Colin Powel endorsing Obama

[John317]

Quote:

I believe Powell can now kiss the Republican party and any chance of running for office on a Republican ticket good-bye.

Powell has no ambition to run for political office. He is 71 years old now. He has said he would consider serving an appointed position if asked. Probably something like being an ambassador to some high-profile nation or to the UN.

Yes, I agree. He had a chance in 1996 and 2000, and he decided against it.

I think one reason he didn't run, too, was because of his wife. He didn't want to put her through all the things that would have been necessary to run.

[carolaa]

One reason that Powell has never been on a national ticket or run for the Presidency is that he never would have been able to win the base of the Republican party.

Another reason is that Republicans rarely support people of color.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think that is accurate. Republicans placed the first black man on the Supreme Court. Republicans also appointed the first black man as Secretary of State and the first black woman as Secretary of State.

[olger]

Powell is free to endorse who he wishes. Don't care about that.

It is true that McCain & the majority of Republicans have wandered away from the Reagan principles. I would like to see them come back. What they really need is Jesus.

oG

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

One reason that Powell has never been on a national ticket or run for the Presidency is that he never would have been able to win the base of the Republican party.

Another reason is that Republicans rarely support people of color.

Has nothing to do with color. It has everything to do with political positions and philosophies.

[John317]

And it was largely Republicans who helped pass the Civil Rights laws of 1964. Without them, it never would have passed. That is often forgotten.

Consider the votes and compare Republican vote with Democrat vote:

By party

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[carolaa]

Well, for some reason, there aren't a lot of Republicans of color.

[John317]

It used to be the other way around. Blacks largely switched parties in 1932 to 1936 in consequence of the depression and FDRs economic policies. Before that, most black were Republicans, the party of Lincoln.

The Democratic party has usually taken black support for granted and has often done very little for them while in office. For instance, Clinton did almost nothing for backs during his administration, but he got by with it because he was a democratic president. Educational conditions among blacks was terrible by the time Clinton left office. That's admitted even by Clinton supporters.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Before that, most black were Republicans, the party of Lincoln.

It amazes me that republicans want to associate themselves with Lincoln...especially when thier party is NOTHING like it was in Lincoln's day...That assertion is spin....pure unadulterated spin.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, for some reason, there aren't a lot of Republicans of color.

Cause and effect. The reason there are not a lot of elected black Republicans may not be because the Republican party is racist but rather because there are not a lot of blacks in the Republican party. Blacks tend to favor the Democratic party because they tend to believe that big government is better for them and Republicans tend to favor smaller government. I don't see any racism there on either part.

[fccool]

The unfortunate part about segregation, is that it's obvious. Russia for example had slavery... yet there was no need for revolution to resolve the issue. Some of the slaves simply remained and farmed the land in exchange for shelter and food... and remained to be house servants.

The sad part about the slavery in the US was that it was based on race. Whether we like to hear it or not, but it does to a certain degree still has an affect on wellbeing of blacks today. Segregation created an inbred culture that was maintained to this day. It's sad to see that even within adventistm we have black churches, which there should not be any reason for in a country of such wide cultural diversity.

I don't think that it's a politics issue... it's a moral one. And it's quite unfortunate that not many SDAs jumped on the reform wagon. Even Ellen White was not extremely enthusiastic about the idea of interratial relationship, which would be the primary means of breaking down the segregationism walls. I'm sure she had good reasons for that.

There is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored races.

Manuscript 7, 1896.

Selected Messages, 2:343-344; cf. 481-488.

"Opportunities are continually presenting themselves in the Southern States, and many wise, Christian colored men will be called to the work. But for several reasons white men must be chosen as leaders." (Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 202)

"The Colored People should not urge that they be placed on an equality with White People." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 214, Paragraph 3)

"No one is capable of clearly defining the proper position of the colored people." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 213 paragraph 4)

"The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 214, paragraph 4)

While I see the possible reasons why she would write these things, looking back on these I think she would think otherwise... I believe. Although, frankly, I think that given circumstances I probably would say worse things if brought up in that environment.

Nevertheless, it's great to see that race place a very minor factor in the leadership election today.

[fccool]

Yet, when all is said and done, most of the people will not be voting for the candidates based on race, although it might be a factor... I believe it's a minor one.

[John317]

To a white person, it is minor, not to any black person I have spoke too.

Would make an interesting 'anonymous' type of question answer, if any pollster had the ' ' to ask it. But too much fear of being called a racist!

This brings up a problem. Many people are so sensitive about being thought a racist that they will say they are voting for Obama when they have no intention of voting for him. There's a probability that this may cause the polls to inaccurately reflect how people plan to vote.

[Neil D]

This brings up a problem. Many people are so sensitive about being thought a racist that they will say they are voting for Obama when they have no intention of voting for him. There's a probability that this may cause the polls to inaccurately reflect how people plan to vote.

I have a problem with the above....

Does a pollster convey racism when taking the post vote poll? Why should it matter to the pollster that he should make the voter feel that he is a racist?

Most post polls want to know how a person voted. They are not asking about racism. They are out to find out who voted for whom....

Maybe the southern person may be "sensitive" and maybe thinking on how to avoid the raciest lable, but out here in the west...tain't a problem...

