Yes he did.
Watch the entire thing:
That part about the Muslim kid from Jersey who was killed while serving in Iraq? Yeah, I think it might give you goosebumps too.
Hat-tip to Vanessa.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Natalia A. 
I thought a voice of reason finally in this political season. Being a muslim shouldn’t keep someone from being a president. God bless Powell and God bless the United States of America.
No surprise. About 98% of black people will be voting for Barack Obama. Yet, ironically they are the ones who are complaining about racism.
Obama is no Bill Clinton. Clinton is a de-regualtor just like John McCain. Clinton was the one who introduced NAFTA, which McCain supports.
Obama is more of a extreme leftist. $1 trillion in new spending, more government programs and interventions, sending welfare checks to 45% of the 95% of the people in his tax plan because 45% of those people don’t even get taxed.
Politicians like Obama are such pimps. They promise to spend a trillion dollars on you, but they don’t tell you that they are using YOUR MONEY!
Obama’s Black Liberation Theology is based on Marxism for black people, the foundations of Communism. Even Bill Ayers was an extreme leftist.
Our economy is very important, McCain is better for our economy. I hope people get educated before they vote.
I voted for Obama.
Guess I’m secretly black.
But of course, Tina, “those people” always band together to give nice white folks a headache! Hardy har har!
Bet you anything you’d never say that about a white person endorsing another white person. Cuz white people are always above it all, amirite?
I think Colin Powell can be trusted to accurately explain why he’s endorsing Obama.
I also think, no matter how many black people vote for Obama, so what? 80% of registered black voters voted for Bill Clinton, so what the hell does it matter how many vote for Obama? Historically, it seems black voters go democrat.
I think Obama’s been pretty open about where money to fund his programs would come from, given how much he’s talked about his proposed tax changes. He even laid it all out for Joe the Plumber the other day.
Connecting Obama to Bill Ayers on a political level is just beyond silly. Sure, they know each other, they move in the same circles. They may even be friends, but it’s beyond pointless to use Bill Ayers as an example of Obama’s politics.
And hey, why not talk about how McCain was tied to the US CWF, who funneled funds to the Mujahideen, who later became the Taliban?
I’m trying to figure out how McCain is better for the economy. Reagan drove us into deficit and a recession. Clinton got us into a huge surplus. Bush drove us into deficit and a recession.
What does this mean? It means Republicans who talk about “tax and spend Democrats” are throwing up a smokescreen.
Whoops, I forgot to close the tag after the word “Taliban.”
Fixed. 🙂 – NA.
Wow. Colin Powell spoke eloquently, in complete, well-structured sentences, for seven minutes and all Tina heard was, “black black black black, I’m black, black black black, he’s black, black blackie black-black.”
Maybe Sarah Palin’s tortured run-on sentences sound like William fucking Shakespeare when you listen with ears like those.
RE: Vanessa’s reaction to Tina’s comment.
Don’t be surprised if, in the last two weeks before the election, the McCain/Palin trolls become more overt in their racial comments. At this point, the McCain/Palin campaign is absolutely desperate, and they will pull out all stops to terrify white people into voting against Obama.
But it won’t work. The facts about the current domestic and international situation and which party is responsible for that, will override any racial anxiety.
Colin Powell’s endorsement is simply one more nail in the coffin of the McCain/Palin ticket.
Ahhhh, Tina…perhaps before you start going off about the evil “Black leftists” who are spreading “Marxism for black people”, maybe you should try actually listening to an actual Black Leftist.
Like me, for example.
Personally, I will never forgive Colin Powell for remaining so tied to the Republican Party for all its most reactionary years during the Bush Administration…and his role in justifying the Iraq debacle will be his personal anchor straight to hell.
But if even he’s pissed off by the Stormtrooper tactics of McSame and Caribou Eva Braun enough to endorse Obama on general principle, well, more power to him and props for actually showing some common sense.
Oh, and a clue train for you, Tina: Black folks have voted 90+% of the time for White candidates (mostly Democrats) since time immortal. If they finally find a Black candidate that they like enough to vote for, then since when is it any of your damn business? Oh, I forget…they don’t vote for right-wing Republican candidates. I see…never mind.
