vote for black people, everyone knows it’s just because of race. You can’t believe them when they claim otherwise—they’re just covering up their real motivation.
When people suggest that there are some white people who will not vote for Obama because he’s black, I’ve heard many on the right say “well, black people are voting for Obama because he’s black”. In the wingnut mind, black people are being racist (against white people) when they support Obama because of his race. Nevermind the fact that African-Americans overwhelming support Democrats in every presidential election. Nevermind the fact that early on in the campaign, Hillary Clinton had more support among African-Americans than Barack Obama did.
Honestly, what really impressed me about Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama wasn’t the mere fact that Powell was endorsing Obama. It was Powell’s detailed, thorough, and thoughtful explanation for why he supports Obama and not John McCain. I don’t think I could express my support for Obama as well as Powell did. I don’t know how you could listen to Powell’s explanation and come away thinking he wasn’t being sincere. I mean unless, like Limbaugh and Buchanan, you look at Colin Powell or Barack Obama and all you see is a black man.
Perfect analogy, Red. Utterly perfect.
Shock Jock Howard Stern performed a little experiment on his show where he sent people out into the streets and asked why they supported Obama. He then switched Obama’s platform with McCain’s and no one seemed to notice. Now why is that? It is because they are voting for him BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama
Now when you have Sherri Shepard, Tom Hanks, etc saying they are supporting him for that very same reason, don’t expect me to believe they give a damn about his stance on the issues. If people knew what he felt about abortion, they would be disgusted… Since when are babies “mistakes” and why shouldn’t the state provide care for those who survive late-term abortions? Disturbing…
http://clancop.wordpress.com
P.S. Actually listen to Colin Powell’s reasons and tell me what does “style” and “charisma” have to do with being an exceptional President? Hitler was charismatic, so was Charles Manson, and we all know how that turned out…
Wow, so Howard Stern found a bunch of people on the streets of New York who aren’t very informed. How shocking. Interesting that they only asked black people these questions, when there are plenty of white people out there who are equally uninformed. Why doesn’t he go out to a McCain/Palin rally and talk to some McCain supporters who don’t know anything about his policies. Give me a break.
Oh, and I know Obama’s stance on abortion (which you’re misrepresenting), and I’m not disgusted.
Oh, and you need to brush up on your logical skills. Tell me, what does military experience have to do with being a good president? After all, Mussolini had military experience.
You sure about that? Really?
“And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as… as is necessary to keep that child alive, then we are probably crossing the line of unconstitutionality.”
Page 87 of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, March 30th, 2001
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
How is killing a baby who survives an abortion a constitutional right provided by court rulings like Roe v Wade? Why should a baby born early, no matter the reason, whether it is the cause of premature labour or a botched abortion, have less rights than a full term baby? If you are okay with that, then you are definitely twisted…
“When black people vote for black people, everyone knows it’s just because of race. You can’t believe them when they claim otherwise—they’re just covering up their real motivation.”
A statement about racism in your own words. This is a bold claim you are making saying that race isn’t the issue when blacks vote for blacks, just like when whites vote for whites. You ignore the draw of “political equality” and ignoring the fact that people will vote for someone who is “of them” instead of voting for someone who isn’t. That is what the Howard Stern “experiment” proved, that there are those who will vote for Obama because he is black (half Kenyan actually), something you choose to ignore outright. Because whites have dominated politics for centuries, we have been forced to examine the issues instead of their skin colour or any other irrelevant factor. Will I ignore the fact that some people will not vote for Obama because he is black? No, but I can see the reason for this prejudice, especially when you have so many black politicians linked to corruption lately. Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Kwane Kilpatrick, even Barack Obama himself… Do you even bother to mention this? No you don’t.
You didn’t bother challenging my assertion that Tom Hanks is voting for Obama because he is black, or that many others are doing the same for the same reasons, why? You know that this is true, but in your blind bias, you decide to ignore it and paint anyone who questions Colin Powell’s endorsement as racist. Why do you claim this is more than what it is, as Time Online even reported, a well planned attack ob John McCain done so close to the election date to do the most damage…
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851966,00.html
I listened to that interview too, and no where did I find any of his reasons even close to valid. What does “style” and “charisma” have to do with being an “exceptional President”? He hasn’t even won the election and yet you and other Obama supporters are willing to start writing the history on his “exceptional” Presidency before it has even happened. Excuse me? You then go off and take a “Straw Man” approach to my argument, attacking my assertion with a baseless one of your own. John McCain wasn’t simply in the service, he was a commander in the Navy, someone with actual executive experience. He has had to send men into combat, that is far more experience than both Obama and Joe Biden have. And what do you say? That Obama’s charisma and style is somehow equal to this? A purely qualitative measure vs a solid quantitative one, but once again, how does that go to show that Powell’s comments are not because of race, or his own liberal views?
