8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Colin Powell has announced his backing of the President for a second election term.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican party during the 2008 election, to endorse then-candidate Barack Obama for president, calling Obama a "transformational figure."
With 12 days to go before the presidential election, Powell publicly endorsed President Obama for re-election on "CBS This Morning" Thursday
"I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012 and I'll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month."
Powell explained his choice to Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell:
When he took over, the country was in very very difficult straits. We were in the one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression. The fiscal system was collapsing. Wall Street was in chaos, we had 800,000 jobs lost in that first month of the Obama administration and unemployment peaked a few months later at 10 percent. So we were in real trouble. The auto industry was collapsing, the housing was start[ing] to collapse and we were in very difficult straits. And I saw over the next several years, stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it's starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising."
Summarizing the past four years under Obama, Powell said "Generally we've come out of the dive and we're starting to gain altitude." He acknowledged that problems remain, saying "The unemployment rate is too high, people are still hurting in housing but I see that we're starting to rise up."
Turning to foreign policy, Powell said he saw "the president get us of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars. And finally I think that the actions he has taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very very solid. And so, I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on."
Powell expressed his concern about Republican candidate Mitt Romney's changing positions on international affairs. "The governor who was saying things at the debate on Monday night ... was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier. I'm not quite sure which Gov. Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy."
"One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal, same thing in Iraq. On almost every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Governor Romney agreed with the President with some nuances. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign. And my concern ... is that sometimes I don't sense that he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have."
Powell also said that he has given close consideration to Romney's domestic policies. "As I listen to what his proposals are especially with respect to dealing with respect to our most significant issue, the economy, it's essentially let's cut taxes and compensate for that with other things but that compensation does not cover all of the cuts intended or the new expenses associated with defense."
Powell said that he did not give either candidate early notice of his endorsement, but that he has "the utmost respect for" and spoke to Gov. Romney several weeks ago, and speaks to President Obama regularly.
He added that with this endorsement, he "signed on for a long patrol with President Obama" and that he feels more comfortable with Obama's stances on climate change, immigration, and education.
Powell also criticized congressional leaders for not living up to their responsibilities, mainly around resolving the approaching fiscal cliff.
"The major problem faced either by Gov. Romney or President Obama, whoever wins the election, is going to be what to do about the fiscal cliff we're about to fly over," Powell said.
"This is something that was put in place by Congress and while we're talking about the two candidates for president let's not forget that Congress bears a lot of responsibility for many of the problems that we have now. They're the ones that write the appropriations bills. They're the ones that pass the legislation for more spending and for the various entitlement programs that people have trouble with."
Gen. Powell last joined "CBS This Morning" in June, and at the time remained noncommittal about his support for either candidate in the race for the White House. "Whatever judgement I have right now would be incomplete. I haven't seen everything that Mitt Romney is going to do. I haven't seen how our economy is going to play out," he said in June.
And, despite his endorsement of a Democratic candidate in two presidential elections, Powell says he remains a Republican. "I think I'm a Republican of a more moderate mold," he said before adding, "That's something of a dying breed I'm sorry to say."
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I'd like to endorse Colin Powell for president instead.
29110
Post by: AustonT
I think most people really expected it at one time and I think if he had run he would have gotten a landslide vote. But if you were GEN Powell wouldn't the Bush administration have ruined it for you too?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:Colin Powell has announced his backing of the President for a second election term.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican party during the 2008 election, to endorse then-candidate Barack Obama for president, calling Obama a "transformational figure."
With 12 days to go before the presidential election, Powell publicly endorsed President Obama for re-election on "CBS This Morning" Thursday
"I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012 and I'll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month."
Powell explained his choice to Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell:
When he took over, the country was in very very difficult straits. We were in the one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression. The fiscal system was collapsing. Wall Street was in chaos, we had 800,000 jobs lost in that first month of the Obama administration and unemployment peaked a few months later at 10 percent. So we were in real trouble. The auto industry was collapsing, the housing was start[ing] to collapse and we were in very difficult straits. And I saw over the next several years, stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it's starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising."
Summarizing the past four years under Obama, Powell said "Generally we've come out of the dive and we're starting to gain altitude." He acknowledged that problems remain, saying "The unemployment rate is too high, people are still hurting in housing but I see that we're starting to rise up."
Turning to foreign policy, Powell said he saw "the president get us of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars. And finally I think that the actions he has taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very very solid. And so, I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on."
Powell expressed his concern about Republican candidate Mitt Romney's changing positions on international affairs. "The governor who was saying things at the debate on Monday night ... was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier. I'm not quite sure which Gov. Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy."
"One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal, same thing in Iraq. On almost every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Governor Romney agreed with the President with some nuances. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign. And my concern ... is that sometimes I don't sense that he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have."