BTW..I’m one of those Black “Marxist” Leftists who will not be voting for Obama (Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party will be getting my vote); but that doesn’t mean that I’m still hoping that there is a nice, long overdue ass kicking delivered to the GOP come November 4th. People like Tina give me more and more hope for that, since no one can be that openly stupid and racist.
Anthony
Lisa:
Suddenly because Powell is endorsing obama he is not as evil as he use to be? Yet, Powell was the one encouraging the Iraq war claiming they had WMD. Anyone with intelligence knows that Powell is endorsing based on race.
98% of black people are voting for obama just because he is black. White people are split between obama, nadar, and McCain. Think about it.
The truth is this is a race campaign. The Democrats control the senate and congress and have the lowest approval rating in US history. The Democrats couldn’t even beat Bush in the elections thus why they are going after the black vote in the US, about 45 million blacks. Thus, why obama voted present over 130 times, avoided the tough issues, and never challenged his party leaders on senate to preserve his political career. Only 143 days on state senate when he decided to run for office.
The Democrats lost because the US is not a socialist/communist system. Americans fought against Nazi Germany, their socialist party, and communist USSR for decades, just to name a few.
Again, Clinton supported deregulation and introduced FTAs like NAFTA. That is why the US economy was strong during his administration. McCain also supports deregulation and fights for FTAs like NAFTA. These initiatives will help our economy. Our economy is very important, McCain is better for our economy. I hope people get educated before they vote.
US businesses create US jobs. obama wants to limit the growth of US businesses, which is limiting the growth of US jobs. If you increase tax on US businesses they will either just relocate to a lower tax country taking American jobs with them, pass the added tax cost to consumers or go bankrupt. GM and Ford can barely compete globally and obama wants to tax them more. The smaller businesses that are reliant on GM and Ford will also be greatly affected, destroying more US jobs.
The US is the land of opportunity not the land of equal outcome. Why should government take your money and give it to people who are already on welfare to spread the wealth?
What Caused Our Economic Crisis? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
Dear Tina:
So, apparently, if one supports a candidate who is the same race is oneself, one is being racist?
Okay, good to know! Therefore, in order to prove we’re all not racist, black people should -not- endorse or vote for Obama;
and everyone else who -isn’t- black, including all us white folk who’ve been voting for white candidates all these years just because they’re white (oops!) -need- to vote for Obama.
Thanks for stopping by and clearing that up for us!
p.s. yes, thank you for appealing to everyone’s most meanspirited, greedy, smallminded and ignorant side; we haven’t had -enough- of that all this time, God knows. By all means, let’s have more tax cuts for billionaires while complaining about people on welfare because they might be able to buy food AND toilet paper this week with some CEO’s “hard earned money.”
p.s. I hate to break this to you, but a government bailout of banks to the tune of 700 BILLION dollars? was a) “necessary,” if it even was, to exactly the same stupid greedhead policies that people like you have been propping up all these years b) voted for by McCain, too, and signed by Bush c) paid for by guess who?
but, yes, let’s go back to talking about -welfare-. Let’s go back to talking about how -unfair- it is that -fantasy- Joe the Plumber, as opposed to the real one who’s actually only earning 40K a year, i if he and/or the business he’s probably never actually going to be able to purchase at this rate, really -were- earning 250K+ a year, -in theory-, migh have to pay the same percentage of taxes that he would’ve under Reagan. Oh the humanity. I’m sure–someone want to do the actual math? something like 3K difference, maybe? that if this -actually happened-, it’d totally make or break the ability to “create a job,” because you’re totally going to pay someone’s salary on that amount.
p.s. Robin Hood is a -hero- to most of the world, you halfwit. and there’s no actual Robin Hood here. just people trying to do the bare minimum to fix the -reverse- Robin Hood shit that’s been going on all these years.
“Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the land…”
and yes, Clinton supported deregulation and a whole shitload of neocon/neolib policies, that is correct. “if you wanted to run against Clinton, you should have done it twelve or sixteen years ago.” anyway he was mainly following in the footsteps of the Great Ronald Reagan, because he thought he had no choice, because people like you and the Congress you voted in would be screaming bloody murder about stifling free enterprise and so on.
