Patterico's Pontifications

10/19/2008

L.A. Times Endorses a Presidential Candidate — You Just Might Be Shocked!!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 9:07 am



You might be very, very surprised by whom they endorsed.

That is, if you’re a moron.

Yes, today’s editorial is titled Barack Obama for president.

The paper tries to make this sound dramatic — the last time we endorsed a candidate, it was Nixon in 1972! — but in fact, it’s so incredibly predictable that Vegas oddsmakers would rather put their money on a McCain landslide.

Since this is a time of great economic crisis, I’m skipping the pablum about other issues and going straight to the economy. Sure enough, the editors place a strong emphasis on Obama’s experience in economics:

Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.

And that’s fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise.

Oh. OK, not so much.

Then I guess the problem must be that they think McCain’s economic ideas are bad.

On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers.

Oh. OK, not so much.

But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to “suspend” his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear).

Ah, I get it. He was so “unfocused” on the economy that he made it the focus of all his attention, to the exclusion of running his campaign. I never realized until I read this editorial that suspending one’s campaign to deal with an issue reflects a lack of focus on that issue.

Let’s sum up these compelling arguments for Obama on the critical issue of the economy:

  • Obama is inexperienced on economics, but at least he admits it.
  • McCain’s ideas are better, but he showed a lack of focus on the issue, by focusing on it to the exclusion of everything else.

You can’t make this stuff up.

If all of this sounds like rationalizing, that’s because it is. This is the newspaper editorial equivalent of a guy explaining why he chose the hot chick (“she’s not the smartest, but she knows it”) with the plain-looking chick (“she’s not focused on me, and also, she’s obsessed with me”).

Keep in mind that this is a newspaper that once wrote, in a passage I am not making up:

Edwards is handsome. The consensus on Kerry is that he is Lincoln-esque. The traditional grinning-candidates-at-the-podium shot from the Democratic convention will be a thing of beauty, compared with the Republican version, featuring a lumpish Cheney and President Bush trying hard to suppress his patented smirk.

Like the guy going out with the hot chick, the editors are wowed by style and not substance. And, like that guy, they have stars in their eyes, and can’t really see any of the warts.

For example, they blithely declared the other day that there is “no recorded basis” for John McCain’s assertion that “Obama launched his political career in the former Weatherman’s [Bill Ayers’] living room,” despite a 2005 blog entry (reported in February by Politico) from a liberal who was there, and explicitly said that Ayers and Dorhn had “launched” Obama’s career in their “livingroom.”

Why don’t they just come out and admit in this editorial that they’re rationalizing? That, as liberals, it makes them feel good to endorse the black candidate, because it’s so historical? That Obama seems young and exciting and handsome and gives them little goosebumps?

Here’s what they really mean:

“Obama is handsome, and many are reminded of Jack Kennedy’s good looks. He may be inexperienced, but he knows it. McCain is old and has a lump on his face and a funny smile. His economic plan might be just what the doctor ordered, but we’re afraid he will become unfocused on that plan, by focusing on it too much.”

That’s OK. You can hardly begrudge the editors their little stunt, no matter how predictable it might be. They’re trying to do something — anything — to get people to buy newspapers. Intellectual honesty goes out the window, sure . . . but the other kind of honesty has been banging on that same window trying to get back in for years now.

P.S. More fun from the editorial: “We may marvel that Obama’s critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment . . .” It truly is a marvel that anyone would consider someone an elitist, merely because he frets about the price of arugula, and claims that small-town America bitterly clings to guns and religion. There is nothing elitist about that, and it is a marvel that anyone would think otherwise. Right, editors?

91 Responses to “L.A. Times Endorses a Presidential Candidate — You Just Might Be Shocked!!”

  1. Apparently Powel expressed his support for Obama as well.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  2. Like the guy going out with the hot chick, the editors are wowed by style and not substance. And, like that guy, they have stars in their eyes, and can’t really see any of the warts.

    Or that she’s cheating on him with anything with two legs and a dick, and some things with four legs and a dick.

    Get ready for a rough four years (and if we can’t elect someone besides Obama in 4 years, I will have officially lot all hope of the country surviving).

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  3. So my guess of Robert Mugabe was incorrect. Oh, well. Maybe I’ll do better on guessing the NYT‘s choice?

    andycanuck (e30673)

  4. “Like the guy going out with the hot chick, the editors are wowed by style and not substance.”

    This, from the blog that has had a hard-on for Palin since her nomination? Yeah, you can’t make that up either.

    Shodo (dbfcb4)

  5. I guessed you missed the entries where conservatives were angry at me for criticizing her, Shodo.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  6. Most days, you don’t need to read the L.A. Times to know what is in it.

    Patterico’s predictions are so accurate that I’d be inclined to take his stock and roulette advice.

    MagicalPat (bd4650)

  7. Shodo misses everything that isn’t a talking point.

    MagicalPat – Stocks and roulette are truly random. The LA Times, as Patterico has pointed out, is entirely predictable, and as such, worthless as an information source.