Powell also said that he has given close consideration to Romney's domestic policies. "As I listen to what his proposals are especially with respect to dealing with respect to our most significant issue, the economy, it's essentially let's cut taxes and compensate for that with other things but that compensation does not cover all of the cuts intended or the new expenses associated with defense."
Powell said that he did not give either candidate early notice of his endorsement, but that he has "the utmost respect for" and spoke to Gov. Romney several weeks ago, and speaks to President Obama regularly.
He added that with this endorsement, he "signed on for a long patrol with President Obama" and that he feels more comfortable with Obama's stances on climate change, immigration, and education.
Powell also criticized congressional leaders for not living up to their responsibilities, mainly around resolving the approaching fiscal cliff.
"The major problem faced either by Gov. Romney or President Obama, whoever wins the election, is going to be what to do about the fiscal cliff we're about to fly over," Powell said.
"This is something that was put in place by Congress and while we're talking about the two candidates for president let's not forget that Congress bears a lot of responsibility for many of the problems that we have now. They're the ones that write the appropriations bills. They're the ones that pass the legislation for more spending and for the various entitlement programs that people have trouble with."
Gen. Powell last joined "CBS This Morning" in June, and at the time remained noncommittal about his support for either candidate in the race for the White House. "Whatever judgement I have right now would be incomplete. I haven't seen everything that Mitt Romney is going to do. I haven't seen how our economy is going to play out," he said in June.
And, despite his endorsement of a Democratic candidate in two presidential elections, Powell says he remains a Republican. "I think I'm a Republican of a more moderate mold," he said before adding, "That's something of a dying breed I'm sorry to say."
Colin Powell is not a Republican.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
You'd actually propose its impossible for a member of one party to endorse a member of another?
That's kind of, odd...
I mean, registered Republicans vote Democrat, and vice versa, every election.
1943
Post by: labmouse42
 Frazzled wrote:Colin Powell is not a Republican.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008.
So anyone who endorsed Obama in 2008 is not a Republican.
You might want to ask Colin Powell what he is registered as before you make that assertion.
Frazzled wrote:In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
Luckily, your not in charge of the party and don't have veto rights on who to include or exclude.
Political parties don't grow in strength through exclusion.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Colin Powell is not a Republican.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008.
Wait, what?
Explain how Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama makes him "not a Republican."
27151
Post by: streamdragon
I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
Wow.
I'm glad that Frazzled is deeply committed to bipartisanship.
29110
Post by: AustonT
streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
Really? I mean it shouldn't come as a shock that the guy tha forms the "Progressive Party" doesn't fit the conservative party mold...
1943
Post by: labmouse42
 streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
Heck, even Regan would be considered to liberal for today's Republican party.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
AustonT wrote:streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
Really? I mean it shouldn't come as a shock that the guy tha forms the "Progressive Party" doesn't fit the conservative party mold...
I didn't say it was shocking, merely that it was hilarious (in that 'laugh until you cry' way) that a man considered one of, if not THE best president in US history would basically be kicked out of the Republican party. It's sad.
I think we need one of the 'RINO' (good lord I want to punch everyone that uses that term, myself included right there) Republicans to form a new Bull Moose party. Also grow a mustache or beard, since apparently Taft was the last sitting president with facial hair...
labmouse42 wrote: streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
Heck, even Regan would be considered to liberal for today's Republican party.
It really is sad. You have a very vocal group that is just dragging the party down down down while the moderate members of the Republican party watch and shake their heads.
221
Post by: Frazzled
LordofHats wrote:You'd actually propose its impossible for a member of one party to endorse a member of another?
That's kind of, odd...
I mean, registered Republicans vote Democrat, and vice versa, every election.
Any prominent member of one party voting and endorsing an opposing party member for the most powerful position in the land - yep they are no longer a member of that party.
Thats why I am an independent. A pox on all their houses.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Reagan is a lot of the reason that vocal group came into power.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Colin Powell is not a Republican.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama in 2008.
Wait, what?
Explain how Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama makes him "not a Republican."
HE endorsed the enemy to the most powerful position in the land. He is personan nongrata in the Republican party. Sorry. Thats life. Automatically Appended Next Post: streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
I didn't know Teddy Roosevelty endorsed Barack Obama. Did they use a clairvoyant?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
I didn't know Teddy Roosevelty endorsed Barack Obama. Did they use a clairvoyant?
Did I say Roosevelt endorsed Obama? I don't think I did. Yup, just re-read my post, and it's still not there.
Perhaps you were thinking "by today's standards" actually meant "by frazz's standards today"?
221
Post by: Frazzled
streamdragon wrote: Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
I didn't know Teddy Roosevelty endorsed Barack Obama. Did they use a clairvoyant?