You guys are so obsessed with race that you will attack those who question your “truths” as racist, but refuse to identify racists within your own ranks. Pathetic…
Also, here is something for you to mull over…
How can you provide a tax break for 95% of the population when only 2/3 of it pays taxes?
How can you afford to hire more works when Obama’s tax plan targets businesses who have REVENUES (not just profits) above $250,000 a year?
With that said, how can businesses operate when 50% of them will have to deal with these new costs of operating?
Do you really know Obama’s positions or are you, like Howard Stern’s experiment pointed out, simply voting for him because he is black?
http://clancop.wordpress.com
Okay, the only reason anyone can vote for or endorse Barack Obama is because he’s black. Got it. Because, who gives a crap about the economy, the war, healthcare, education, human rights…. That stuff’s just BORING!!!
You didn’t approve my last comment. Got something to hide?
On the economy, as a graduate from the University of Ottawa, I can tell you Obama will bankrupt America by scaring off big and small business with his high taxes, killing domestic jobs. Once again, answer the questions from my last post.
On the War, he flip-flopped in the last debate on troop withdrawl, he vowed to attack our ally Pakistan if “they get in our sights”, discussed running off to prevent genocide around the world, forgetting about the genocide of Kurds, Shites and Sunnis if they the USA left Iraq (Saudi Arabia and Iran have vowed to go to war over the country if we left, and after killing each other, they are going to kill more Kurds), and then he goes off discussing negotiating with Iran about “wiping Israel off the map”. You don’t negotiate about that, you kill that ambition through sanctions and “muscle flexing”. What about his support of Raila Odinga in Kenya? A man who vowed to stop assisting in the War on Terror if he got elected.
Heath care and education? Look at Canada and ask me if you want our broken system? I have to wait 3 hours at a clinic to have the doctor say he won’t do anything for me. Education? The system has become a money pit dominated by teacher’s unions striking every so often for better pay, driving the price up, driving our taxes up. While post-secondary education subsidies are nice, I don’t think I want my taxes paying for these nut balls our schools hire, especially at Concordia in Montreal.
Human rights? Tell that to the 1,500 Kenyans killed by Obama’s “cousin” Raila Odinga. How can we trust a man, who supports a radically pro-Islamic tyrant in Kenya, to actually deal with “human rights”? You forget it was John McCain who lead the way against torture at US military institutions…
Do your research and stop whining.
I love comments. They make me smile.
I lived in a “socialist” health care country and guess what? No waiting, excellent care and I didn’t have any big fat unexpected bill in the mail.
Hitler actually had excellent leadership…
…But did incredibly terrible things.
Really? Why haven’t you approved two of my comments which challenge your ignorance on the issues of race in this campaign, as well as the issues like abortion?
This is just like another few blogs I have visited. You don’t like having your words challenged, and instead of showing both sides of the argument, instead of reporting the facts about all this, you instead choose to silence my voice.
Socialized health care, like the system we have here in Canada, is a broken system. Liberals, Conservatives, even the Bloc and NDP have made mention of it in the last few elections. Liberals and Conservatives want limited privatization, while the Bloc and NDP want to dump more money into the system. My twin brother was almost killed by a nurse when he broke his arm because she didn’t know how to insert an IV. You tell him that our system works and that the care if excellent. He waited 5 days for a simple procedure, how is that excellent? My mother would rather have spent a little money to make sure her son was taken care of, rather than spend a full week by his side making sure he is well treated by the hospital staff. Explain that.
I agree, Hitler was an excellent leader in that he didn’t keep his socialist promises, he allowed for business to grow, and brought Germany out of the Great Depression before any other country. Instead of taxing the rich, he employed them, released their restraints and allowed them to fill military contracts, providing jobs for thousands of Germans. He was a bastard, but it was Himmler and Eichmann who were behind the “Final Solution”, not him. He shares the blame, sure, giving these monsters “carte blanche” on how to deal with the “Jewish problem”, but he isn’t the sole villain in that story.
Quit hyperventilating. I’m not silencing you. Your comment had three links in it so it went into the automatic moderation queue. I was working all day and didn’t get a chance to approve it until now. And I’ve got shit to do right now so I don’t have time to respond to your ramblings, except to say that I find it highly amusing that it turns out you’re Canadian.
