October 19, 2008

As campaign enters the stretch, Powell endorses Obama

In what was the most sought after, important, and most anticipated endorsement of this entire election year, Gen. Colin Powell today announced that he intends to vote for Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United states.

It's not as though Powell is your average politician. He is a veteran of a 35 year military career in which he rose to the rank of General, National Security Advisor to Ronald Reagan, Commander in Chief of the Army, promoted to a four-star General by George H.W. Bush, and the youngest ever to achieve the highest position in the Department of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was appointed Secretary of State by George W. Bush, who later used, abused, and permanently stained his well-deserved reputation by trotting him out before the U.N. with dubious or outright false information to make their pitch for perhaps the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

Powell's endorsement carries the gravitas and seriousness that will undoubtedly go far in reassuring many people who may have been hesitant or unsure of Obama's suitableness for the office.

His endorsement also goes far in exploding the truly despicable and increasingly desperate "fear and smear" attempts by the Republicans to blatantly lie to and mislead the people they profess to care about with their ludicrous attempts to paint Obama as anti-American. This is so clearly harmful to our country in so many ways that it can no longer be excused by the fact it's being done on behalf of a political candidate.

The Republicans should be, and are being, held to account for it and repudiated at every chance. It's truly not Obama who's concern for the well-being of the country should be legitimately questioned, but McCain's.

Powell makes a very powerful statement against the anti-Muslim bigotry and fear-mongering openly displayed by the Republican party and the McCain campaign, a message long overdue and powerfully stated.

The following is a transcript of the portion of Powell's remarks in which he endorses Sen. Obama, taken immediately following their broadcast on "Meet the Press".

This "speech", if you will, should go a long way towards rehabilitating the sterling credibility and reputation of Powell before it was willfully and cynically squandered by Bush & Co.


Meet the Press
October 19th, 2008

BROKAW: General Powell, last year you gave a campaign contribution to Sen. McCain, you have met twice at least with Barack Obama, are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?

POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way.

I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years, as your set-up said, and I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president.

I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the (Republican) party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's the choice the party makes.

And I've said to Mr. Obama, you have pass the test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgement to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.

And I have watched them over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with them.

I have especially watched over the last six or seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in, and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both.

In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem, and that concerned me. I got the sense that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.

And I was also concerned at the selection of Gov. Palin. She's a very distinguished woman and she's to be admired, but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgement that Sen. McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this seven week period. And he displayed a steadiness and intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this, and picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be Vice President on day one. And also in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican party and Sen. McCain have become narrower and narrower.

Mr. Obama at the same time has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines. Ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about ALL villages have values, all towns have values, not just "small towns" have values.

And I've also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Sen. McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not really central to the issues that the American people are worried about.

This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks, became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a "washed up terrorist" - then why do we keep talking about it?

And why do we have these robo-calls going on around the country, trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited that Sen. Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, that somehow Mr. Obama is tainted.

What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

No I know understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for.

And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the (Republican) party has moved even further to the right, and Gov. Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration.

I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but members of the (Republican) party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as, "Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is that he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?" Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is NO, that's not America! Is there something wrong with some 7 year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?

Yet I have heard senior members of my own (Republican) party drop this suggestion, that he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists - this is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery. And she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave.

And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, purple heart, bronze star, showed that he died in Iraq. Gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old.

And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.

And his name was Kareem Mushad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9-11, and he waited until he could go serve his country and he gave his life.

Now we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know, but I'm troubled about the fact that within the (Republican) party we have these kinds of expressions.

So when I look at all of this, and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual who best serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time?

And I come to the conclusion, that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, and we have to take that into account, as well as his substance, he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming on to the world stage, on to the American stage, and for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.


By stating his beliefs, Powell has ensured that the Republicans will instantly transform him from hero of the Bush administration, American military patriot, and icon of supposed Republican "inclusiveness", to nothing more than just another black guy, someone who favors Obama simply because of his race. From hero to zero. And they'll do it with a straight, if snarling, face.