Did I say Roosevelt endorsed Obama? I don't think I did. Yup, just re-read my post, and it's still not there.
Perhaps you were thinking "by today's standards" actually meant "by frazz's standards today"?
Then maybe it would be better to actually tie your statement to something to do with the thread othe than blowing smoke out your ass, no?
1943
Post by: labmouse42
 AustonT wrote:Reagan is a lot of the reason that vocal group came into power.
That is very true AustonT. A lot of the Regan support came from getting church pastors to mobilize their congression to get out and vote.
The problem is these voters then began pushing their religious beliefs onto their politicians -- and have continued to do so until today.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 labmouse42 wrote: AustonT wrote:Reagan is a lot of the reason that vocal group came into power.
That is very true AustonT. A lot of the Regan support came from getting church pastors to mobilize their congression to get out and vote.
The problem is these voters then began pushing their religious beliefs onto their politicians -- and have continued to do so until today.
Who the hell is this 'Regan' you keep referring to?
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
HE endorsed the enemy to the most powerful position in the land. He is personan nongrata in the Republican party. Sorry. Thats life.
And this is exactly why you're part of the political problem, particularly because you scream, at the top of your girlish lungs, "Bipartisanship."
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote:
HE endorsed the enemy to the most powerful position in the land. He is personan nongrata in the Republican party. Sorry. Thats life.
And this is exactly why you're part of the political problem, particularly because you scream, at the top of your girlish lungs, "Bipartisanship."
I never scream bipartisanship. Its a zero sum game. Break out the knives and lets do this thing. 
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Frazzled wrote: streamdragon wrote: Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
I didn't know Teddy Roosevelty endorsed Barack Obama. Did they use a clairvoyant?
Did I say Roosevelt endorsed Obama? I don't think I did. Yup, just re-read my post, and it's still not there.
Perhaps you were thinking "by today's standards" actually meant "by frazz's standards today"?
Then maybe it would be better to actually tie your statement to something to do with the thread othe than blowing smoke out your ass, no?
Considering this is a thread in which you decry a standing Republican for essentially "not being republican", I would say I have. Teddy did things during his republican presidency that would have current pubs rushing to call him RINO. Hell, he didn't just vote for the democrat when Taft was up for reelection, Teddy RAN AGAINST HIM.
But please, keep lecturing me on keeping things on-topic Frazz, it's hilarious from you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
streamdragon wrote: Frazzled wrote: streamdragon wrote: Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:I find it hilarious to think that Teddy Roosevelt would not be considered a republican by today's standards.
Shows how digustingly far my party has fallen ;_;
I didn't know Teddy Roosevelty endorsed Barack Obama. Did they use a clairvoyant?
Did I say Roosevelt endorsed Obama? I don't think I did. Yup, just re-read my post, and it's still not there.
Perhaps you were thinking "by today's standards" actually meant "by frazz's standards today"?
Then maybe it would be better to actually tie your statement to something to do with the thread othe than blowing smoke out your ass, no?
Considering this is a thread in which you decry a standing Republican for essentially "not being republican", I would say I have. Teddy did things during his republican presidency that would have current pubs rushing to call him RINO. Hell, he didn't just vote for the democrat when Taft was up for reelection, Teddy RAN AGAINST HIM.
But please, keep lecturing me on keeping things on-topic Frazz, it's hilarious from you.
Which affirms that he wasn't a Republican. He joined a completely separate party.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.
Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!
And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.
I'm stunned at how close it is, only In America! If these guys were running in somewhere civilised like the UK, Obama would be 35% ahead in the polls. 
The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron! 
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Orlanth wrote:Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.
Aren't people practically required to vote along party lines there? I thought I remember someone mentioning that?
Because that's not the case in the U.S.
mattyrm wrote:And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.
Can not agree with this more. I like McCain. I like him a lot. Having Palin anywhere near the nuclear launch codes, on the other hand, was simply not an option.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
 mattyrm wrote:The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron!
Welcome to America, the only place where saying someone's a socialist is an insult...
As a nearly socialist democrat, it's gak like that that makes me wonder.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Voting by party in parliament is controlled by the Whips, who come and have words with a member if there seems to be a danger he won't vote with his party.
The only real sanction, though, is to prevent a member from getting cabinet rank if he is on the government benches.
Members are selected to stand by their local party officers, so as long as they stay popular in their constitutency, they can do what they like.
29110
Post by: AustonT
streamdragon wrote:Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.
Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)
Technically he created the Progressive Party.
The Fountain of all Knowledge wrote:The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt
mattyrm wrote:More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!
And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.
I'm stunned at how close it is, only In America! If these guys were running in somewhere civilised like the UK, Obama would be 35% ahead in the polls.