Also, pay attention to who is writing the comments, because you just responded to Allclick as if the comment was written by me.
Hyperventilating? Who do you think I am? I am simply blogging. I find it aggravating that no one seems to want to do research on this stuff, that they pass judgment, insult me for my opinion, when I am the person who has lived the “socialist” life and I can tell you, it isn’t great.
And what is so amusing about me being Canadian? Canada is tied at the hip to the USA. You suffer, we suffer, and whe you are about to elect a man like Barack Obama who is threatening to kill jobs in both our countries with higher taxes and renegotiating NAFTA, we get a little irked.
http://clancop.wordpress.com
You’re not “blogging.”
You’re commenting. Gawd you people annoy me.
Commenting on other blogs, surfing the blogosphere, writing on my blog posts, ya, I think you could call that blogging…
Geez, everything sets you people off doesn’t it?
http://clancop.wordpress.com
My favorite post on this subject:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/21/6491/7750/376/637293
Clancop, you have come to my blog, which you had never read until yesterday, and accused me of not knowing Obama’s positions and demanded that I respond to your questions. First of all, you’re being rude. You don’t know me, you obviously haven’t read my blog, so please spare me the accusations. I have written many posts about Obama’s and McCain’s positions. I have criticized Obama for taking positions that I disagree with, like voting for the FISA bill. I’m a huge political junkie who has been following this election very closely and I’ve read all kinds of stuff about both candidates’ positions.
Your comments are filled with tons of factual errors:
1. The law in Illinois already requires doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that is born alive during an abortion. Obama voted against the bill you’re talking about because it would have extended protections to fetuses that show any signs of life, whether or not they are viable (i.e. can live outside the womb). This was an attempt to curtail women’s right to abortion. Perhaps you’re not aware of how the pro-life movement works in this country. They can’t get abortion banned outright, so they try to pass legislation that chips away, little by little, at women’s rights.
2. How can Obama cut taxes on 95% of people when about 38% of Americans don’t pay income tax? Because income tax isn’t the only tax people pay. Everyone who works pays payroll (FICA) taxes. Obama’s tax plan contains various tax credits for people who pay no income tax.
3. You’re flat-out wrong that Obama would tax businesses with revenues of $250,000 a year. It’s profits of $250,000 a year.
4. Obama didn’t vow to attack Pakistan if they get in our sights. He vowed that if there’s actionable intelligence that al Qaeda operatives are in Pakistan and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to go after them, the U.S. will.
5. At first, McCain did speak out against torture, but then he supported Bush’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited waterboarding and other torture techniques. He supports existing law that allows CIA interrogators free reign (they’re not held to the Army Field Manual) and that allows military or private contractors to temporarily be designated CIA agents so they can have free reign to torture.
Regarding the actual topic of this post, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama, just because you don’t agree with Powell’s reasons for supporting him doesn’t mean they aren’t valid, as you claim. He cited Obama’s intellectual vigor, depth of knowledge, his response to the economic crisis, the inclusivity of his campaign, and his insight on military challenges, among other things. Yet you’ve singled out Powell’s comments about Obama’s rhetorical skills and charisma. Those aren’t the only things he cites. Obviously a candidate must have more than just good rhetorical skills and charisma, he or she must have substance too, which is why Powell specifically said “style and substance.” But the president has to be able to communicate well with the American people and with people all over the world, so yes, charisma and the ability to inspire people are legitimate things to value in a candidate.
You criticize me for not mentioning that some black politicians are corrupt. You’re aware that there are plenty of white politicians who are also corrupt, aren’t you? So no, it’s not valid for someone not to want to vote for a black candidate just because some black politicians are corrupt. It would be racist to conclude that because some black politicians are corrupt, all must be.
And on that note, Howard Stern’s little experiment didn’t prove anything. Sure, there are black supporters of Obama who don’t know what his positions are. But there are also white supporters of Obama who don’t know what his positions are, just as there are white supporters of McCain who don’t know what his positions are. To go out and only talk to black supporters of Obama who don’t know his positions is totally skewed. Democratic candidates for president always get the vast majority of the African-American vote. Did it ever occur to you that these black Obama supporters who aren’t informed about his positions might be supporting him just because he’s a Democrat, not just because he’s black? That’s an equally plausible explanation, yet you go for the racial explanation.
Finally, the reason it’s amusing that you’re Canadian is because you swooped in here to lecture me about Obama when it turns out you’re not even American and won’t even be voting in this election. I would never go to some French person’s blog or British person’s blog or Canadian person’s blog and lecture them about the candidates in their elections and accuse them of being ill-informed. It’s presumptuous and rude.