[Dr. Shane]

WASP do not understand 'racism' and most likely never will.

Abraham Lincoln was WASP.

Lyndon B. Johnson was WASP.

Bill Clinton was WASP.

[fccool]

I don't think the issue is not race, as much as relevance. Prejudices arise out of inability to relate to a certain group of people. This is what I feel the case is for the Illegal Immigrants in US. People simply can't relate to the desperate situation some of these people are in. So right now that the economic conditions worsen and many Americans are willing to do the dirty jobs, these people are in trouble. But they are people nevertheless. But they are treated like raccoons making their way into someone else's home.

There's a great TV program by Morgan Spurlock called 30 days. I think we need more shows like that, as these are really prejudice shuttering.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane, the point is that unless you are on the receiving end of racism one cannot fully understand and appreciate its devastating, dehumanizing and demoralizing impact.

Just as there is intellectual intelligence and emotional intelligence there is intellectual understanding and emotional understanding, intellectual facts and emotional facts, intellectual knowledge and emotional knowledge, intellectual experience and emotional experience.

If you have only read about, heard about and/or witnessed racism as an outside observer you will have an intellectual understanding, but only a secondary emotional appreciation, if at all. But if you have lived through racism on the receiving end of it, especially if it is a life-long experience, you will have an emotional understanding. Not even the most sincerely heartfelt empathy can experience that raw emotional understanding.

When you or I hear it said, "It's a black thing, you don't understand", that's what is meant.

So from that perspective, none of those WASP presidents can fully understand.

The closest I have ever come was living for a year as a blonde-haired white Christian in the largest Muslim country of the world among people of dark complexion many of whom I towered head and shoulders above. I could not hide who I was or ever blend into a crowd. The huge difference from the experience of racism is that generally at that time I was graciously received on friendly terms by most of the people. However, I have been back several times in more recent years at the height of antipathy and violence toward Americans and Christians, but only for relatively short visits.

Yes, intellectually, I understand racism. But emotionally on an experiential level, I barely have a clue.

Tom

[fccool]

Well said, Tom. Well said.

[Neil D]

Rush Limbaugh has discounted the Colin Powell endorsement claiming that it is because of race. Powell is black and Obama is black and therefore, they are gonna support each other....

Man, what a lot of hoooey!

[Taylor]

Rush Limbaugh has discounted the Colin Powell endorsement claiming that it is because of race. Powell is black and Obama is black and therefore, they are gonna support each other....

Man, what a lot of hoooey!

No kidding! That really sours me on Rush Limbaugh. Colin Powell would never stoop to voting based on race. He is a man of principle.

[Tom Wetmore]

Indeed! That just insults the intelligence of Colin Powell... and shows the lack of it in Rush. Of course, Rush IS an insult to intelligence.

One could have the same knee-jerk, moronic reaction to any white person endorsing McCain...

But whatever... Comedian Rush Limbaugh has already proven himself to be a bigot and a racist, so his reaction should come as no surprise...

What a toad!!!

[John317]

Indeed! That just insults the intelligence of Colin Powell... and shows the lack of it in Rush. Of course, Rush IS an insult to intelligence.

One could have the same knee-jerk, moronic reaction to any white person endorsing McCain...

But whatever... Comedian Rush Limbaugh has already proven himself to be a bigot and a racist, so his reaction should come as no surprise...

What a toad!!!

You seem unable to just tell what you think about issues but you seem to have a tendency to bring things to a personal level and question people's morality and intellect if they don't agree with you.

That's the kind of thinking that gives liberalism a bad name.

Can't you disagree with him without calling him a bigot and a racist and a toad?

Would you like people who disagree with you to call you names?

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, intellectually, I understand racism. But emotionally on an experiential level, I barely have a clue.

Well, I am part of a bi-racial marriage, My children are bi-racial children. Racism has been a very real part of our lives at times. I most certainly have a grasp of the issue emotionally on an experimental level.

[Tom Wetmore]

You seem unable to just tell what you think about issues but you seem to have a tendency to bring things to a personal level and question people's morality and intellect if they don't agree with you.

That's the kind of thinking that gives liberalism a bad name.

Can't you disagree with him without calling him a bigot and a racist and a toad?

Would you like people who disagree with you to call you names?

So you want to defend Rush and his clearly racist views that he routinely expresses on his show?!?!

Go ahead and give it your best shot and disprove my point.

And tell me, haven't you heard him call other people far worse things and do far worse grossly inappropriate things to and about those with whom he disagrees? You are the one who has claimed to enjoy Limbaugh. How did you enjoy his mockery of Michael J Fox? Care to defend that too? Care to defend some of his other bad behavior?

He really is a toad.

And while you are at it, I would really like for you, as a committed Christian, to reconcile Limbaugh's views and choice of words, rants, and tactics from the Bible and specifically from what Jesus said.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

For the record, while I disagree with Rush, I do not think him stating Powell's endorsement of Obama was race based was in itself racist. I also believe what Rush said about Micheal J. Fox was mischaracterized by media reports. I cannot think of anything specifically that Rush has said that has been racist. Of course I don't listen to him everyday and when I do I am just catching bits and pieces as I drive between projects.