In fact, that's probably the reason Powell recognizes how we simply can't stand more of their style of reckless rigidly ideological, and harmful, fundamentalism across the board.

Brokaw realized that the Republicans would predictably try to ascribe Powell's endorsement to his race, to which Powell responded that if it was only a matter of race, he could have made this endorsement several months ago, but he chose to observe the candidates and weigh his choice and only arrived at his decision a month ago.

Brokaw lied and repeated the Republican talking point that Bill Ayers had said in a book published on 9-11 that he regretted that he "didn't bomb more".

Brokaw should know better, and he's obviously just as uninformed as many people on this.

They try to make it sound as though, immediately after the attack on 9-11, this guy Ayers had come out and said he wished he had "bombed more".

Wow. That makes a nice story. Makes the guy sound absolutely soulless and like a monster.

But it's a total fabrication and designed to deceive.

Ayers had written a book, and indeed, it came out the very day of the 9-11 attacks.

In an interview about the book published on 9-11 in the NYT, Ayers is quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers has since said that he was not referring to doing more bombing, but simply that they didn't achieve their goals and therefore he wishes they'd done more to bring about an end to the Vietnam war, bring about social justice, etc.

It's only the Republicans, and now Brokaw and the others who repeat it, that have conveniently bastardized the quote and his stated meaning into Ayers saying he wished he had "bombed more".

(As an aside, Ayer's father was chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago and chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. Not exactly middle class. His father was also a leader in race relations and was picked to serve as a mediator between Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.)

I'm not so sure you can safely assume that Ayers meant her regretted not doing more bombing. And the attempt to tie Ayers to 9-11 simply because an interview happened to be published on that date is obviously stupid and deceptive. It would only take a moment's thought to realize that anything said in an interview published on 9-11 was obviously said BEFORE the attack occur ed. But here again, truth and the McCain campaign only have a glancing relationship.

Powell responded to the continuation of this non-sense by stating that what Ayers did 40 years ago was "despicable", but when on to say that still talking about it today is likewise despicable and nothing but demagoguery.

Powell said he didn't intend to campaign for Obama, and when asked whether he'd like a position in an Obama administration, said he didn't have any desire to return to government service, but of course he would listen to the President were he to request his services, but left it clear that he would prefer not to be asked.

It should come as no surprise that this decorated public servent who has served with such distinction at many of the highest positions in the military and government would realize that Americans have a clear choice this time around, and the choice is equally clear as to who represents the direction forward, and who represents more of the same failed way of thinking and way of approaching the world.


At 10/19/2008 12:11 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I wrote a research paper once on the Weatherman Underground and SDS, so I know a little bit about it.
Indeed a lot of radicals went on to respectable, mainstream careers.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on Ayers: "we did not do enough" (enough "to change the system") as opposed to "set off more bombs". In English class, we call that a missing modifier. Obviously, that missing few words has left Ayers and Obama vulnerable. Vulnerable to attack, but not effectively attacked.

I am willing to concede that Ayers, like Wright is old stuff and that it is desperate strategy and that it probably won't sway voters.

HOWEVER, I do think that in the last debate Obama SHOULD have said: "Yes, I have been to Ayers' home. When I was kicking off my State Senate campaign in 1995, we met in Ayers' living room, when Alice Palmer introduced me to donors and people of influence in Chicago politics."

If he had said that, it would have been the end of the story. But Obama did not say that. Therefore, he was not completely upfront and forthcoming. Full disclosure and transparency can be a good thing.

At 10/19/2008 5:11 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Fair enough Nico,

But we don't know if Obama has been to Ayer's house.

Are you aware that Obama did NOT "launch his political career in Bill Ayer's living room"??

He launched his state senate campaign at a Ramada Inn.

Ayers donated $200 towards his campaign, which is NOT a big deal when it comes to campaign donations.