PHILISTINE!
27151
Post by: streamdragon
AustonT wrote:streamdragon wrote:Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.
Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)
Technically he created the Progressive Party.
The Fountain of all Knowledge wrote:The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt
Well yes, the Progressive Party was the Bullmoose Party:
The party also became known as the Bull Moose Party when former President Roosevelt boasted "I'm fit as a bull moose," after being shot in an assassination attempt prior to his 1912 campaign speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
221
Post by: Frazzled
streamdragon wrote:Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.
Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)
True on both counts. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Chowderhead wrote: mattyrm wrote:The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron!
Welcome to America, the only place where saying someone's a socialist is an insult...
As a nearly socialist democrat, it's gak like that that makes me wonder.
Wait wasn't the Nazi Party the Social Democrats...???
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Close. National Socialist German Workers Party... Which oddly enough denounced socialism. And with a name like 'Wokers' in its name you'd expect maybe a little Communism but they hated that too
33125
Post by: Seaward
mattyrm wrote:More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!
I'd take you up on that action if I wasn't convinced a hundred quid is equivalent to around half a million dollars.
29110
Post by: AustonT
No the Progressive party was known as the Bull Moose party, like the Conservative party is known as the Tories.
LordofHats wrote:
Close. National Socialist German Workers Party... Which oddly enough denounced socialism. And with a name like 'Wokers' in its name you'd expect maybe a little Communism but they hated that too
Yeah it was pretty perplexing. Like the GOP calling it self the Gay Athiest Pro Life Crusaders.
1943
Post by: labmouse42
 Orlanth wrote:Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.
And this is the slow death of the Republican party.
Exclusion may work for country clubs, but it does not work for political parties which requires votes.
Keep working that exclusion policy guys -- see how far it gets you.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Exclusion doesn't even work for country clubs. At least, not when saying "the other country club had a nice meal plan" becomes a reason to exclude. I mean, you can only throw out so many people before you're out of people to throw out.
221
Post by: Frazzled
labmouse42 wrote: Orlanth wrote:Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.
And this is the slow death of the Republican party. Exclusion may work for country clubs, but it does not work for political parties which requires votes. Keep working that exclusion policy guys -- see how far it gets you.
Er, its not exclusion when you have a major figure start rooting for the other side. I have faith he'll support whichever party is in power.
34390
Post by: whembly
mattyrm wrote:More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!
And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.
I'm stunned at how close it is, only In America! If these guys were running in somewhere civilised like the UK, Obama would be 35% ahead in the polls.
The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron!
He isn't a commie/socialist... relative to American Politics... he's a leftist (as a whole, we're a nation shifting to the right).
I found this interesting:
So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?
25703
Post by: juraigamer
Probably a complete failure of diplomacy. After all, I recall romney saying something about dropping bombs.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
1943
Post by: labmouse42
 whembly wrote:So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?
Other nations would be less willing to work with us.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
1943
Post by: labmouse42
Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
This.
Remember Bush Jr saying "I don't believe in nation building" during the 2000 election. Bush did not secretly think he was going to be doing nation building the entire time. 9/11 happened. He was fed faulty intelligence and had the US military invade Iraq.
Stuff changes when you take the role of commander in chief.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be? 
20043
Post by: Mattman154
whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be?
Congress.
5534
Post by: dogma
And you never lie either.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Plus I am 6 foot tall, my yard is immaculate, my wife is a good cook, and all my kids are above average.
34390
Post by: whembly
whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be?
That's just about every President's reality...
News flash... Obama had both chambers in both years... 
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:
Plus I am 6 foot tall, my yard is immaculate, my wife is a good cook, and all my kids are above average.
So: American.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Good on Powell for not being a puppet of his party, but showing *gasp* leadership and looking at more than just the letter next to the name.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.
You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one. "Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?" "Is he muttering to a chair?" "Yep." "Clint Eastwood."
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.
You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."
I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.
You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."
I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.
Well, that would require looking up facts, we can't have that now.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.
You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one. "Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?" "Is he muttering to a chair?" "Yep." "Clint Eastwood."
I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.
As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked: He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world. Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too. At least I'm not saying drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.
Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than. At least people outside of Dakka OT listen to their opinion.
Frazzled wrote:At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.
Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote:As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.
Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than.
Frazzled wrote:At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.
Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.
Everyone's attacking poor Frazzled today. Thats ok. Like it or not I'm right. You can't be a player in one political party and endorse the other guy for the highest office in the land. That makes you unperson in that party. Everyone's acting like that's new and Frazzled's nuts, but as noted Leiberman was kicked out. Other's have been kicked out. If you root for the other side your reception in the dugout is pretty icy. If you think otherwise wherever you're living, it sure isn't planet Earth.