Hmmm, where to start…
1. Walter Anneberg is the same man who sponsored Obama and Ayer’s Chicago Anneberg Challenge, the same man behind Factcheck, an organization I have challenged on my blog on numerous accounts. My favourite of these is that they ignored Obama’s support for Illinois Senate Bill 99 when fact checking McCain’s sexual health ad. Yes it is false that the bill passed, but it isn’t false that Obama supported a bill which would have taught masturbation, STDs, rape, etc to kindergartners, something they purposely left out of their fact checking process.
Next, you ignore Obama’s own words in the transcript I quoted during one of my previous posts…
“And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as… as is necessary to keep that child alive, then we are probably crossing the line of unconstitutionality.”
This isn’t about a fetus, as the law points out, this is referring to “previable” babies, full formed infants who survived abortion. As the Illinois law points out,
“Viability” means that stage of fetal development when, in the medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”
In his own words, this isn’t a fetus, but a “previable” baby. He voted against a bill which would guarantee care for these children after a failed abortion, something Obama said was “unconstitutional” in his own words. This isn’t about overturning abortion by providing rights for the fetus at any stage during the pregnancy, as Factcheck claims, this is about providing care for a child who is already born, the product of a botched abortion. This argument they make follows the same “slippery slope” style argument that those who are against the legalization of cannabis use, both being a matter of opinion more than fact. Read the legal code before you quote it.
By the way, Obama’s election to the Senate in 2004 is not because 70% of voters agreed with him, as Factcheck claims, it is because the Republican who defeated him in 2000 was involved in a sex scandal. You see, you just can’t trust them can you?
2. and 3. Now what we have here is a misrepresentation of the facts. As Doc stated in the comments below the utterly confusing and downright useless piece you linked to,
“The no tax line is based upon the fact that after they file taxes, the deductions these persons are allowed to claim amount to a figure that is greater than their tax liablility. Thus, their refund creates a net balance in the taxpayer’s favor. Thus, over 50% of the people don’t actually pay any income taxes.”
I think that was well enough explained, so let’s go on to the other point. A tax on individuals with GROSS income of $250,000 a year. The article you quote is from the New York Times, a biased source, which vaguely uses the words “makes”, ignoring the actually wording of Barack proposal which states “gross income”. What is the difference between income and gross income? Gross income is what an individual or business brings in before costs, thus REVENUE. My argument stands, taxing revenue will affect more than half of America’s businesses, not just the extremely wealthy. Take a course in economics before challenging someone with an economics background like myself with this kind of garbage.
4. In his own words “No one is talking about attacking Pakistan… but if they get in our sights, we take them out.” This comes right from the second debate, look it up if you don’t believe me. He also said during the primaries that he would invade Pakistan and take out Osama bin Laden because “that is where he is” and being the genius that Obama claims to be, that is what must be done. He ignores that fact that Pakistan IS an ally in the War on Terror, he ignores that al-Qaeda in Pakistan is working with tribal leaders and NOT the government proper, he ignores that announcing attacks across the border and doing so without Pakistan’s approval is a violation of the country’s sovereignty, and he all this undermines the authority of country’s leaders. Where is my mistake there? You can’t go quoting Obama one day since he has changed his stance so much on a variety of issues this year alone. Forget about public financing?
5. McCain is against torture, and he is also against giving power to Congress to cap intelligence spending. He asked Bush to veto that bill everyone is talking about, not because it including a ban on waterboarding, but because Democrats sneaked in legislation which would have given them control of funding for agencies like the CIA, an agency which many analysts say is under funded already. You have to understand that bills including all kind of “goodies” people sneak into it for one reason or another. The most popular one of these was the Democrats put forward to allow for troop funding, something they blocked numerous times in 2006, contained their “timetable to withdrawl”. Republicans didn’t vote against this bill because it was funding troops, but because it would set a date which would force the end of military action in Iraq, ignoring General Petraeus’ demands for setting conditions for withdrawl.
As for all this talk about Powell’s endorsement, Time Online put out an article on this discussing the real reasons for his support for Obama. You would have to be an idiot to believe his Meet the Press rhetoric, especially when this man has an axe to grind with the RNC as well as President George W. Bush. Larry Elder, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, etc have given these reasons which you won’t listen to. I have stated clearly that their was no real substance to Powell’s claims last week.