I'm still not certain that Ayers ever held any event for Obama in his home. (Not that it would make any difference whatsoever. If he had, it's literally insane to pretend that makes any difference whatsoever when it comes to who is going to guide the country through the difficult times ahead.)

I think it was after the last debate when Chris Matthews was pressing Obama press spokesman Joe Gibbs on this issue that Gibbs flatly stated that it wasn't true.

(Of course, maybe Gibbs was saying that Obama didn't "launch his political career" at Ayers... who knows?

I'd like to get to the bottom of this, but maddeningly, Obama, though he's explained every other aspect of the few times he crossed pathes with Ayers in the last decade, and explained it repeatedly, he's never spoken specifically about this "Ayers living room" junk.

My firm belief is that ALL of the Ayers stuff is purely trumped up garbage that has no bearing on anything at all, a ridiculous and rather desperate attempt to create an issue where there is one, and proof positive that the McCain campaign HAS NOTHING.... NOTHING at all to work with. They want to avoid the critical issues that face people as they can't honestly lay out his positions, knowing that they're extremely unpopular.

Goofy made up tales designed to scare the uninformed is all they have left.

At 10/19/2008 8:04 PM, Blogger Tacky said...

So much concern for Obama's "connection" with " a washed up radical" as McCain called Ayers.
Very little mention of McCain's association with the Palins who belonged to a radical group wanting to secede from the Union.
What's the definition of "unpatriotic"?

At 10/19/2008 9:20 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

The Ramada event was the public event. The event at Ayers home was the private invite by State Senator Alice Palmer to introduce Obama, then her "heir apparent", to the Hyde Park Democrats and liberal elites and donors. This is verifiable by people who were there. But later Palmer's fortunes changed and she decided not to step down, but Obama was in the race and so he kicked her off the ballot.

Now sure, this is, as Obama would say "inside baseball" and one might think "who cares"? But still he should have put it out there and said "Yes I was at Ayers house for this first event." I dunno, maybe for him to acknowledge it would have been "TMI (too much information)". ??

One thing that is easily verified is Chris Matthews' statements about Obama during this whole campaign. If Chris Matthews ever comes up for air after incessantly kissing Obama's ass, I doubt that he will press Obama with any critical questions.

At 10/19/2008 10:45 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


You are so right. Why no media attention to the fringe far-right Alaska Independence Party that Todd Palin belonged to, and for which Sarah recorded a video commending their work while she was governor of Alaska?

Why not more attention to the standard bearer of the Palin's party, Joe Vogler who has said, quote:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

At 10/21/2008 10:51 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

And I would like to add that for the record, Colin Powell endorsed George W. Bush both times, 2000 an 2004. No doubt, his gravitas generated support. He endorsed other White Republican conservatives before that. This is important because this is the first liberal Democrat whom Republican Powell has endorsed. And I wonder, what is it that Powell sees in Obama that makes him truly different from Bushes and the Reagan?? Answer: He is a brutha.

At 10/22/2008 1:38 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico, your'e a racist asshole. Not sure you're welcome here anymore.

That is one of the most ignorant and stupid things I've heard said here, and I've heard a lot.

Go get stewed on Oxycontin and give Rush a reach around while you scare each other about how the jigaboos are going to destroy America.

Powell gave an eloquent and entirely considered and thoughtful reason why he's backing Obama, and though he admitted that race played a small part, it wasn't the dominant part. After all, if it was all about race, as you stupidly assume, then why didn't he endorse Obama months ago??
(Got an answer to that?)

Secondly, you assume Powell is so shallow as to base his choice entirely on race. Then what did Peggy Noonan, Ken Adelman, one of the chief neo-con architects of the Iraq mess, David Brooks, Bill Buckley's own son, Christopher, and the dozens of other prominent right wingers who've come out in support of Obama base THEIR endorsement on? Race?

When you supported Bush, was it because he was a "brutha"?

You're a damned ignorant and backassward thinking small-minded person Nico.

I'm really disappointed you've proven to be such a throw-back in your racist feelings.