“The Democrats couldn’t even beat Bush in the elections thus why they are going after the black vote in the US, about 45 million blacks.”
At the end of the day, the -only- reason anyone supports Obama is because he’s black. Certainly not because people, white AND black (and otherwise) actually have half a brain and eyes and ears that work and think he’s bloody qualified for the job; no, precious. and: Courting the black vote is for LUZERS.
stay classy, Tina!
“Politicians like Obama are such pimps.”
stay classy, Tina!
p.s. “words mean things.”
p.p.s. when you go back to HQ, you might want to pass it on that -really, no one gives a shit about Ayers- except the people who were already going to vote for McCain anyway because Obama is a SCARY ISLAMIC MARXIST TERRORIST (and who happens to be black, not that THEY’RE the ones who have a fixation this, no, precious).
Really, though. My hand to God: No one. Gives a shit about Ayers. No one gives a shit about Ayers. -No one gives a shit about Ayers.-
But by all means, take this as proof that it must be working, kindergarten reverse psychology-like, and keep hammering that increasingly sad non-starter MOAR for the next two weeks. It’ll be fun!
p.p.p.s. um, no, the reason America fought against Nazi Germany was not because Nazi Germany was “socialist.” Did I say halfwit? I apologize. That was an insult to halfwits.
I have to ask — even if Obama is going to get the entire black vote, so what? Are you suggesting that a black person’s vote is worth less than a non-black person’s vote? Or are you just annoyed the Repubs couldn’t get it together and earn the black vote? 45 million people, you said? That’s a LOT of voters. You’d think, if the Repubs thought that vote was important, they’d try to come up with policies that appealed to them.
You seem very worried about having a black president. Why is that? And why is it that you think black people are only voting for him because he’s black, but you don’t seem to believe white people will vote for a candidate only because s/he is white? What, exactly, do you think is the difference between black and white people? Last time I check, it was simply a matter of skin tone. You’re suggesting that black people do not or cannot think critically and vote according to their best interests.
The notion that deregulation will fix our economy. . .I’m sorry, but have you been paying attention? The reason we’re in the mess we’re in right now is because the banking system was so deregulated. Tighter regulations would have kept greedy people from issuing loans they knew the borrowers could not afford. And yes, people shouldn’t have taken mortages they couldn’t pay back, but the average person doesn’t understand all the details of a mortage and a bank employee does (or at least should). You don’t give people something they want, just because you can, when you know that, in the long run, it’s going to be bad bad bad bad for everyone.
McCain wants to deregulate health insurance. Which means I’d be fuck-out-of-luck, because there is no way in hell I’m getting health insurance with my pre-existing condition — because he doesn’t want to regulate insurors into having to take on people with pre-existing conditions. No no, let the market regulate itself! Which means all us sick people, who need the damned insurance, will be uninsured, making the insurance companies massive profits, while costing the taxpayers much much much more money because we’ll end up having to go to the ER and then skipping out a bill we can’t pay. Woohoo. Yay deregulation.
McCain also mocked a woman’s health needs with his damned air quotes in the last debate, in regards to abortion. As a woman with an illess that could, in fact, endanger my health should I get pregnant, I could never vote for anyone that holds my life and my physical well-being in such contempt.
This may surprise you, but voters who do their research can come to vastly different conclusions than yours. It has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the policies espoused by the candidates. That you think the ability to do so is reserved to only one set of people is repulsive and insulting.
Tina,
Democratic presidents traditionally receive the majority of the black vote. How is it remotely possible that black people who faithfully vote democrat are now only voting based on race?
As for Colin Powell, he stated his views on why he’s voting for Obama. You’re welcome to dismiss that and claim that it’s really because Obama’s black, but then I have to call you out on your blatantly racist assumption there.
And isn’t that really what your comments are about here? Race-baiting?
well, you know. -we- don’t want to give -hard-earned- money to a lot of people on -welfare-, nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
“That you think the ability to do so is reserved to only one set of people is repulsive and insulting.”
Particularly since, if the set in people in question is much like Tina here, that particular set of people isn’t actually very bright.