    When the Times folds, it will be richly deserved.

    Apogee (186a12)

  8. Scott Jacobs: blockquote>Get ready for a rough four years (and if we can’t elect someone besides Obama in 4 years, I will have officially lot all hope of the country surviving).

    Are you not at all impressed or heartened bu the fact that Obama, now has the endorsements of Both Colin Powell and Warren Buffet?

    What if he does well as a president? The economy gets back on it feet and the markets reignite with activity due to the trust that comes from fiscally sound controls and sober wise management? And AQ is finally dismantled and OBL and Al-Zawahiri caught and brought to justice (I don’t believe in the death penalty, but for them I will make an exception.) and the country is healthier (the health care plan has it’s growing pains, but eventually gets the kinks out), safer, more prosperous, more intellectually acute (I think Obama is going to be an amazing role model for all kids black or white that come from hardship.) And the world naturally turns to America again as the vanguard of human rights and and advancement?

    What then? Will you still leave the country? Will you pine for the good ole days of neoconservatism? Will you forever hate Obama?

    I’m asking this question in all seriousness and am not predicting Obama is going to win this (I’ll believe that, if it happens on Nov. 5th).

    Peter (e70d1c)

  9. So tell me enlightened readers, do you think there was any chance in hell that Powell or Times would have endorsed a very wet behind the ears dem junior Senator from Illinois IF he were not black? I guess as a typical whitey from a Jesuit University, I can’t appreciate racial solidarity. Actually, I don’t doubt that the LA Times would endorse any liberal nominee. Are we sure they are not holding something back for use at the last minute against Palin or McCain or maybe they’re applying the Breck Girl standards to McCain/Palin also?
    LA Times really should be paying Patterico as fact checker or some such.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  10. Remind me again why we should wish this fraud of a “newspaper” shouldn’t die?

    Don’t we put down incurably sick animals?

    Why not incurably sick newspapers?

    PrestoPundit (ff5e16)

  11. I’m asking this question in all seriousness and am not predicting Obama is going to win this (I’ll believe that, if it happens on Nov. 5th).

    I’m asking in all seriousness if Jesus descended from heaven next Tuesday, would you all become Christians ?

    About as likely as Peter’s hypothetical. I don’t know if these lefties are old enough to remember the Carter election in 1976. I remember it well. I remember thinking “He can’t be as bad as he seems because he has at least run a peanut business.”

    Tell me again what Obama has run ?

    Mike K (d8deba)

  12. Obama has run his mouth.

    Official Internet Data Office (4695f2)

  13. In all seriousness, Peter, if Obama wins and your non-prediction prediction comes true, this Canadian will be heading dues south to live in the U.S. as it will undoubtedly also rain beer and snow doughnuts. (A sure way to get the future hoser vote, I’d opine.)

    andycanuck (e30673)

  14. Does anyone else suspect that the MSM could not really care less about Obama? That it is all about them? That they are relevant, and powerful, and can make or break anyone they please?

    nk (6367bf)

  15. Obama is inexperienced on economics, but at least he admits it.
    McCain’s ideas are better, but he showed a lack of focus on the issue, by focusing on it to the exclusion of everything else.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Well…apparently, you can. LOL

    Here’s what they really mean:
    “Obama is handsome, and many are reminded of Jack Kennedy’s good looks. He may be inexperienced, but he knows it. McCain is old and has a lump on his face and a funny smile…”

    Exactly. Am still reeling in shock, nearly two months later, about their mind-boggling chutzpah in endlessly blathering about GOVERNOR Palin’s alleged “lack of experience” being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    The election isn’t over yet. But there is a possibility that the USA’s about to elect a relatively inexperienced politician (i.e. in comparision to Gov. Palin) who has socialist-like political leanings, extremist views on abortion, a complete lack of tolerance for dissent on pain of any vicious kind of personal attack (aka the race card), invasion of privacy (cf. Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin), or attack on one’s free speech (e.g. the legal attempt to shut up criticism), to the position of leader of the free world.

    Really, really hope I’m wrong. Think I’ll spend my Net time for the next couple of weeks in prayer that the country doesn’t make a huge mistake. See you guys in a few weeks.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  16. Washington Monthly has it all figured out.


    Josh Marshall noted, accurately, that the “welfare” talk is almost certainly driven by racial animus. Indeed, it almost has to be — both Obama and McCain are offering refundable tax credits as part of their economic plans. It’s pretty obvious McCain just wants to use the world “welfare” the way Republicans did throughout the 1980s — as a racially divisive code word.

    There you have it- RACISM !

    If Obama wins, he will have his work cut out for him backing away from all this crap his adoring supporters have put out. I don’t see any healing for another decade after this. He will fail and every criticism will be called racist.