At 10/22/2008 4:27 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Oh great, here we go again, calling me a racist. I mean you're going to have this huge lopsided victory in a couple weeks and you're still not satisfied: you have to play the race card some more. Now yes, of course I saw Colin Powell's interview and of course he backed up his opinion. I didn't hear your answer: 1) How many liberal Democrats has Colin Powell endorsed before this? And also, 2) Why did General Powell endorse George W. Bush, the man you love to hate, BOTH times?

PS, I do not even know what a "reacharound" is. I am not familiar with such things.

At 10/23/2008 2:01 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


It's sad when you sound like an idiot, then come back insisting even stronger that you're an idiot.

First of all, you're too stupid to realize that adopting Rush Limbaugh's bullshit as your own is pretty stupid to begin with. You should know better.

Secondly, the logic that since Powell hasn't endorsed a Dem before means that his endorsement must be based solely on race is simply idiotic.

Think about it. I know it might be a new experience, but give it a try.

Did Lieberman back McCain because he was white?

Name one other conservative candidate Lieberman had endorsed!!

See what a complete putz you make yourself when you ape such idiotic arguments?

Face it Nico, you ARE a freaking racist.

It's not the "race card", Bozo, you're flat out racist.

You do NOT like blacks, you have a massively wrong stereotype of them, you think they're all lazy and on welfare, and you think that the only reason Obama is doing so well is the fact that he's black.

Any one of those is tragically stupid, but put them all together and ... well, you're a racist, whether you're willing to accept it or not.

At 10/23/2008 8:18 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I voted for Alan Keyes and not ashamed to admit it. I would have easily supported Condie Rice or Colin Powell for President. The last time I checked, they were Black. A true "racist" would not support any of these people. And I still admire Powell. But hey it's your blog, you can say whatever you want. But I think you're being too hard on me. You just have too much vitriol inside you. Relax, you've got this election sewn up. Why be angry?

I don't "think" Obama is popular just because he is Black~ I know it! Few people would argue that point. That's not racist, that's just the way it is. If it wasn't for being Black, Obama probably would have gotten as many votes as Joe Biden did in the Iowa Caucus.

You asked, "Did Lieberman back McCain because he is White?" No, he backs McCain because he has better qualifications and he is tough and because he would be a better President. It's that simple.

Joe Lieberman probably sees some of the same qualities in McCain that John Kerry did when he wanted McCain to be his VP in 2004.

Speaking of 2004, I do believe that the great statesman Colin Powell endorsed Bush's re-election that year. You never did explain that, although liberals conveniently forget it.

At 10/24/2008 10:58 AM, Blogger Saul said...

HA! Nicodemus says that Powell only endorsed Obama because "he is a brutha", and it's The Inside Dope that's trying to "play the race card"! Nico, please. You are the one that discounted Powell's very reasoned and moving explanation about why he was switching parties, and said "Nah, he can jabber all he wants, but I KNOW he's voting for Obama ONLY because of race." You called Powell a racist. You didn't listen to a thing he said. You insulted Powell's intelligence and integrity. You only looked as his race. And when TID calls you on it, wah wah, TID is playing the race card. Get a life.

At 10/25/2008 1:53 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Saul is right.

I'M not the one playing the "race card", YOU ARE!

You're the ignoramus who assumes you know Powell's motives and are certain it's race.... not me.

YOU'RE the one injecting race into the issue.

YOU'RE the one who can't believe that a respected and rational person such as Powell would ever endorse anyone other than some wing-nut right winger, even if he sincerely thought they'd continue to lead the country down the tubes.

Face it,

A. You definitely have racist feelings.

B. Powell endorsed Obama for precisely the reasons he spelled out so eloquently on MTP.

C. You can't stand it that Obama makes your guy look like a doddering old fossil, both physically and ideologically.

D. You can't stand that your way of thinking and world view is fast becoming extinct.

Again, I don't have to "name a liberal that Powell endorsed", because that entire argument is stupid on it's face.

Name one other conservative that Lieberman has endorsed? Does that prove that he's endorsing McCain because he's white?