Please continue to attack me and the worth of my opinions however, at your leisure. Its fun to watch.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote:As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.
Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than.
Frazzled wrote:At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.
Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.
Everyone's attacking poor Frazzled today. Thats ok. Like it or not I'm right. You can't be a player in one political party and endorse the other guy for the highest office in the land. That makes you unperson in that party. Everyone's acting like that's new and Frazzled's nuts, but as noted Leiberman was kicked out. Other's have been kicked out. If you root for the other side your reception in the dugout is pretty icy. If you think otherwise wherever you're living, it sure isn't planet Earth.
Please continue to attack me and the worth of my opinions however, at your leisure. Its fun to watch.
So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
It's almost like people aren't completely beholden to a single political idealogy in this country.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Cheesecat wrote:So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.
You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.
34390
Post by: whembly
If Powell was running... I'd vote for him  .
I thought he wanted to stay out of politics...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I don't know if it was ever determined if he had intentions to run. Either way, the mass unpopularity of the Bush presidency made running at that time a risky venture, and now he's lost recognition.
34390
Post by: whembly
LordofHats wrote:I don't know if it was ever determined if he had intentions to run. Either way, the mass unpopularity of the Bush presidency made running at that time a risky venture, and now he's lost recognition.
Yeah... that was my point.
Is this his attempt to disengage himself from the unpopular repbulican for future political aspirations?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Doubt it.
Collin is was born in the 30's. EDIT: Checked. He's 75. He'll be 79 by the next election. He's too old to make a good run I think.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
He chosed his family over politics. Read his bio. Its a good read
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mattman154 wrote: whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be?
Congress.
And the economy, the world situation, etc.
The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Ahtman wrote: Cheesecat wrote:So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.
You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.
Is this directed at me (not that I'm mad or anything just curious)?
34390
Post by: whembly
Kilkrazy wrote:Mattman154 wrote: whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be?
Congress.
And the economy, the world situation, etc.
The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.
Right... but *I* believe he's the wrong man for the job...
Every Prez has to deal with those realities.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Cheesecat wrote: Ahtman wrote: Cheesecat wrote:So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.
You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.
Is this directed at me (not that I'm mad or anything just curious)?
I'm just expanding on your point.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Thanks for clearing that up.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Mattman154 wrote: whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: LordofHats wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.
Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.
It's not that, really.
He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.
What realities would that be?
Congress.
And the economy, the world situation, etc.
The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.
Right... but *I* believe he's the wrong man for the job...
Every Prez has to deal with those realities.
Exactly. That is why Romney if elected will find his current intentions will not be able to be carried out as planned and his relationship with the rest of the world will most likely be better than predicted by the chart.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Sobbing from another thread brought back home.
If it hurt your feeling so much that you must carry the tears around like a suitcase being dragged around by a tired salesman boarding his fourth flight, maybe you should have brought it up in the appropriate thread or PM'd people instead of thread jumping. If you wanted to know how you laid out the argument that your own opinion doesn't matter, this would have been the place to redress your grievance over your own words.
Eastwood's (and other actors as well, including Ronald Reagan) words and opinions actually have the ability to make people listen, and even possibly reconsider things on occasion, and are respected on a national level. In other words they have gravitas. You say they are meaningless.
Your words sway no one, and don't even have an effect on state politics, let alone national or even global. So if someone whose opinion actually has influence, power, and heft is meaningless, then someone's opinion that has none of those things would seem to be worth even less.
Or we could recognize how silly it is to dismiss other citizen's thoughts and opinions based solely on their occupation, but I doubt that is going to happen.
20043
Post by: Mattman154
Also Dachshunds are weird
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Dachshunds are cool.
241
Post by: Ahtman
What happens if a dachshund is wearing a bow tie?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Then it has achieved 00 status.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
34390
Post by: whembly
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
nope
1943
Post by: labmouse42
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
Na. You can agree with someone on 90% of issues. Even if Powell does make some choices you disagree with, his overall positions are worthwhile.
At least that's the position of rational people. Irrational people will declare him a traitor to his party and would never vote for Powell because of this endorsement.
34390
Post by: whembly
labmouse42 wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
Na. You can agree with someone on 90% of issues. Even if Powell does make some choices you disagree with, his overall positions are worthwhile.
At least that's the position of rational people. Irrational people will declare him a traitor to his party and would never vote for Powell because of this endorsement.
^^^ ditto
29110
Post by: AustonT
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
No I just think that a C average student from CCNY could do a better job running this country than two clowns from Harvard.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
This is Colin Powell. I vote for him regardless if he's a republican or democrat.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
In a world where tribal alliegances and yay my team boo your team matter more than anything, then sure.