    Mike K (d8deba)

  17. What if he does well as a president? The economy gets back on it feet and the markets reignite with activity due to the trust that comes from fiscally sound controls and sober wise management? And AQ is finally dismantled and OBL and Al-Zawahiri caught and brought to justice (I don’t believe in the death penalty, but for them I will make an exception.) and the country is healthier (the health care plan has it’s growing pains, but eventually gets the kinks out), safer, more prosperous, more intellectually acute (I think Obama is going to be an amazing role model for all kids black or white that come from hardship.) And the world naturally turns to America again as the vanguard of human rights and and advancement?

    You forgot the part about rolling back the rise in the seas and healing the sick.

    JVW (2da2ac)

  18. This is about as rational as Colin Powell’s endorsement.

    Nice dissection, in any case.

    Americaneocon (a45113)

  19. Will you still leave the country? Will you pine for the good ole days of neoconservatism? Will you forever hate Obama?

    A few will, probably; but it won’t be a mass insane asylum break – out that we witnessed after Bush’s win back in ’00. Even Clinton didn’t generate anywhere close to this kind of hate and violent talk – the Dems better hope and pray that what they’ve sown they will not reap if Obama wins this thing.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  20. McCain’s failing candidacy has brought all the vile that we all knew lurked beneath the surface of the radical right. Molehills of facts blown into a mountain of hate. Charges of treason and the attempts to forge a link between Obama and terrorists out of the most tenuous of connections. Lies about his lack of respect for the flag, his supposed swearing in on the Quoran, even the deliberate use of his middle name to create fear and suspicion. Robo calls making outrageous charges about connections to bombers and terrorists. Wild charges of widespread vote registration fraud and attempts to forge a link here as well. Charges of Socialism. It just goes on and on.
    And we know that all the facts in the world will not make a difference. There is something deeper here that does not respond to logic. Consider this post from MadMax. Its about Obama but notice the reference to Powell’s motives..

    do you think there was any chance in hell that Powell or Times would have endorsed a very wet behind the ears dem junior Senator from Illinois IF he were not black? I guess as a typical whitey from a Jesuit University, I can’t appreciate racial solidarity.

    That is not racism?

    VietnamEraVet (543dfe)

  21. #20

    How is that racism?

    I thought racism was the belief that people that are not your race are considered inherently inferior to your race?

    ML (14488c)

  22. What’s really funny is that Obama has in fact not admitted he doesn’t have a clue about economics. In fact, Obama has made a big deal out of McCain being honest about this very thing. It was McCain who admitted that he doesn’t understand economics as much as he should. Obama and his supporters seized on this as evidence that McCain had no clue about economics at all. Why? Obvious: they wanted to direct attention away from the fact that Obama has absolutely no clue regarding economics.

    The same goes for the crucifixion of Joe the Plumber – the Obama campaign wants to deflect all attention from Obama’s actual economic policies.

    Shorter LA Times: we’re supporting him because he’s a clean, articulate, black politician.

    George (7e3bdc)

  23. Comment by Dmac — 10/19/2008 @ 11:55 am
    What have they sown that they will reap? Isn’t Obama the result of 8 years of failed Republican leadership. The blunders and failures of Bush was actually the seed you sowed to reap Obama. Obama is the harvest. Live with it!

    love2008 (a54233)

  24. shorter VietnamEV: Failure to worship O! makes you a racist. QED.

    Darleen (187edc)

  25. Wow. The LAT endorses the candidate who attended KKK meetings for 20 years. I mean the candidate who attended black liberation meetings for 20 years.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  26. The Bobo can only respond in one manner, and that is to construct strawmen and ad hoc arguments that do not pertain to the original post in any form. But that is the way of The Bobo, or as other cultures define it, ignoramus horriblus.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  27. Obama is the harvest. Live with it!

    Comment by love2008

    It is the harvest of the MSM adoption of a very inexperienced and radical young politician because he is black. If Hillary was the nominee, I wouldn’t like it but she would be far ahead. This guy is a phony and is as dangerous to the country as Carter was in his time. We are still living with the consequences of Carter in Iran, Afghanistan and Israel.

    Had Arafat not been invited back to the West Bank by the Oslo accords (Clinton) and Carter’s Camp David Accords there might be a chance for a viable Palestinian state. After 20 years of Arafat, they are a suicide society.

    Iran was an ally until Carter threw out the Shah like “a dead mouse.” He told us to get over “our irrational fear of communism” and the USSR invaded Afghanistan, reassured that Carter would do nothing more effective than boycott the Olympics. Too bad he didn’t choose to hold his breath until they left Afghanistan.

    If we get Obama and Pelosi and Reid running things, we will see collapse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, maybe an invasion of Taiwan, Iran with the bomb, who knows what in Korea, Abandonment of all attempts to drill for more oil, and financial depression until he is finally thrown out.

    Of course, that assumes that we will still have elections.