Shorter Tina: “Obama is black black blackity black-black black. Also, better dead than red.”
Beat it, fascist.
A glutton for punishment…aren’t you, Tina???
Suddenly because Powell is endorsing obama he is not as evil as he use to be? Yet, Powell was the one encouraging the Iraq war claiming they had WMD. Anyone with intelligence knows that Powell is endorsing based on race.
Really??? Or…perhaps Powell is endorsing Obama because he, like most moral Americans, are getting more than a bit fed up with the tone of your favorite party towards the raw sewage pit???
I guess you would say that if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee and Powell had endorsed her, it would be merely because she was a woman?? Or, maybe it’s just because all Black men really do want to get into White women’s panties…ehhhh??
98% of black people are voting for obama just because he is black. White people are split between obama, nadar, and McCain. Think about it.
Oh, so only Black folk vote solely on race alone. I suppose that Whites who back McCain/Palin are voting solely on competence and leadership qualities, then?? And, that would be NADER, fool.
And speaking of third party candidates, what would you say about those who are voting for Bob Barr?? Are they solely voting only based on THEIR race, too??
The truth is this is a race campaign. The Democrats control the senate and congress and have the lowest approval rating in US history. The Democrats couldn’t even beat Bush in the elections thus why they are going after the black vote in the US, about 45 million blacks. Thus, why obama voted present over 130 times, avoided the tough issues, and never challenged his party leaders on senate to preserve his political career. Only 143 days on state senate when he decided to run for office.
Ahhhh, nice try, Tina, but: (1) The Dems in charge of Congress has been mostly giving your Republican President anything and everything he wants (from blank checks for war in Iraq to allowances for spying on American citizens, telecom immunity from prosecution, and billions of dollars in bailing out our wealthiest banks); (2) Your President had to rely on voter theft and other shenanigans to eke out a victory in 2000 and 2004; even with the shadow of 9/11/01 lurking; and (3) those 130 “present” votes that Obama casted were from his Illinois State Senate record…and that was out of over 4,000+ votes he casted there. (You do know that you can’t vote “present” in the United States Senate, right??) As for “avoiding the tough issues”…how about McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign to settle the bailout mess; that went pretty well for him with his own party, didn’t it??
And you just can’t “go after” a vote that is pretty much insured…especially when the other side is so far gone in attacking you as “anti-American” and “dangerous radical”, if not shiftless welfare bums and gangsta rapper druggies.
The Democrats lost because the US is not a socialist/communist system. Americans fought against Nazi Germany, their socialist party, and communist USSR for decades, just to name a few.
Uhhh…the Nazi’s only used the term “socialism” as a ruse to attract working-class Germans to their agenda….which was totally geared towards using the power of the State toward enriching the ruling class corporate elite…while bashing Jews and homosexuals and Gyspies and other scapegoated groups as a distraction. Kinda like…well, how McSame and Caribou Barbie Braun are doing the same to slander the Democrats and liberals??? (And I’m sure you do know that the USSR fought WITH the Americans AGAINST the Germans in the Great War, too, right???)
Again, Clinton supported deregulation and introduced FTAs like NAFTA. That is why the US economy was strong during his administration. McCain also supports deregulation and fights for FTAs like NAFTA. These initiatives will help our economy. Our economy is very important, McCain is better for our economy. I hope people get educated before they vote.
OK…so Bubba did push NAFTA and “free trade” against the wishes of his own party; he also managed to keep deficits under control, resulting in fiscal surpluses. Actually, the Bush Administration (along with a Republican-controlled Congress for the first 6 years of Dubya’s term) managed to not only spend far, far more than the supposedly “tax and spend liberal” Democrats could only dream of (and usually they spent it in exactly the most wasteful and non-productive fashions), but they also managed to turn those surpluses into huge, huge, HUGE deficits. And they even managed to screw up the financial system to the point that the government is now buying up the banks to keep them and the economy afloat. But…only the Democrats are the “socialists”/Communists here, riiiiiight???