But in a world where a person believes first and foremost in his country, and happens to believe that classic Republican policies are the best way forward, then it's entirely possible to be a true Republican and realise that right now the party has lost its way, and the policies of the other side are better right now. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:HE endorsed the enemy to the most powerful position in the land. He is personan nongrata in the Republican party. Sorry. Thats life.
They're not enemies, they're political rivals.
Pretending they must be bitter enemies who never grant quarter is what the politicians tell the electorate, to get the tribalist nitwits all riled up and ready to vote to beat the evil other.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Party solidarity is important but that doesn't mean you should be a yes man.
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?
Nothing much. I mean, it'd be a bit squirmish for the Australian Treasurer, who said the Republican Party was being taken over by kooks and crazies, but then that guy's got enough of a track record that odds are he'll have said at least five things to cause himself more trouble by then. Basically business would go on. Possibly university students around the world would suddenly get more noisy about Gitmo, now there's a right winger to attack, but that's about it. I mean, what is the world supposed to do? Not trade with the richest nation in the world?
34390
Post by: whembly
 sebster wrote: whembly wrote:So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?
Nothing much. I mean, it'd be a bit squirmish for the Australian Treasurer, who said the Republican Party was being taken over by kooks and crazies, but basically business would go on.
Possibly university students around the world would suddenly get more noisy about Gitmo, now there's a right winger to attack, but that's about it.
Yeah... I agree...
It's just interesting to find out how much more popular Obama is outside of the US... that's all i was pointing out.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Same, the General's a leader and a good man. I also happen to agree with a lot of his policy, but the leadership and being a decent human being go a lot further with me then a platform I happen to like.
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:That's just about every President's reality...
News flash... Obama had both chambers in both years...
It's a mistake to assume that just because your Republican party is an organised, disciplined unit that the opposition Democrats are as well.
I mean, here we've got a thread started because of a news story that's going around the world about a prominent Republican saying he endorses a Democrat. But in 2009 you had Liebermann, a sitting Democrat senator and former vice presidential candidate, saying he would not vote for a single payer option just because the liberal end of his party was for it. Objection for objection sake, against his own party.
So to say 'there were 60 Democrats in the senate' is true, but misses the point of how the Democrats function. Or, well, don't function.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: whembly wrote:That's just about every President's reality...
News flash... Obama had both chambers in both years...
It's a mistake to assume that just because your Republican party is an organised, disciplined unit that the opposition Democrats are as well.
I mean, here we've got a thread started because of a news story that's going around the world about a prominent Republican saying he endorses a Democrat. But in 2009 you had Liebermann, a sitting Democrat senator and former vice presidential candidate, saying he would not vote for a single payer option just because the liberal end of his party was for it. Objection for objection sake, against his own party.
So to say 'there were 60 Democrats in the senate' is true, but misses the point of how the Democrats function. Or, well, don't function.
Wait... what?
Look... I'm NOT just talking about Obamacare... that was probably the most unpopular option he took.
He could've fought for rolling back the Bush's taxs cut...
He could've fought for the Dream Act...
He could've done many other things during that time, but he wanted to something the ended up being EXTREMELY unpopular with the American public. So, he blew his load on this.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Everyone's attacking poor Frazzled today. Thats ok. Like it or not I'm right. You can't be a player in one political party and endorse the other guy for the highest office in the land. That makes you unperson in that party. Everyone's acting like that's new and Frazzled's nuts, but as noted Leiberman was kicked out.
Lieberman wasn't kicked out. He lost his primary, and ran as an independant, and won, while receiving support from prominent Democrats including Obama. He was counted as part of the Democrat's 60 senators in the super majority. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Doubt it.
Collin is was born in the 30's. EDIT: Checked. He's 75. He'll be 79 by the next election. He's too old to make a good run I think.
If he was any chance of 2016 run he'd have some momentum behind him already. When you don't build these things out from 4 or 8 before hand, well you get stuff like the last Republican primary. The only guy that was ever seriously going to win that was the one guy who'd been seriously running for 8 year before. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jihadin wrote:He chosed his family over politics. Read his bio. Its a good read
That's what everyone says when things don't fall right and their chance at the presidency disappears.
It's probably what John Edwards is saying.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Cooool.
If also wearing a fez, then COOOOOOOL!
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:Wait... what?
Look... I'm NOT just talking about Obamacare... that was probably the most unpopular option he took.
He could've fought for rolling back the Bush's taxs cut...
He could've fought for the Dream Act...
He could've done many other things during that time, but he wanted to something the ended up being EXTREMELY unpopular with the American public. So, he blew his load on this.