    Mike K (d8deba)

  28. Easy-to-remember rule:

    Any position or statement that a Democrat or the media (BIRM) disagree with, but have no legitimate argument to make against, is racist.

    sherlock (b4bbcc)

  29. Scott Jacobs: Get ready for a rough four years (and if we can’t elect someone besides Obama in 4 years, I will have officially lot all hope of the country surviving).

    Are you not at all impressed or heartened bu the fact that Obama, now has the endorsements of Both Colin Powell and Warren Buffet?

    What if he does well as a president? The economy gets back on it feet and the markets reignite with activity due to the trust that comes from fiscally sound controls and sober wise management? And AQ is finally dismantled and OBL and Al-Zawahiri caught and brought to justice (I don’t believe in the death penalty, but for them I will make an exception.) and the country is healthier (the health care plan has it’s growing pains, but eventually gets the kinks out), safer, more prosperous, more intellectually acute (I think Obama is going to be an amazing role model for all kids black or white that come from hardship.) And the world naturally turns to America again as the vanguard of human rights and and advancement?

    What then? Will you still leave the country? Will you pine for the good ole days of neoconservatism? Will you forever hate Obama?

    I’m asking this question in all seriousness and am not predicting Obama is going to win this (I’ll believe that, if it happens on Nov. 5th).

    First off, what I find impressing is that Colin Powell is suddenly a man to be listened to. Not too terribly long ago he was an ignorant pawn of Rove’s. As for Warren Buffet, I’ve never considered him a source for good, sound advice, especially since Obama’s tax plan will benifit him greatly.

    But I’m sure those salient details are lost on you.

    Second, I like how you take “lost faith in this country surviving” and translated it into “leave the country”.

    You think the economy will get fixed by Obama? He wants to raise Cap Gains taxes (decreasing the desire to invest in the economy), increase taxes on businesses (which will raise prices and decrease pay raises and hirings), and take MY money and give it to other people.

    That you think those things will IMPROVE the economy is nothing short of staggering in it’s ignorance.

    Obama will be utterly unable to dismantle AQ, because Obama has no desire to go fight them. He still thinks the surge hasn’t worked, for crying out loud.

    There is no part of Obama’s health care plan that will increase the health of the nation, and it stands an excellent chance of causing the same sort of rationing and waiting lines that you see in Canada and the UK.

    I find it astonishing that you ascribe to Democrats any desire to increase human rights, considering they have long stood to block actual equal treatment of minorities. Ask yourself “Who introduced, and what party had the higher ratio of votes for, the Civil Rights Act?

    The country will be less safe, because I fully expect my ability to defend myself from criminals to be decreased significantly. Obama supported DC’s gunban, and CHicago is hardly a safe place to be, judging from crime stats.

    You think things will improve. I think we will see an impressive downward spiral where we ACTUALLY lose rights (as opposed to the imagined loss you and your friends claim has occured).

    The shame is, when we find out I’m right, we’ll have seen Carter-like economic conditions, and a general reduction in safety and freedom.

    I’ll be sure to thank you.

    Repeatedly.

    You ask in seriousness? Then attempt honest debate instead of strawman arguments that do nothing but put on display your blinding ignorance.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  30. What have they sown that they will reap?

    They’ve already sown an army of Bobos, who are akin to the brain – dead zombie voters on the rolls of ACORN.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  31. Yes, I must be a racist if my opinion is that people like Powell and so-called black conservative JC Watts want Obama as POTUS. How are they Republicans if they support a radical leftist agenda? It’s all about the shade of skin color. Magic Negro Obama is running as a black and what other reason is there for the afterfore mentioned black men to support Obama. Really cracks me up that Powell is chiding McCain for how his campaign is being run. All the figurative fellators of Obama won’t question one damn thing about Obama plans, past acts, associations, etc. Obama is blind and deaf for 20 years while attending Wright’s black separatism/blame whitey bullshit church. I note both managed to talk the talk about helping blacks, but it was Obama and Wright who got the fat bank accounts and fancy digs. Feck them both- along with Ayers, Rezko, Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Slow Joe Biden whose verbal slips get a total pass from the Obama’s feces around their mouths media, and assorted other scumbags like ACORN, Soros and Daley.

    btw, mutant Vietnam Era Assclown can kiss my honky ass with his fallacious judgements.

    Nobama- bend over America/ Terrorist endorsed.

    I am Joe

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  32. Regarding the endorsement, did anyone catch this at an LA Times blog the other day:

    When the Napa Valley Register endorsed McCain, Obama protesters picketed outside the newspaper’s offices: “They have the freedom to endorse whomever they wish, but we’re out to show our support for Barack Obama,” said Marita Dorenbecher, Democrats of Napa Valley publicity chair.

    Maybe the LA Times was scared NOT to endorse That One.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/times-endorses.html (sorry, the link button was messing up on me)

    William Teach (5d9f94)

  33. 29 I think we are screwed regardless of which candidate gets in office. Ok, Europe will rejoice over the Obamamessiah. I saw that that clueless Brezezinski mentioned it is important that we make Europe feel better about US leadership.

