Comments on: Colin Powell: Republican

By: KFIR

KFIR — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:13:33 +0000

ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS!

By: JSharke

JSharke — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:08:17 +0000

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"Your incessant attempts to defend the Bush policies and the Bush legacy are precisely what will keep the GOP from recovering."

Really? I'm what's keeping the GOP from recovering? Little 'ole me? *Shucks*

But yes, I will defend whichever of Bush's policies I feel are worthy of defense. No more, no less. My doing so will harm the GOP not one bit. Also, with Obama currently in the process of screwing the nation up beyond anything we've seen in US history (just look at the projected deficits) and proving that he's not the "pragmatic centrist" he fooled independents into believing he was, the GOP is set to look more attractive than ever. We'll see this, of course, in 2010.

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"The public was willing to elect an ultra-liberal with no executive experience in a time of war, rather than go with the Bush policies again. That should tell you how unpopular those policies are."

Rather, it tells me just how disgracefully unprofessional, counter-objective and hysterically biased the liberal mainstream media was in their agenda-driven promotion of perhaps the worst US Presidential candidate in history. They managed, for example, to convince the masses that the economic crash, caused mainly by a combination of Democrat policy and the Federal Reserve, was the fault of Bush and "deregulation." They also failed to ask any important questions about their Messiah, acted like a promotional wing of the Obama campaign and catapulted him into celebrity status in perhaps the shallowest, image-driven campaign in modern history.

The public (well, slightly over half of them) was prepared to elect a man many thought was someone entirely different, thanks to the mainstream liberal media and the bang-up job they did in promoting such an awful candidate. Of course, the utter ham-fisted, lily-livered incompetence of the McCain campaign didn't exactly hurt.

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"Yet you love those policies, you keep defending those policies, at a time when the public is glad to have been rid of Bush and his policies."

Stop being so infantile Sinz. You do yourself no favors by sounding like a teenager posting comments to YouTube. I "love" those policies? Why bother use such a glaringly inappropriate and exaggerated word like "love"? I don't "love" the policies of Bush, I simply see value in some of them, not all. I'm hardly sittin' up a tree with the man. Bush was by no means a fantastic President, he was a good one. He was by no means anywhere near as incompetent as the liberal media and blogosphere painted him as. The anti-Bush hysteria of the last 8 years long since lost any possible claim of objectivity and quickly descended into the kind of shrill histrionics which have ruined political discourse in recent years.

By: JSharke

JSharke — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:54:21 +0000

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"But all this points up an important point: The rationales for the Iraq War kept sliding around. Bush didn't dare tell the American people what the ORIGINAL reason was--the one spelled out by the Project for a New American Century. It was to smash Iraq to avenge Vietnam and demonstrate to the whole world that America was "indomitable" (their word) as it had been in World War II."

Don't be so childish. That is nothing more than the stuff of college-level conjecture. It was "to avenge Vietnam"? I'm not even going to dignify that inanity with a reply. Again, the reasons for going to war in Iraq were clear, were stated and were fully justified.

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"The Iraq War was a perversion of true conservatism. It represented a kind of naked Wilsonian adventurism that had always been associated with DEMOCRATS, never conservatives."

If the reason for going to war in Iraq was one based on American interests - ultimately, the protection of American citizens, the #1 reason for the existence of our military in the first place - then it was not at odds with conservative values at all.

By: JSharke

JSharke — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:52:22 +0000

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"JSharke asks: 'why was Saddam given an ultimatum: step down as leader of the Ba'ath Party and allow a successor to take over, or we'll take you out by force?' Because that was a lie. Kristol and Wolfowitz wanted regime change as far back as the 1990s. The ultimatum was pure public relations."

So what? The Democrats wanted regime change all throughout the 90's also. There is a C-SPAN video on YouTube from the early 90's which features Al Gore castigating the first President Bush for failing to remove Saddam. And also, how does wanting regime change as early as the '90's mean that the ultimatum was a "lie"? Removing Saddam from power one way or another was always going to be a "regime change." The logic of the ultimatum was that a Ba'athist successor to Saddam would surely realize that if he behaved in the same way as his predecessor then he too would face the same ultimatum.

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"And the proof is that Bush kept touting "building a democracy" in Iraq, on the (false) theory that democracies don't foment terrorism. Bush was careful never to remind Americans that he had made this, uh, offer you speak of."

I didn't actually catch anything that made sense in that paragraph. Firstly, Bush promoting democracy is not "proof" of anything you are trying to assert here. Secondly, democracy might not be a guarantee of the end of terrorism but you cannot deny that the spread of democracy has been, along with free trade, the greatest contributor to world peace in human history. In case you hadn't realized, capitalist democracies don't go to war with each other (there's no reason to.) Thirdly, there was never any attempt to hide the ultimatum made to Saddam. It was headline news.

Sinz54@8:53 AM:
"The U.S. invaded Iraq to act in what Bush perceived was our own self-interest. That's what he said, at the 2004 GOP Convention. He didn't DARE tell the American people, after years of war and thousands of deaths, that we were only acting to support U.N. resolutions. He might have lost the 2004 election if he had."

Again, you're constructing a straw man argument in your insinuation that anyone is claiming that the reason we went to war was merely that Saddam was disobedient to the UN. The reality is that the reasons for the resolutions would have existed whether the UN laid them down formally or not. It was the reasons behind the resolutions - the grave threat that Saddam imposed to the rest of the world - that necessitated war, not the technical existence of UN resolutions per se out of the context of geopolitical reality. We went to war mainly for US interests, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to go to war. The castration of the power of a psychotic, reckless tyrant like Saddam, poised as he was to develop nuclear weapons within a very short time, was imperative and entirely related to the interests of America and Americans. Go read "The Bomb In My Garden" - every doubting American should.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:07:57 +0000

barker13: Bruce Bartlett isn't repeating his reasons for leaving the GOP in this thread. But here's a quote from him:

"Democrats finally accepted that applying ideological litmus tests was self-defeating. If some moderate or conservative wanted to run in a district that would only elect a moderate or conservative, then it was stupid to insist that they endorse every liberal item in the Democratic agenda. Moderates and conservatives were permitted to dissent from the party line on issues such as gun control if that was what it took to win.