Actually, a bit of legitimate progressive socialism, as in redistributing wealth and resources from the top to the bottom and having some reasonable government regulation to hold corporations accountable wouldn’t be so bad….especially compared to what our “free market capitalist” regime has wrought. I wish Obama actually WAS more of a true socialist, for the record…but, he’s not Bush/Reagan/McSame, and that’s good enough.
US businesses create US jobs. obama wants to limit the growth of US businesses, which is limiting the growth of US jobs. If you increase tax on US businesses they will either just relocate to a lower tax country taking American jobs with them, pass the added tax cost to consumers or go bankrupt. GM and Ford can barely compete globally and obama wants to tax them more. The smaller businesses that are reliant on GM and Ford will also be greatly affected, destroying more US jobs.
Only problem with that rant, Tina: you can’t make any money without workers to build those cars for GM and Ford…and if workers aren’t paid a decent wage for their efforts and can’t afford quality health care and are too stressed out by work to enjoy time with their families, then all the tax-cut/”less government” mantras won’t matter worth a black hole. Maybe we should make it a bit harder for businesses to move overseas and exploit slave labor…or maybe, we could actually support small businesses here to be more substainable and pay their workers a more equitable and decent wage. Or..maybe we shouldn’t get ourselves into so many unwinnable wars, perhaps??
The US is the land of opportunity not the land of equal outcome. Why should government take your money and give it to people who are already on welfare to spread the wealth?
Good question, Tina…so what about all that wingnut welfare that’s going to windbags like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or corporate thugs like Phil Gramm?? I’d trust a poor person on conventional welfare to spend their money on valuable things that grow our economy more than I would ever trust these fools. And besides…they pay taxes, too…probably more than Phil Gramm or Rush ever paid.
Your side is losing, and you just can’t handle it. Too bad….learn to lift yourselves by your own bootstraps rather than blaming others.
As Vanessa just said: Beat it.
Anthony
RE: Tina’s assertion that Colin Powell’s support for Obama is solely race-based.
Race may have partially influenced Powell’s individual decision to endorse Obama. But the past eight years of GOP government and the racist and Islamophobic dogwhistling of the McCain/Palin campaign have moved quite a few prominent Republicans to publicly endorse Obama for President. Colin Powell is simply one more prominent Republican to endorse Obama for the same reasons, and, in Powell’s case, race may have been an additional factor.
A partial list of Republicans endorsing Obama can be found on Wikipedia under the header, “Obama Republicans.”
Now digressing from Tina’s comments:
For additional commentary regarding the topic in the original post, Fred Kaplan wrote a column on Slate.com dated October 20, 2008, 4:36 p.m., entitled “Will Colin Powell’s Endorsement of Obama Mean Anything? Actually, To Quite a Few People, Yes.” (I’m quoting the title inexactly). Kaplan makes clear that Powell’s endorsement may influence enough veterans and active-duty military personnel, and also enough ‘Reagan Democrats,’ to switch their allegiance from McCain to Obama, because Colin Powell does have considerable standing with both groups as a Vietnam veteran and as the victorious military commander in Gulf War I (i.e., perceived as a victorious commander by those two voter segments). Kaplan thinks that Powell’s endorsement could influence enough fence-sitters to clinch the election for Obama. Kaplan’s article includes summaries of surveys by armed forces newspapers and Kaplan’s own interview(s) with military personnel. The article is informative.
I think the problems start when people like Powell consider being Muslim to be some sort of accident of nature instead of a religion and idealogy on can adopt or discard.
It’s sort of like asking why can’t a KKK member be president of the USA?
You can find plenty of graves of white supremacists in Arlington does that make KKK membership something desirable in a president of the USA?
Why can’t a KKK member be president of the USA? Is there something wrong with the KKK?
Did you seriously mean to compare all Muslims to Klansmen? Really?
I don’t think the KKK compares to Islam and Muslims on many levels.
For one that Islam dwarfs the KKK in terms of it’s followers.
I do believe they are both idealogies with concepts that one can like or not like.
And that no one is born with a white hood or a hijab on there head.
durendal – the thought that comparing the KKK to those of the Islamic faith, is disgusting. The KKK is a hate group, Islam is a religion. Please there is no comparison.
I’ve been living in the Middle East for over a year, and while it’s not a fucking utopia, for anyone, this isn’t some hate-fest either.