    IMO Obama as potus will lengthen and deepen the misery. Why the hell is it so hard to understand what socialism has wrought throughout history? Or how Jimmy Carter turned eveything he touched to crap. Does anyone really think that Pelosi and Reid have a clue? We have to pay the piper for all the mistakes and corruption that were mainly facilitated by the dem party. Any bitching about easy terms for housing applicants is deemed racist. Obama talks about “Fairness”. Look at The Monkey Chavez’s work results in Venezuela. I do expect we could easliy turn into a banana republic. Heil Baracky! camelot/Carter/McGovern/FDR redux.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  34. Are you not at all impressed or heartened bu the fact that Obama, now has the endorsements of Both Colin Powell and Warren Buffet?

    Not really. But, then, I’ve never been the type to go along just ’cause all the cool kids are doing it.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  35. Affirmative action General endorses affirmative action Presidential candidate.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  36. Madmax333, I’m with you. Let’s fire up some crosses in some front yards!

    Joe Kleagle (0a6237)

  37. To read these endorsements, they make it seem that if ONLY McCain had picked someone else as VP, they’d all be for him. Yeah right. It’s all about Palin.

    If only the plain chick didn’t drive a Ford…

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  38. For the record, the Power thing is a disappointment, but as for Buffet… any billionaire who argues for taxing people heavily on their first big score is trying to keep new money out of the club.

    I’d be FAR more impressed if he argued for a huge wealth tax with a $100 million exclusion. But no, he pays almost no tax (no cap gains until you sell, but you get to use the wealth anyway), but thinks the rest of us should pay more.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  39. 36-37
    I like Michelle Malkin’s take better. She doesn’t see the Powell love as racial loyalty, but more a case of Powell’s desire to embrace government racial preferences, even as he does exclaim that an Obama as POTUS would be “electrifying!”. Maybe I’m glad that Alma or whatever his wife’s name is, feared he’d be assassinated and thus no run for presidency. It’s Obama’s social liberalism that attracts Powell the most as far as Malkin thinks. Powell is pro-kill the fetus and insists that Palin is way too conservative also. The media will love the story though.
    Hey, if Buffett thinks he doesn’t pay enough in taxes, why does he not send a few billion to the treasury? As if he doesn’t have an army of tax lawyers and accountants to limit his tax exposure.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  40. Given the incredible pressure (socially, personally and business-wise) for African-Americans to support Obama, it is almost inconceivable that Powell could hold out any longer. The weakness of the reasons for the endorsement, along with the late date indicate that this was not freely given. He had to choose between neutrality and his friendship with McCain, and being ostracized from black society.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  41. Kevin, I disagree. There are plenty of black Republicans going on the record, from Walter Williams to the head of Godfather Pizza. Powell has always been a political general. He is the Marshall type, never leading troops in battle. His “doctrine” fits well with Obama’s ideas, focusing on “exit strategy” not victory.

    Mike K (d8deba)

  42. Comment by Dmac — 10/19/2008 @ 1:14 pm
    Doofy, How do you leave with yourself? How does it feel to be alone in a lonely dark room, fat, misearable and disgustingly smelly? How does it feel to savour the odour of your own fart and smile at yourself? Genius!

    love2008 (a54233)

  43. Powell swims in the NY-DC swamp, and it would be inconceivable for him to go against the conventional wisdom of that melieu.
    Just another DC Whore!

    Another Drew (b13f9c)

  44. How does it feel to be alone in a lonely dark room, fat, misearable and disgustingly smelly?

    The Bobo continues to project at will, not realizing it’s idiocy as laid plain for all to see. Feel sorry for The Bobo, for it cannot reason, let alone procreate.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  45. See it this way. McCain has the endorsement of Joe the Plumber and Obama has Colin Powell. Not counting the three major newspaper endorsements. So, guys, be grateful. At least you have got “Joe”.

    love2008 (a54233)

  46. Mike K, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of the Powell Doctrine, which is based on not spending the lives of our soldiers recklessly or needlessly. You need to distinguish between an exit from a conflict made as a political decision and the need for the military to have clearly defined goals and support in order to continue operations successfully.

    Remember, once the decision to commit the military has been made by the country, the first principle of the Powell Doctrine is that overwhelming force must be used, disproportionate to the force the enemy controls. This is “shock and awe.” You defeat and demoralize the enemy so quickly and completely that they capitulate. This is what we did in both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom very successfully.

    Unfortunately, we did not have a clear plan for what followed and our military goals were unclear for several years until we conducted the Surge last year, which was again very successful.

    Having a clear exit strategy is only one of the various points of the Powell doctrine. I would argue that, like the use of overwhelming force, it is meant to protect our troops. In this case, it’s in situations like Viet Nam where the conflict lost the support of the country. If that happens, then you need to have a clear way to get our troops out.

    That was Powell’s take on Viet Nam, we didn’t have clear military goals, we didn’t use overwhelming force, we lost the support of the country and we had no clear exit strategy.