"This 'big tent' approach was highly successful and greatly helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006. What probably hurt congressional Republicans the most, however, was their down-the-line support for every action by George W. Bush, no matter how ill-conceived, poorly implemented or at odds with the party's basic philosophy, such as when he insisted on a massive expansion of Medicare in 2003.

"As a consequence, the Republican brand was destroyed. The party is now widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent, ideologically rigid and out of step with the American mainstream. It should be engaging in self-examination, developing an agenda that addresses the real problems faced by Americans and reaching out to the millions of voters who have left the GOP in recent years. Instead, Republicans are pushing out the last of the party's moderates as if that will somehow make them more popular with the very moderates whose votes are essential if they are to regain power."

http://tinyurl.com/d8yvwz

Jsharke: Your incessant attempts to defend the Bush policies and the Bush legacy are precisely what will keep the GOP from recovering.

The public was willing to elect an ultra-liberal with no executive experience in a time of war, rather than go with the Bush policies again. That should tell you how unpopular those policies are.

Yet you love those policies, you keep defending those policies, at a time when the public is glad to have been rid of Bush and his policies.

The GOP won't recover till it rids itself of the Bush legacy, much as the Dems had to rid themselves of the Vietnam and Carterite legacies.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:01:11 +0000

barker13 and JSharke: In 1980, conservatives cheered when Democrats like Roy Innis (Congress of Racial Equality), Ben Wattenberg, and Jeane Kirkpatrick endorsed Reagan for President. Don't you remember the famous "Reagan Democrats"?

We didn't say they were "having a temper tantrum."

When the leader of your party drags America into disaster, your responsibility as a citizen transcends your responsibility as a party member. You should do whatever you think necessary to help the nation.

And that's true whether the standard-bearer of your party is named Jimmy Carter, or is named George W. Bush. Both men badly damaged the nation. And I'm sorry that both of them ever became President.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:53:55 +0000

JSharke asks: "why was Saddam given an ultimatum: step down as leader of the Ba'ath Party and allow a successor to take over, or we'll take you out by force?"

Because that was a lie.
Kristol and Wolfowitz wanted regime change as far back as the 1990s. The ultimatum was pure public relations.

And the proof is that Bush kept touting "building a democracy" in Iraq, on the (false) theory that democracies don't foment terrorism. Bush was careful never to remind Americans that he had made this, uh, offer you speak of.

The U.S. invaded Iraq to act in what Bush perceived was our own self-interest. That's what he said, at the 2004 GOP Convention. He didn't DARE tell the American people, after years of war and thousands of deaths, that we were only acting to support U.N. resolutions. He might have lost the 2004 election if he had.

But all this points up an important point: The rationales for the Iraq War kept sliding around.

Bush didn't dare tell the American people what the ORIGINAL reason was--the one spelled out by the Project for a New American Century. It was to smash Iraq to avenge Vietnam and demonstrate to the whole world that America was "indomitable" (their word) as it had been in World War II.

The Iraq War was a perversion of true conservatism. It represented a kind of naked Wilsonian adventurism that had always been associated with DEMOCRATS, never conservatives.

By: bartlettb

bartlettb — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:08:41 +0000

I repeat that I am not deleting anyone’s posts. This is not my web site and I don’t have the power to do so even if I wanted to. Bruce Bartlett

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:53:49 +0000

Faster Brucy Faster! …walk faster and keep deleting my post that ask why Colin Powell should be held to a different standard than other GOP members?What a weak person you are to keep deleting this question.

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:47:35 +0000

Re: Bartlettb; 4:45 PM --

"I also voted for Obama despite having spent my life working in Republican politics because I was--and still am--disgusted with the Republican Party for various reasons that I partially explained in my Impostor book."

OK. So... you're saying you had a temper tantrum...??? Other than "punishing" the GOP, did you have any "patriotic" reason for voting for Obama as opposed to say... voting for Bob Barr or your former boss Ron Paul?

Don't get me wrong, I understand and actually respect anger and a desire to "punish," but surely that can't be the be all and end all of your voting for Obama - you must have had some other reason... or am I wrong?

Take me for example. I voted for John Hall in '06 in order to FIRE my (then) RINO Congresswoman Sue Kelly.

HOWEVER... in "firing" her my ultimate goal was to push the GOP back to brand of fiscal conservatism by getting rid of a RINO who talked the talk but didn't walk the walk - not just on financial issues, but on a whole host of issues.

In other words, I was voting to cut off my nose to spite my face in the NEAR term with my mid and long term hope being to return true conservatism to control of Congress sometime in the future.

Now I've already explained my vote for Barr as opposed to McCain. Again, my reasoning (whether you buy it or not) was ultimately "pro-conservative" as I define conservatism; you're reasoning though... to vote for Obama simply to punish the GOP... that doesn't sound "noble" in the least - it comes across as petulant and petty.

Re: Franco; 5:56 PM --

"Funny how people who vote for far left wing Democrats as the alternative to voting McCain want to re-invent the Republican party. I suggest they go re-invent themselves into a coherent political philosophy."

I'm with Franco.

I've gotta be honest, I'm trying to understand your various positions, Mr. Bartlett, squaring them with your biography vs. your postings... truth be told, I'm left scratching my head.

BILL