Colin Powell on the Trouble With The Republican Party Base
By Susie Madrak Sunday May 24, 2009 10:45am
"You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on it. I believe we should build on it." - Colin Powell today on "Face The Nation," responding to Dick Cheney's comment that he would choose Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell calmly rebutted the GOP Gospel According to Dick on today's "Face the Nation." Cheney said in that interview he thought Colin Powell had "left the Republican party."
"By almost every demographic indicate, the Republican party is losing. The number of people who have identified themselves as Republicans have dropped significantly into the low 20s, and not all of them identify themselves as Republicans," Powell said. "I think the Republican party needs to take a good look at itself and decide what kind of party are we."
Host Bob Schieffer asked his reaction to Rush Limbaugh's statement that "the only reason he's [Powell] is voting for him [Obama] is because Barack Obama is black. Is he calling you a racist?" Powell called the remarks "unfortunate."
"Mr. Limbaugh saw fit to dismiss all those reasons [I gave] and put it in a racial context and ignored all the reasons I listed for it," Powell said. He said in 50 years, he voted for the person he thought was the best qualified at that time to lead the nation, and that he also voted for Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
"He shouldn't have a veto over what someone thinks. He's an entertainer, he is a radio figure and he is a significant one, but he's more than that.
"When the chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, issues even the mildest of criticisms concerning Mr. Limbaugh, and then 24 hours later, the chairman of the RNC has to lay prostrate on the floor, apologizing for it; and when two congressmen offer the mildest criticism of Mr. Limbaugh, they too then 24 hours later have such pressure brought to bear on them that they too, had to change their view and apologize for criticizing him - well, if he's out there, he should be subject to criticism, just as I am subject to criticism, " he said.
Transcript here.
Login or Register to post comments.
Frist!
The "good soldier" put his loyalty to Bush over his loyalty to the American people and we have 4600 Americans dead, a depleted military and a near bankrupted Treasury to show for it.
Is there such think as an accessory to treason?
Just to keep it in real terms as of today 5-24-09
Iraq deaths 4283
Afghanistan deaths 679
Coalition forces 717
Total Dead 5679
that's just Americans dead.
Think of the numbers of Iraqis killed.
Think of the numbers of Afghans killed.
Think of the numbers of Pakistanis killed.
And, under Obama, it is still going on.
2nd. I think it's sick the way the Pentagon doesn't keep a count of civilian casualties. I realize that as American bureaucrats their primary concern is with American lives, but a person is a person is a person, whether they hail from Buffalo or Baghdad. The number of civilians that die during a military campaign, along with the number that are forced to flee due to the violence of war, make a big impact on the post-war future of a nation. It's crass and disgusting to just pimp the relatively low number American military deaths like that proves a point. How do we look to the rest of the world when we don't think lost lives of noncombatants are so inconsequential we don't even try to keep track of how many die as direct and indirect results of our agenda?
the way progressives are sort of giving Powell a pass because now he is saying things that can be construed as somewhat critical of the Republican party.
"Honor his service", they say.
I say what you say.
To hell with him.
To hell with the republican party.
And if the democrats don't soon begin to act as democrats, the hell with them too.
I agree with colin powell, it's the stupidity of the GOP to think that by driving away moderates they can get back into power. The GOP is beocming a party of losers who don't want to reach out to minorities and want to live in a 1950s white america. And susie, it's bob schieffer host of face the nation.
...the term "BO" is offensive--even to those of us who don't fully subscribe to what Obama is doing.
It's like saying "Democrat" party. Please rethink it.
And I forgot to go back and change it. No deep meaning there.
His comment reminded me of the 'dead enders' Rummy made when they were 1st having problems with Iraq insurgents. The GOP base is pretty much all dead enders at this point and the path they are taking is a self fulfilling one that leads to annihilation. The GOP is dependent on fear far too much for its message. Fear keeps you alive as it warns of impending threats but there is a difference between being aware and paranoid. The sooner that paralysis is highlighted as a weakness and not a virtue the sooner the healing can begin and America can move forward. Otherwise they will be watching the world go bye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCh9ACzrjc
um...was I hearing things or did Colin Powell reveal on national television that in his briefings from Bush about the interrogation techniques used on detainees there was no mention that waterboarding HAD BEEN USED, was BEING USED or was GOING TO BE USED but only that they were looking into the legality of its use..?