The economic crisis? Excuse me, but when the first bailout bill failed, Obama was on the campaign trail. All it would have taken was 12 votes, and him, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats leaders didn’t do a thing to get them. His “call me if you need help” approach cost the markets 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. How is that a good response to the economic crisis? Matter of fact, his work with ACORN previously and his lack of support for regulations on Freddie-Mac and Fannie-Mae, the latter of which is funding his campaign, actually helped this crisis occur. Even Bill Clinton is pointing the blame squarely at Democrats, what don’t you understand?
Depth of knowledge? On what? This man didn’t even know Canada had a Prime-Minister. Just because he has an ivy-league education, doesn’t mean he is knowledgeable. He didn’t know Rev Wright was preaching antisemitic and racial hatred at Trinity United? Knowledge and judgment are definitely not his strong suits.
The inclusivity of his campaign? I have spoken a few times on his change in treatment to the press once he got the Democratic nomination, and now he is charging $2000 a head for the press to get into his “celebration party” on November 4th. He has done his best to keep the press out these last months, that isn’t inclusive. He has called a variety of people racist, including the ENTIRE Republican party, on numerous occasions. You don’t include people by insulting and alienating them. He has also gone against crossing the floor to bring in Republicans, quoted as saying “I don’t work with those guys” when asked about why he didn’t reach out to Republicans when the first bailout bill failed. He also refused to vet Hillary Clinton during his search for a running-mate and chose Biden after John Edwards’ sex scandal broke. Too bad it didn’t break later… This action alienated a significant portion of Clinton supporters, which have turned to John McCain, including PUMA.
Forget the rest of the garbage and let’s call a spade a spade. There was nothing in his Meet the Press interview that changed critics minds about the motives for his endorsement of Barack Obama. As Levin himself pointed out, if this was months in the making, as Time Online has stated, and that rhetoric is all Powell could come up with in all the time of planning his back-stabbing, then he is dumber than we thought he was.
You then go on to twist my words about corrupt black politicians, attack me for not mentioning that white people also support Obama (NEWSFLASH Tom Hanks ISN’T BLACK), then go off and take one more jab by saying my opinion doesn’t really matter since I am Canadian and I don’t get to vote anyways. If an outsider like me can see what you can’t, it doesn’t mean I am ill-informed, it means you have “drank too much Kool-Aid”. Once again, I will stick to Spike Lee’s, Sherri Shepard’s, P. Diddy’s, etc assertions that supporting him is because you need to “help a brotha out” and “make the White House the Black House”. No I didn’t forget that some blacks are voting simply because he is Democrat, but you are forgetting that some people are voting for him who don’t even know he is a Democrat. We could also discuss the fact that some people will vote Democrat because they believe Republicans are racist (forgetting that the Democrats were pro-slavery, created the KKK which terrorized blacks and Republicans, and enacted the Jim Crow laws), or that they aren’t voting for McCain because he is seen as racist for being white, but let’s not get overly confused about everyone else’s motives when Powell, the man who is a big backer of “affirmative action”, is the one we should be discussing.
It maybe be rude, but it isn’t presumptuous, nor ignorant of me to say. This maybe the first time I have commented on this blog, but you are assuming it is the first time I visited here. I find most of your stuff to be ill-informed and just more of the same “party line” garbage floating around. If I commented on every blog I read that I disagreed with, I wouldn’t even have time to write my own blog posts. I commented on this one simply because I am a little offended you would give weight to Powell’s words when he has back-stabbed the very party which gave him his big break into politics when Reagan “plucked him from obscurity” and promoted him. Once again, read the Time article on this, he real motives as any idiot can see where race, a common liberal view point with the guy, his disdain for the Republicans now and his own delusioned self-importance.
Do research before criticizing me, it might spare you another humiliating correction like this one.
P.S. Canadian care because what happens to you happens to us, especially economically, or don’t you know of our strong economic ties?
Oh my good lord, this guy makes me want to barf in my mouth. Yeesh.
I’m not even bothering to read what this Canadian asshole said until he apologizes for sending us Avril Lavigne.
Apologize for Avril Lavigne? Excuse me? What does any of that have to do with the validity of my comments? Typical lefties, you don’t like what you hear, you decide to overreact and go full on loopy…
How about adding something intelligent to the conversation instead of “barf” on the comments section?
I demand an apology.
What a freak.
Wow, Red. You really tickled Clancop’s indignancy prostate! Nice work!
I wish I had his (her?) time and energy to be so utterly consumed with sound and fury over a blog post. But you know what they say; those who crow the loudest, care the most.
Well, the Goldwater clan is voting for Obama because McCain’s not a real Republican.
Why McCain Has Lost Our Vote