Of course not!!

But that's what you're trying to argue in the case of Powell, and you look like an idiot doing so.

At 10/25/2008 1:59 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico version 8:18

If I'm being hard on you, it's because you freaking have it coming!!!

How can you make such a ridiculous and ignorant statement that few doubt that Obama could possibly be where he is if he wasn't black???

That proves your brain just isn't tracking right.

Not only do most people NOT believe that garbage, most people are too smart to allow themselves to believe that, in light of the fact that there's NO evidence to support it.

Yet you calmly assume that "most" people agree with your goofy opinion.


So, make a liar out of me Nico, the balls in your court.

Give me chapter and verse, using logic and facts, that will convince me that Obama would never have risen to prominence, would never have won the nomination, and would never have been kicking grandpa's ass if it weren't for the color of his skin.

I won't hold my breath.

And if you supported Alan Keyes, all I can say is... wow.

I guess old Alan only got where he is because of his race too?

Face it, you're getting deep into squirel-ville with your line of argument Nico.

Maybe you should reassess.

At 10/25/2008 12:34 PM, Blogger Saul said...

Aha! Nicodemus has revealed the power of the Blackness advantage: the spectacular success of ALAN KEYES, who has laid waste to any and all white candidates who have dared to run against him! Who could argue with that? It's obvious, isn't it?

At 10/25/2008 1:32 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Alan Keyes, the idiot savant of the religious right, the man who makes even the most radical way-out ranting leftist look sane by comparison, obviously wouldn't have become the political power that he is today if he weren't black.

His path was greased to the very top because everyone voted for him because of his race.

For Nico, apparently, it's ok if a black guy tosses his hat in the ring, just as long as he really has no shot at actually succeeding.

Barack has violated this cardinal rule, thus Nico and the like are acting like buffoons and leaving all sense and logic behind.

You've got it made in America.... if you're black. (snort)

So true Saul. Thanks for pointing that out.

What will the goofy Republicans come up with next? Saying that Christians in the U.S. are persecuted?

At 10/25/2008 6:27 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Welcome Saul I am impressed that there is actually somebody else who reads this blog nowadays. Now TID has somebody new to play with in his sandbox! He won't have to sit around and talk to himself until Nov. 4th.

Yes, I have been on sabbatical since being called a racist on this blog, by those who do not know my long relationship with Blacks and working with them on a daily basis for many years, helping them to help themselves.

But I guess I will answer some of these things, although I don't know why I bother.

Yes I liked Keyes. Alan Keyes is also smart, Harvard educated and articulate, just like your precious Obama. Yes, I voted for Keyes, what other choice is there? But I am not going to sit around and rehash the 04 Senate race. It's old stuff.

You asked how do I know Obama is where he is because of race? It ain't rocket science, folks:
Barack Obama minus his race = another Caucasian liberal. ( I will even take off the "liberal" and just say Caucasian Democrat. Still with me?)

All of these Caucasian Democrats LOST their ass: Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, Howard Dean, etc. You could probably count their votes on your hands and toes! And that is where Obama would be if not for being Black!

Actually if he were Caucasian, Obama would not even rise to the level of these names I mention. They are giants compared to him with his three measly years in the US Senate. How many White guys with such minimal experience could have gotten as far as Obama did?

What say you to that?! He went to Harvard?! He gives good speeches? Big whoopedy doo.

I admire Powell, although I happen to disagree with him this time around. I am glad that you are a new fan of Colin Powell. It seems you only want Blacks as long as they are lockstep with the liberal agenda and they go along with your stereotype of what a Black politician "should be". There are notable exceptions: Colin Powell, Condie Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, and Sen. Ed Brooke, that guy whom Barbara Walters used to sleep with. But I digress.

Powell's reasons on MTP were all sound. But there is probably a small part of him that wants to see the first Black President. And you know what? That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. We all vote our conscience, or as they say "vote your hopes not your fears".