Yeah, and I'm trying to explain to you that party discipline is something that is something that happens to political organisations that aren't the Democrats. Soon as they hit that fillibuster proof 60 votes in the senate, the Blue Dogs immediately stepped outside the party and started negotiating from their new position of strength, with not one thought for party loyalty. That's not a criticism of the blue dogs, personally I think with the way the US system is structured that things can only really work when party loyalty is weak.
And you're just wrong about the unpopularity of healthcare reform. You couldn't have found an issue that had more people on both sides agreeing that reform was needed. The problem came in small part from the Republicans running a pure spoiler campaign, and large part from the Democrats collapsing into an internal debate over the best alternative that they somehow played out in the national media, only presenting an overall policy structure extremely late in the process... and as a result spent no time selling the bill to the population.
8221
Post by: Zathras
This is a non-issue in my opinion. Powell endorced Obama in 2008. Did it help him get elected? Nope. Will his endorcement help Obama in anyway this time around? Again the answer is no.
49775
Post by: DIDM
Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote:Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.
do you know history at all?
the two parties are almost exact opposites of what they once were
Republicans freed the slaves, remember that?
41291
Post by: Troy
A bow tied, fez wearing dachshund, in a tuxedo is the Austin Powers of canines.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
And here he comes, John Sununu, gaffe spouting yet again. Apparently Powell was just supporting Obama (history's greatest monster) due to them being 'brothers'...
Good fething grief, this man is the Romney campaign chairman.
Former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, a co-chair of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's campaign, said in an interview Thursday night that retired Gen. Colin Powell's decision to endorse President Barack Obama's re-election bid appeared to have been driven by race.
However, Sununu later seemed to reverse himself.
"Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder if that's an endorsement based on issues, or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama?" Sununu said on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight."
"What reason would that be?" a somewhat-perplexed sounding Morgan replied.
"Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him," Sununu said.
(Also on POLITICO: Cory Booker: Sununu's comment "dumb")
A few hours after the CNN interview, Sununu issued a statement appearing to back away from the comment.
"Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the president’s policies. Piers Morgan’s question was whether Colin Powell should leave the party, and I don’t think he should," Sununu said.
Powell, who like Obama is African American, made no mention of the president's race in announcing the endorsement on Thursday. Appearing on "CBS This Morning," Powell credited Obama with reversing the country's abrupt economic downturn and expressed general approval of the president's policies on issues ranging from national security to climate change to health care reform.
“I think, generally, we’ve come out of the [economic] dive and we’re starting to gain altitude,” said Powell, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “It doesn’t mean all our problems are solved....But I see that we are starting to rise up."
"I also saw the president get us out of one war, start to get us out of a second war, and did not get us into any new wars," Powell added. "The actions that he has taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very, very solid."
Powell also suggested that the tax cuts Romney has touted could not be offset by reductions in spending.
In the CBS interview, Powell did express personal loyalty towards Obama. "I signed on for a long patrol with President Obama and I don't think this is the time to make such a sudden change," the retired general said.
Powell also accused Romney of changing his foreign policy positions in recent months. "This is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign," Powell said. "Sometimes, I don't sense that he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have."
"I think there are some very, very strong neoconservative views that are presented by the governor that I have some trouble with," Powell said.
Sununu, a regular surrogate for Romney's campaign, has made several provocative comments in recent months.
"I wish this president would learn how to be an American," Sununu said during a Romney campaign-organized conference call in July. He later apologized for the remark.
In an interview earlier this month, after the first presidential debate, Sununu called Obama "lazy and detached." The statement prompted MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell to suggest that Sununu might want to take his comments back, but the former White House chief of staff more or less repeated the statement. "He didn't want to prepare for this debate. He's lazy and disengaged," Sununu said.
Sununu served as governor of New Hampshire for about six years in the 1980s and was President George H.W. Bush's first chief of staff.
UPDATE (Friday, 12:33 A.M.): This post has been updated with Sununu's statement seeking to clarify his remarks about Powell.
That's this Sununu btw...
Sununu angered some when he was the only governor of a U.S. state not to call for repeal of the controversial UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 ("Zionism is Racism"). He later reversed his position on this issue and supported the Republicans' pro-Israel 1988 platform.[13]
As White House Chief of Staff, Sununu reportedly took personal trips, for skiing and other purposes, and classified them as official, for purposes such as conservation or promoting the Thousand Points of Light.[17] The Washington Post wrote that Sununu's jets "took him to fat-cat Republican fund-raisers, ski lodges, golf resorts and even his dentist in Boston."[17] Sununu had paid the government only $892 for his more than $615,000 worth of military jet travel.[18] Sununu said that his use of the jets was necessary because he had to be near a telephone at all times for reasons of national security.[19] Sununu became the subject of much late-night television humor over the incident.[17] Sununu worsened the situation shortly afterwards when, after leaking rumors of financial difficulties in his family, he traveled to a rare stamp auction at Christie's auction house in New York City from Washington in a government limousine, spending $5,000 on rare stamps.[20] Sununu then sent the car and driver back to Washington unoccupied while he returned on a corporate jet.[20] In the course of one week, 45 newspapers ran editorials on Sununu, nearly all of them critical of his actions.[21]
Sununu repaid over $47,000 to the government for the flights on the orders of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, with the help of the Republican Party.[22] However, the reimbursements were at commercial rates, which are about one-tenth the cost of the actual flights; one ski trip to Vail, Colorado alone had cost taxpayers $86,330.[23]
20043
Post by: Mattman154
Does he just apologize for everything he says?