    The Powell doctrine stresses you know why you’re fighting and you use overwhelming force to achieve victory. Victory is always the goal for the military. Otherwise, the sacrifice made by the soldiers is meaningless. From a command perspective an exit strategy only becomes necessary as a last resort if the political will of the country is no longer behind you.

    This is different from a political decision to end a conflict without victory. That can be a stab in the back for the troops. The exit strategy in the Powell doctrine simply means that if your troops are about to be stabbed in the back, get them out of the way.

    Peccator Dubius (0a6237)

  47. ______________________________________

    Or how Jimmy Carter turned eveything he touched to crap.

    On the state-wide level there is the more recent example by way of California, in which its former governor had to be recalled (first ever recall of a US governor in something like over 60 years) because his politics (of leftist orientation) combined with the similar politics of the California legislature (also of leftist orientation) were a match made in hell.

    And Colin Powell can be labeled a “centrist,” but only because of the changing nature of politics over the past few decades. If Powell’s ideology in 2008 were judged over 30 to 40 years ago, it (and Powell) would have been characterized as quite liberal.

    As for Warren Buffett, he’s the essence of a limousine liberal. So the only folks who make out nicely when his type of philosophy is in charge are (1) government employees (and their unions), and (2) those who are directly on Buffett’s gravy train. Or people who are no less greedy and no less manipulative than any other SOB on Wall Street.

    And not just on Wall Street, but a liberal in the business world in general. In fact, I have a particular person in mind: a big fan of Obama who has been attempting to reorganize a small business. I’ve observed him trying to flout rules and restrictions in the workplace. Rules and restrictions that are quite popular with most liberal lawmakers. Moreover, his attitude towards employees can be quite overbearing at times.

    So the guy is the worse of all stereotypes, the worse of both worlds: the compassion and cunning of a “big-business” executive (supposedly always a Republican) with all the common sense of a typical Democrat.

    But now that I think of it, that description sounds like it would fit most trial lawyers. And aren’t most lawyers both of the left and registered as Democrats?

    Mark (add396)

  48. Colin Powell endorses Obama?
    Wasn’t Powell for some war that Obama was against?
    Didn’t Powell go before the UN and lie about WMD in Iraq?
    Why are the Dems excited about Powell endorsing Obama?

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  49. Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  50. Unfortunately for those that think the Powell Doctrine (which he boosted from Cap Weinberger) is the be-all & end-all of military doctrine there is the inconvenient truth that it doesn’t apply to counter-insurgency warfare.
    Powell’s doctrine calls for massive formations of armor, artillery, and aircraft. But, to engage successfully in CI warfare, the troops have to dismount, mix with the populace, and secure the countryside one block at a time and reconstitute a working government, one block at a time. You can’t do that from a helo at 3000 meters, or from a tank going 50 clicks across the fields.

    As remarked above, it is humorous seeing Liberals falling all over themselves praising Powell’s endorsment of The One, after they have spent the last five years castigating him in no uncertain terms for his “deception” before the UN, leading us into war with lies.
    Well, you are who you associate with (except for The One, of course, who never knew what a POS Ayers and Dohrn are, and never imagined in his wildest flights of fancy that his pastor is the white-hating racist he is, or all of the others who now reside under Obama’s bus).

    Another Drew (b13f9c)

  51. Obama’s got this election in the bag!

    Governor Tom Bradley (4695f2)

  52. more….

    So, we see that Powell can be instructive when we want to invade a country needing to defeat its’ military.
    But, it has no relevance when that country falls into the cess-pool of insurgency warfare. And, since most of the hot-spots in today’s world are some form of insurgency warfare, just what relevance does the “Powell Doctrine” have for the future operations of the U.S.Military?
    Are we going to reconstitute the DoD so as to ensure a victory against Russia in the Fulda Gap, or on the Steppes of EurAsia?
    Will we raise an Army of 100+ armored-divisions so as to be able to mount an offensive against the PLA in Central Asia?
    Or, are we going to spend $billions on new strategic weapons to ensure that any opponent who overmatches us with manpower will be incinerated by thermo-=nuclear weapons and reduced to a stone-age existance?
    Is this the direction that Obama-Pelosi-Reid will lead us? And just where will they get the money?

    Another Drew (b13f9c)

  53. AD, yes, that’s quite right; overwhelming force in and of itself is a conventional warfare doctrine, but the Powell Doctrine and the counter insurgency tactics that General Petraeus developed and has implemented brilliantly are not inconsistent.

    For the most part, the Powell Doctrine speaks to how the decision to send our troops into harms way should be made, implemented and supported over time. Whether you’re sending those troops into a conventional combat situation or into a counter-insurgency operation, the things to be considered are the same.

    In discussing the Powell doctrine I was just responding to another poster’s conclusion that it is more about an exit strategy than victory. That’s simply uninformed IMHO.