This comparison is plain wrong.
@thesouldofthecreator so you would feel different if the KKK believed to be acting because of some supernatural being?
I do not make a difference between those that follow a certain concept or idea of how the world should be run based on if they believe in a supernatural being.
Just ask yourself if you would accept the KKK if they had a bible saying that non whites are inferior?
I just do not believe in that.
Just because they think God wants them to be racists doesn’t make racism right or justified.
Hitler could have said he was God, does that make his ideas any less wrong?
@Natalia
The “Islamic” world is moving into some very exciting periods.
I’m very optimistic about the Arab/Muslim world.
By the way there are plenty of journalists mostly “Western” that is British and American that would say it’s going badly with the Middle East.
Don’t believe them LOL
It’s going great.
In fact better then it has ever been.
The Middle East has never been more powerful then it is today.
And do not let anyone say anything different.
🙂
Take care..by the way will you ever say why you felt “they” should stop messing with Ukraine because it will be torn apart?
I just feel so sorry for the people there.
Ukraine is a great country it needs to be what it is 🙂
RE: Durendal’s ironic comments on the KKK, Islam, the Middle East, and Ukraine.
Durendal, in your final, counterfactual comments about the Middle East and Ukraine, you seem to be signaling that your entire series of arguments on this thread is meant to be read ironically, to indicate that you’re actually playing a joke on the readers rather than making serious assertions.
Your comments about the Middle East and Ukraine must be meant ironically because the statements obviously belie the known facts. You say that the Middle East “is going great” and “Ukraine … needs to be what it is.”
But the Middle East is not, in fact, going great, and Ukraine does not, in fact, need “to be what it is” (whatever that means).
My guess is that, with these final two clearly ironic comments, you’re signaling that your other argument on this thread, which finds moral equivalence between being a Muslim and participating in the KKK, is also meant to be read ironically — right?
If not, you must be losing your mind.
Abolutely not.
The Middle East is a great fibrant and exciting part of the world.
Which is making steps forward that haven’t been seen in that part of world for thousands of years.
That is not a ironic joke.
They are moving forward greatly. Arabs now own the Crysler building in New York. That is just a small example because the Middle East is moving forward in many other ways.
The negative press is mostly because of Americans and Britons who have a purpose in portraining the Middle East as backward and evil.
The Middle East is a great place to be and you can make a lot of money there and lead a great life.
It’s distorted on purpose.
As i said earlier i made the comparison between the KKK and Islam because both are a idealogy a way of life.
Both have things reasonable people can disagree on neither is superior over the other.
And it is not a accident of nature that one is Muslim or a member of the KKK.
It’s a choice one makes.
I want to know why Natalie thinks the Ukraine needs to be saved from “them” who are ripping her country apart.
Why would it be like that?
And what is going on there that would make them be apart?
Sorry it’s not Natalie it’s Natalia 🙂
Sorry dear Natalie is more common in the Netherlands then Natalia.
The KKK is an ideology that exists primarily in opposition to a group of people. Islam is a religion that exists primarily for a group of people (Muslims).
While the analogy may be technically valid in some ways, it associates Islam with racist hatred, which can’t help but make Islam look worse than it actually is.
The other thing is that people are born into Muslim families, and are raised Muslim, which I think does mean that it’s not always something people choose in the same way they might, for example, choose to attend a certain university, or join an infamous racist organization.
RE: Durendal’s questions dated October 14, 2008, and October 21, 2008, asking who “they” are who are ripping Ukraine apart.
By “they,” Natalia Antonova means the Anglo-American press, and in particular the English-language BBC News website, which Natalia believes presents a divisive, Russophobic view of post-Soviet-bloc countries, as agitprop for U.S./U.K. foreign policy.
By ‘ripping Ukraine to shreds,’ I think Natalia means that the BBC promotes a divisive view of Ukrainian politics that is meant to serve Western rather than Ukrainian purposes.
Natalia believes that the BBC in particular reduces Ukrainian politicans to mere agents for competing Western and Russian agendas, i.e., as exclusively ‘pro-Western’ or ‘pro-Russian,’ and does so as deliberate propaganda meant to inspire Anglosphere support for U.S./U.K. foreign policy and opposition to Russian foreign policy.