29110
Post by: AustonT
I hope not, then he and Obama would have to go on Apology Tours together...POW!
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
AustonT wrote:
I hope not, then he and Obama would have to go on Apology Tours together...POW!
Obama was apologizing for the last republican administration...
BAM!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Sunununu and Cutter needs to get FIRED.
29110
Post by: AustonT
MeanGreenStompa wrote: AustonT wrote:
I hope not, then he and Obama would have to go on Apology Tours together...POW!
Obama was apologizing for the last republican administration...
BAM!
I feel like you don't get the spirit of the Pow. How could you with your head so deep in the sand.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
AustonT wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote: AustonT wrote:
I hope not, then he and Obama would have to go on Apology Tours together...POW!
Obama was apologizing for the last republican administration...
BAM!
I feel like you don't get the spirit of the Pow. How could you with your head so deep in the sand.
Then why don't you explain it, for the good of the class?
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Moderate Republican? Grandpa, what's that? Are they socialists?
18698
Post by: kronk
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?
He'd have had to have been caught doing a whole boy scout troop or have killed more dogs than Michal Vick to have kept me from voting for him in 2000.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Powell is good. Like McCain was good back in 2000. I'm glad Powell hasn't run, so the slander machines of guys like Karl Rove couldn't smear his name and force him to toe the party line like they did to McCain.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Bromsey...I'm evil...I'm going to remind you of the 6 months after election on why the other guy lost, possible voter fraud, swing states that suprise everyone...and all that craziness
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I've never blocked anyone on these forums... but you asking for it, buddy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Don't hate on me Bromsy...I was going through all my boxes of Sprue to build fortification..and found to my pleasant suprise...I forgot I had them...a box of noise marines...
12313
Post by: Ouze
I agree on the former so, so very much., Sununu is one of the biggest toolboxes in existence in my opinion.
I don't know who Cutter is though.
54233
Post by: AduroT
 Bromsy wrote:I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
Sorry, but after the election we'll have At Least two months of recounts and voting fraud conspiracies.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 AduroT wrote: Bromsy wrote:I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
Sorry, but after the election we'll have At Least two months of recounts and voting fraud conspiracies.
2 months, huh? My co-worker is still bitching about how Franken stole the election.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
AduroT wrote: Bromsy wrote:I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
Sorry, but after the election we'll have At Least two months of recounts and voting fraud conspiracies.
If Obama wins you will have four years of voting fraud conspiracies.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kilkrazy wrote: AduroT wrote: Bromsy wrote:I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
Sorry, but after the election we'll have At Least two months of recounts and voting fraud conspiracies.
If Obama wins you will have four years of voting fraud conspiracies.
Yes. It's only ever Republicans who are bad. Democrats were the height of rational, polite opposition during the Bush years.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Some Democrats behaved badly, no doubt.
Some Republicans will continue to behave badly if Romney fails.
Viz. the Birthers.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
 Seaward wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: AduroT wrote: Bromsy wrote:I can't wait until this election is over, so I can get eleven months or so of peace before they start in on the next one.
Sorry, but after the election we'll have At Least two months of recounts and voting fraud conspiracies.
If Obama wins you will have four years of voting fraud conspiracies.
Yes. It's only ever Republicans who are bad. Democrats were the height of rational, polite opposition during the Bush years.
Democrat bad is having an affair or smoking pot in college, republican bad is massive corruption, interfering with the voting, starting up false wars and dragging the nation to the edge of the fiscal abyss.
33125
Post by: Seaward
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Democrat bad is having an affair or smoking pot in college, republican bad is massive corruption, interfering with the voting, starting up false wars and dragging the nation to the edge of the fiscal abyss.
What would scare me is if you actually believed that.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Seaward wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Democrat bad is having an affair or smoking pot in college, republican bad is massive corruption, interfering with the voting, starting up false wars and dragging the nation to the edge of the fiscal abyss.
What would scare me is if you actually believed that.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
That was a lame movie Tim Burton hasn't made a real good film in a long time.
|
|