Literally the same claim Nancy Pelosi made about her briefing at the CIA..?
A nation needs MORE than two parties, General.
OK, correct me if I'm wrong--I might be. But wasn't Jack Kemp one of the real movers and shakers--a proponent, an advocate, even a theorist--of supply-side economics? Wasn't this one big reason he and Bob Dole didn't get along during Dole's 1996 campaign for president?
Again, I could be wrong. But if this is so, how does Kemp then become "an advocate for the poor"? Supply-side economics takes advantage of the disadvantaged.
Am I mistaken?
you're not. But to his credit, whatever little it may be worth, Kemp DID talk about poverty more than your average Republican. Given that most Republicans only talk about the poor when they're whining about welfare, it was at least a step in the right direction even if it was destined to fail because he either didn't understand or refused to acknowledge one of the major causes of income disparity in a capitalist system. To mark Kemp as a Republican role model for caring about the poor is sort of damning with faint praise, but I think that says more about the party than anything else.
limbaugh does NOT get to tell powell why he voted for obama. powell gets to tell us why he voted for obama. this is a racist comment/idea by limbaugh. there can be fault found with powell like many in the BUSH administration but i feel his intentions were not like BUSH/cheney.
His name is Bob, not Charles.
Say what? :)
'Scuse me!
Jack Kemp was a supply sider...but he also did get involved in helping inner city development.
He was not, by any stretch, my favorite politician, but he was a damn sight better then 7/8th of what we see as Republicans today.
Just curious.
: )
Oh no, the Rethug party doesn't need to moderate itself, why we'll just yell at the people louder!
*sigh*
That is exactly my take on the situation... : )
Well...that and the constant whining about how they know how to win elections...: )
*sigh*
very typical of the right especially since the mid clinton years. they're reactionary instead of having ideas and being creative. hence, the chant that they hope obama fails. it's party first over the welfare of the majority / minority of the country. during the latter part of the clinton yrs. the (r) created their identity by going more right and using the evangelicals. this was their strategy since the country overall was doing well economically. they moved way right but they really did use the evangelicals and they know it. obama is hovering around the center as a pragmatist. obama inherited a lot of issues. although much of these issues resulted during/due to the BUSH yrs. the right is preparing to shift the blame to obama/democrats. the right is in a bind/identity crisis. they should become more moderate but they're afraid to lose gun and bible people they have worked so hard to get/keep in their party. becoming more moderate usually involves abortion/same sex marriage rights. the evangelicals don't want to give in on those two fronts.
Why can't the Democrats all get together and take advantage of their current position of strength?
Instead of waffling and STILL trying to bend over backwards to show how "moderate" and "centrist" they are, why don't they all pull in the same direction and get something accomplished? Even with control of the Presidency and both branches on Congress, it seems like the Democrats can't get anything moving on Economy Stimulus, Healthcare, or the environment.
But then again, we have Obama introducing "indefinite Detention" - something even the Bush Administration wouldn't have tried...
Chris, the Democratic Party is a very diverse party. If the party was not willing to allow the free expression of differences, the Democrats would be in the same position as the Republicans.Unfortunately with diversity comes the need for compromise.
The Conservative Republicans understand that a real big tent Republican Party would mean that the Conservatives could not always control the agenda. That would not be something they could accept. Ideologues have a, you are either with us or you are against us, attitude toward politics.
The problem presented for Republicans is that by being a small ideologically bent party, makes gaining a majority position difficult. That means they smaller voice in government.
I remember when the Republican Party was much more diverse. Even then I seldom agreed with their positions, but the country was a far better place. Politics was not nearly as mean spirited then, as it is practiced by today's Republicans. Things actually used to get done in Congress.
It was not the Democrats that forced Nixon from office, it was the Republicans.
When he went before the UN and lied to the world to try to advance the movement for war with Iraq. Shame on him for that one.
He is a good man. You can tell by listening to his reasoning. I respect the man as a person...but I NEVER would support this man in politics again. His mistake was not just any mistake. It was HUGE!! ...and it ruined his political career...as it should.
Leave the "dark side" Colin. Hell, we have democrats like ben nelson...surely you can do more good with the Democratic Party than you will ever be able to affect with the dead neocon/fascist party. The republican party is dead and gone. It left when they buried Dwight Eisenhower.
Since he helped cover up the massacre at My Lai.