Natalia’s linked BBC News website article in her October 13/14 post does in fact reflect a pro-Western, pro-Yuschenko slant in its report of Yuschenko’s call for snap elections (article is dated October 8).
More generally, Natalia believes that the BBC’s Russophobic bias prejudices English-speaking readers against any and all Ukrainian politicians, policies, and cultural trends that do not explicitly echo Western preferences.
If the above does not correctly explain Natalia’s views, I hope Natalia will correct any errors.
I think Poeschl pretty much characterized my views correctly. I’d like to add that I particularly do not like the way that the U.S. & Russia are constantly involved – though Russian involvement is something that will always remain on some scale or another, seeing as we are neighbours, and can’t get away from that short of uprooting the entire country and settling it in space.
The KKK, by the way, already claims to have the Christian God on its side. Many racist groups do. I don’t see how that makes them at all similar to most Christians I know. .
I like this post on LJ:
Or in other words, some white people think that black people voting for a black candidate is racist because they’re racist and think race shouldn’t matter.
And of course they never question their own decision to vote for a white candidate. There’s always a “reasonable, logical, objective” explanation for voting against a black candidate.
RE: Lisa Harney’s quote from the LJ post.
I didn’t link to the LJ post, but I’m a Caucasian who lives in the Deep South, and I assume that at least one reason why many black voters in the South are making a point of actively voting for Obama as a black man (he’s actually biracial) is because black Americans know that many white voters will vote for McCain almost entirely to keep a black man from becoming President.
Also, the opening sentence in the quote from the LJ post, reading “I suspect that most people … know that what they are saying makes little sense,” is true, except that I would go even further and state that such talk about such black “racism” is deliberately deceitful, in that it deliberately confuses the pernicious kind of preferential voting based partly on cultural or ethnic solidarity with the kind of preferential voting that is largely tolerable.
To my mind, the only pernicious kind of preferential voting based partly on race is the kind that discriminates against a candidate because of that candidate’s skin color.
Thus anyone who votes for McCain/Palin largely in order to keep a black man out of the Oval Office is exercising what I think is pernicious preferential voting.
Similarly, voting for Obama/Biden largely to keep a white man (McCain) out of the Oval Office is also pernicious, at least to my mind.
But it’s to be expected that voters will be attracted to a candidate who shares their ethnicity or other consciously-shared traits of a social group (like religion) and also shares, in varying degrees, their common political aspirations as a social group.
Thus, in 1960, many American Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, were thrilled to vote for John F. Kennedy in part because he was Catholic (which is precisely what many Protestants feared at that time). But for a Catholic to vote for a Catholic candidate because that candidate shares the Catholic voter’s ethical and social values is not, to my mind, pernicious in and of itself. If Catholics had voted against Nixon in order to keep a nominal Protestant (Nixon was Quaker) from becoming President, then that, to my mind, would be pernicious preferential voting. The fact that, in 1960, a number of American Protestants probably did vote for Nixon largely in order to keep a Catholic from becoming President was pernicious then and would be pernicious now.
So Republicans, like Limbaugh, who condemn black voters for voting for Obama partly out of racial solidarity, are consciously lying, and hopefully most Americans realize that.
Correction to my above comment, 2nd paragraph, next-to-last line, in the phrase “based partly on ethnic or cultural solidarity.”
Readers should feel free to delete that phrase if it seems to imply that I’m calling ethnic-based voting itself pernicious. I’m not, and I should have deleted that phrase before I posted the comment. I’m actually contrasting ‘tolerable’ kinds of ethnic-based voting with ‘pernicious’ kinds of ethnic-based voting.
Better editing on my part would have made that clear. I hope the rest of my comment does make clear that I’m contrasting two different kinds of ethnic-based voting, despite my initial confusing statement. Thanks for your patience.
An impressive and noteworthy assessment of the two candidates. I would have to agree BUT does the silent majority and biggots that exist in the USA listen or even understand what was said. I am sorry to say but most Americans would not even know which countries are part of the Axis of Evil or even where on the map they exist