    Peccator Dubius (0a6237)

  54. Well, I will still make the point that the political committment part was from Weinberger, who was speaking of this when Powell was still wearing eagles.
    IMO, and the opinion of others, there is only one exit strategy:
    VICTORY!

    Wasn’t the Spartans who told their warriors:
    Return to us carrying your shields high in victory, or being carried upon them in defeat.

    Another Drew (b13f9c)

  55. The Powell doctrine was more an excuse for not dealing with tough situations than a “strategy”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. I missed the “Kerry is Lincoln-esque” quote earlier. Thanks for pointing out such a ridiculous statement.

    love2008 wrote:

    Isn’t Obama the result of 8 years of failed Republican leadership. The blunders and failures of Bush was actually the seed you sowed to reap Obama.

    No, the lies the left and the legacy media told, like the ones you just told, are what was sown. That’s what’s being reaped. And if Obama’s elected, we’ll have to deal with them for the invasive weeds they are, choking out the truth.

    Jim C. (33af9d)

  57. Yes, my oh-so-unbiased local bird cage liner, the Palm Beach Post hit it on the head with its thoughtful and illuminating endorsement of Barry Hussein. See, the problem with McCain is that he claims to be tested, but in this campaign he came up short. He has sounded like a BITTER, JEALOUS OLD MAN who considers himself ENTITLED to the presidency. Obama still sounds like the candidate of change when he started. he was right then. He’s right now. That’s why he’s the right choice for America. Why Obama? His RECORD, JUDGMENT, TEMPERAMENT (emphasis mine).
    In any case in the liberal world, up is down and black isi white. McCain is responsible for our problems and Obama was the one who is always on the ball. God, these media pukes make me sick. Loads of praise for the Messiah for sure. http://www.PalmBeachPost.com/endorsements

    Nobama- bend over America/Terrorist supported

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  58. Palm Beach is uh… er, well… ah.. wow. Where’s a good tele-prompter when you need one.

    Those leathery old libs have sunburn on the brain. And lotsa white guilt, too.

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  59. As a nation, we simply can’t afford to have an inexperienced, unqualified political neophyte one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. We need an inexperienced, unqualified political neophyte in the Oval Office. Comment by Xrlq — 10/19/2008 @ 8:15 pm

    Good point.

    Re “Powell Doctrine”- I heard a book on tape once titled “Every Man a Tiger” (I think). It was about the career of the officer who was in charge of air power in Gulf War 1, who was a combat pilot early in his career in Vietnam. From his comments, I think the “Powell Doctrine” could be summarized as “Once the decision is made in Washington to go to war, let the soldiers fight it”. He spoke about people far removed from battle being in charge with terrible results.
    One example had two different fighter groups attacking the same target along a river valley each unaware of the other. To make things even worse, the groups were approaching the site from opposite directions. One moment they are preparing to engage the target, next instant they’re flying into fire from other US planes coming directly at them.
    Another example was watching the N. Vietnamese installing SAM batteries. Washington ordered them to be left alone, as if they assumed if we were nice to them and let them set up the Soviet SAMs, they would be nice in return and wouldn’t use them. He said that the N. Vietnamese had not received the message.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  60. Yeah, and just think, a week or so ago Jim Newton, the editor of the editorial page, was quoted in Editor and Publisher magazine as insisting that the editorial board had not decided its endorsement. The suspense has been almost unbearable.

    james fulton (94bb58)

  61. I don’t give Powell that much credit. His doctrine is aimed at avoiding Vietnam but that was 40 years ago. The army had a chance to adopt the British counter-insurgency strategy in Vietnam but they declined and, when Abrams finally began to apply it, it was too late. Powell, like most of the Big Army people never learned that and his experience is not useful for the wars we are in.

    It is inexplicable that he would support Obama who promises to make useless all the learning and sacrifice our troops made in the past four years. I suspect Obama is lying about his policies, most of the recent converts did so assuming he was lying, but he will be inept when the next decision comes. Clinton was inept and he was far more interested in policy. Obama is only interested in getting elected.

    Mike K (d8deba)

  62. Powell has always been a freaking liberal. I don’t know why his endorsement surprises anyone.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  63. #29 Scott Jacobs:

    You think things will improve. I think we will see an impressive downward spiral where we ACTUALLY lose rights (as opposed to the imagined loss you and your friends claim has occured).

    Yeah, I’ve had an earful of the terrible, terrible things will happen, should Obama win the presidency the McCain campaign and people like you have made certain of that, but you haven’t answered the question:

    What if Obama turns out to be a good president?

    [“Good” measured by the goals I listed above being accomplished.]

    I’ll admit, that if McCain wins and turns out to be a good president, I’ll still have some negative feelings for the campaign he and the RNC have run, but I’ll probably grudgingly give him credit where it’s due. Hell, if he accomplishes the goals I listed above, rolls back the constitutional excesses of the executive branch and strips some of the more egregious elements from the Patriot Act, I’ll even say he’s an excellent president.