Not sure that I've heard that story before. Guess we don't always know everything there is to know about people in politics and the spot light. Hope you are wrong.
So he Assumes as he has over the last eight years. This person if I can go out on a limb and call him that is so out of his mind it is a wonder that he can hold himself up. BRING THIS DIRT BAG UP ON THE CHARGES HE DESERVES TO BE BROUGHT UP ON. We can thank him for making us all Terrorists and torcherers!! Yay America!
During the course of the interview, Powell proudly proclaimed that he doesn't vote for a "Party", but votes for his assessment of the "best man" instead. The list of those he admitted to having voted for were JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan (twice), Bush1(twice) and Bush2(twice).
That list is the best argument that there is nothing to be proud of for not voting "Party" but for the "best man" instead.
Every one of the Republican winners Powell voted for grossly underperformed the adjacent Democratic winners he voted for AND the Democratic winners he (presumably) didn't vote for but won anyway on the most important issues of economic expansion that creates private sector domestic jobs, low unemployment rates, reduction of our debt, securing our borders and more effective national security.
Yes, that even includes his votes for Reagan vs his vote for Carter.
Powell's record for getting it right for the sake of the most important issues in the country would have been far better if he had said he has voted strictly Democrat for the presidential contest in every general election since and including 1960 and didn't give a damn about that bogus "best man" nonsense.
to Powell from the Transcript:
SCHIEFFER: What about Rush Limbaugh? A lot of people who are Republicans say, hey, people are taking him too seriously. He is just an entertainer. But he’s been on your case for quite a while. When you announced you were voting for Barack Obama , he said the only reason he’s doing that is because Barack Obama is black. Was he calling you a racist?
Is he asking Powell whether or not he was being called a racist by Rush Bimbo was because the reason he voted for Obama was based on his personal belief that Blacks are superior to whites? That would be a racially motivated vote and racist!
I don't think a MSM twit like Schieffer would recoqnize the absurdity in the contention.
I say, just leave the GOP alone: they're doing a fine job of fixing themselves all on their own. Pass the popcorn.
PS they can take Harry Reid, too. The mope.
Republicans - cheeney - tortured to obtain false confessions. Cheeny used evil to justify the bombing, invasion, and destruction of Iraq.
Cheeney used evil to justify evil. This must be delt with.
The republican party is also finished anyway, so who cares if cheeny takes a big fall and takes Bush and a handful of crooks with him. The country is far more important than the dignity of a few crooks.
Dick would take a fat ass disc jockey over the Gulf war hero who carried water for him to the U.N.? The nerve!
is caught in a catch 22. They built their base out of religious extremists who are a minority believe it or not. For several years they were able to effect the rest of the religious people in America and get them to vote republican. Well now that those religous moderates can see what the republican party is like they are not going to be swayed on religous matters alone and vote republican because they see the mess that type of voting created. So now the republicans are stuck with a base that has no tolerance for moderates and the only way the party can grow is to bring moderates into the fold. Problem is the extremist base either wont allow it or will leave the party themselves if they are forced to moderate. To make a long story short. They're screwed.
...is that Colin Powell represents the sane brand of Republicanism. But he's still the guy who backed Bush and took his case to the UN. Are we better off with the GOP in the hands of the Wing Nuts or Powell?
Actually, it may be better to have the Wingers control the party. I don't think Powell has anything meaningful to offer -- he's not as crazy as Limbaugh or DeLay or Newt, but that's not the same as embodying principles and ideas that will help this country. With the Wingers in charge the GOP will continue to send the likes of Inhofe and Demint to Washington, but eventually they may so marginalize themselves that they no longer pose any threat at all. Thirty Inhofes can't accomplish (or prevent) anything in the Senate. With the Powell types having a major role, we could end up with thirty Inhofes and fifteen or twenty Powell-types (think Specter, Collins, and Snowe) and we'll be back to the Bush years, where the Wingers run the show and the "moderates" acquiesce on all the key issues.
If that is the way things played out, I might prefer Limbaugh too.
When Colin Powell defines Limpballs as an entertainer, he is politely calling him a buffoon.
If Limpballs was a recruit and Colin Powell was his drill instructor, Rush wouldn't last ten minutes before he'd be lying on the ground, puking his guts out and crying "Mommy, I wanna go home". And I'd pay good money to see that!
Login or Register to post comments.