Obama's magical formula is not only being Black. But it is also being "safe" and acceptable to mainstream Americans, the people who were scared of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Now the Obama Cult makes it look like the "new politics" even though it is the same "old politics" , of class war and division, and promises of "middle class tax cuts" which are going to fall to the wayside once he gets in. Yes, middle class tax cuts, curb special interests, new programs, new spending, affordable health care, more handouts, etc. etc.

I don't know what is scarier, that you believe in this shit or that you believe that Obama will somehow be able to deliver.

And Obama's followers, the "Angry Left" ? Do they believe his speeches about "unity" and "one America"?? Hell no, they are just as intolerant and hateful as their counterparts on the Right.


At 10/27/2008 1:39 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

"And Obama's followers, the "Angry Left" ? Do they believe his speeches about "unity" and "one America"?? Hell no, they are just as intolerant and hateful as their counterparts on the Right."

Not even close.

At 10/27/2008 9:54 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Good. If the Angry Left are not intolerant and hateful, Then you can lay down your sword and stop calling McCain names and you can stop comparing Republicans to John Wayne Gacy and stop using insulting comments. Just say "ho hum" we can all just agree to disagree. It's your blog, you can delete every angry, mean spirited comment you have made and simply stick to a "positive" agenda and policy wonk issues.

Now you can role model that HOPE and UNITY your guy is talking about.

Basically, be boring, okay?

I mean come on. Do you think you will actually change anybody's mind? Maybe sway some undecideds?

You're going to win anyway. Why not just sit back and coast and take an "aw shucks" attitude?

At 10/28/2008 11:14 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Gee Nico,
The answer to that is so simple.

Because you keep pissing me off with your ignorant comments.

And I get pissed and insulted and offended by the tactics and words and disgusting actions of Republicans in trying to win by the ugliest means possible, pushing fear, ignorance, lies and distortions.

And if you haven't noticed, I am taking it easy.

I literally used to post sometimes as many as 5 posts EVERY SINGLE DAY. And that went on for three solid years.

Compare that to the output these days.

The main reason I don't post as much is that it's simply too tough to keep up with all the dumb-ass and ridiculous things the McCain campaign and Republicans are up to. Seriously, how can you keep up?

By the time I get around to writing about one scandal or shockingly ignorant utterance, they've made 5 more.

Whether it's Joe McCain saying, "FUCK YOU!" to a 911 operator when she wondered why he was calling 911 to complain about traffic, to the daily embaraassment that is Sarah Palin, to her hairdresser being literally the highest paid member of THE ENTIRE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, to her stunning lack of knowledge of what the job she's running for involves, thinking that the V.P. "controls the Senate" and how she thinks the VP can have a powerful role as a legislator (!), to the endless lies and lies and lies and distortions beyond number that ooze from their campaign, (false voter registration forms threaten to "destroy the fabric of Democracy", Obama "broke his promise" to accept public financing for his campaign, and more and more outrageous, crazy utterances as they slide down the tubes, to McCain's many "senior moments", to the fact that he embarasses himself just by trying to defend his candidacy, (Palin is a great choice, perfectly suited to assume the presidency, he's not Bush, but he supported him nearly 100% of the time and even now says he agrees with Bush's political views, to his just plain weird and border-line hideous appearances on the stump, to Palin's husband being a member of a sessessionist whacko party, but Palin accusing Obama of being "anti-American", to them trying to brand Obama as a socialist or Marxist, blasting the hell out of him for supposely wanting to "spread the wealth around", while Palin brags that she taxed the living hell out of oil corporations and gave the money in the form of a fat check to every Alaskan and McCain favored a multi-billion dollar nationalization of banks.

You just can't make this shit up!!

And frankly, I don't have the time or energy to keep up.

I just hope everyone catches Hardball and Countdown, and they'll keep up to speed.

But the fact that Obama seems poised to prevail, as I predicted way, way, WAY back when he first announced, doesn't make any of this stuff any less offensive, wrong, and worthy of scorn and condemnation.


Bad is bad.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home