    Now, over to you Scott. Answer the question.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  64. McCain never suspended his campaign … he just moved it to Washington where he had no influence whatsoever over his House colleagues and ended up “making a few phone calls” from his office

    And the choked truth? What no one in the media dares to say? It’s that this country has been living in denial ever since Jimmy Carter told us that our dysfunctional energy policy was weakening the country. People didn’t want to hear “doom and gloom” so they voted for “morning in America” and elected to play at being a “beacon” to the rest of the world rather than concentrating on strengthing our economy and social fabric. What did that get us? Spiraling government debt, stagnant (now falling wages), crushing health care costs, and now an entire economy on the precipice of collapse.

    This has been going on for almost 3 decades. Now we are hearing that it is “un-American” to say that we took the wrong path then and need to rethink where we are so that we can get on the right path — not to reverse direction but to move forward. The constitution says that the obligation of government is to ensure that we and our descendants enjoy the fruits of liberty but very few young adults think their lives are better than their parents and we know their liberties have been trampled.

    And for the clowns who criticize medical systems in other countries: Neither the media nor the the establishment in this country want to hear what ordinary people really want. They bring out the old canard about waiting lines in Britian and Canada but never mention Germany, or France, or Switzerland or any one of the other countries where infant mortality is lower, everyone enjoys better care and no one is driven into bankruptcy by medical costs.

    Karen M. (9f7540)

  65. It truly is a marvel that anyone would consider someone an elitist, merely because he frets about the price of arugula, and claims that small-town America bitterly clings to guns and religion.

    If Obama wins the election, I predict that there will be much bitterness, denial and clinging to God and guns, and talk of Democrat voter fraud causing the end of American democracy. Conversely, if McCain wins the election, I predict much outrage and gnashing of teeth on the part of Democrats at the stealing of the election by those elitist Republicans and their doctored voting machines.

    I also predict that Obama or McCain(probably through no fault of Obama/McCain’s own) will guide us successful through these trying economic times, and at some point in the next eight years we will return to a less aggressive, but still somewhat prosperous, bull market.

    At which point, the voters will again elect the chosen candidate of either the Democrats or Republicans. And the Democrats or Republicans will complain miserably about how corrupt the rich, corporate elitist Democrats/Republicans are for stealing the election from them.

    Phil (3b1633)

  66. infant mortality is lower, everyone enjoys better care

    This assertion is opinion stated as fact, without even a scintilla of evidence to support it. If their care is that much better, why do so many people of means from overseas come here for their healthcare?

    JD (f7900a)

  67. Madmax333, I’m with you. Let’s fire up some crosses in some front yards!

    Comment by Joe Kleagle — 10/19/2008 @ 2:50 pm

    It’s OK to use your real name, Senator Byrd. Thing is, I don’t see what you’re referring to.

    Pablo (99243e)

  68. If their care is that much better, why do so many people of means from overseas come here for their healthcare?

    Yes, and why do the poor complain that they have no bread, when there is so much cake?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  69. Non-sequeter. Excuse us while we resume killing, jailing, torturing and otherwise oppressing some minorities, Phil.

    JD (f7900a)

  70. What if Obama turns out to be a good president?

    Then I’ll start rooting for Hell’s newly formed hockey team.

    The taxes that come due in April of 2010… When they are higher than 2009’s, you come talk to me so I can explain how we saw it coming.

    Now, please list for me, in detail, these “excesses” of the executive branch, and these “egregious elements” of the Patriot Act that so bother you.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  71. Now, please list for me, in detail, these “excesses” of the executive branch, and these “egregious elements” of the Patriot Act that so bother you.

    Me doth thinks you’re being coy. I’ll enumerate them for you more fully when the criminal investigations begin next year.

    Then I’ll start rooting for Hell’s newly formed hockey team.

    Well, get your ice skates out.

    You still haven’t answered the question.

    I’ll repeat it for you:

    What if Obama turns out to be a good president?

    Peter (e70d1c)

  72. What if the Cubs win the World Series?

    JD (f7900a)

  73. I’ll enumerate them for you more fully when the criminal investigations begin next year.

    If you have to wait for someone else to list them for you, then you don’t know WHAT you’re talking about and are merely parroting what you hear on Countdown.

    Either you can list them, proving you have an iota, some tiny fraction, at least a modicum of knowledge about whence you speak.

    “Coy”? No, I’m trying to get you to either show some original thought, or show your blinding, painfully complete stupidity. Guess which one I have my money on…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  74. I see you still won’t answer the question.

    Such a simple question, but you cannot or won’t entertain it for one single second.

    Now why is that?

    Peter (e70d1c)

  75. Fine.

    If Obama turns out to be a great president, I’ll be thrilled.

    And 100% shocked, because not a single policy of his could possibly improve things.

    Now you answer my question, idiot.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  76. One problem is that Obama will just be able to blame things that go wrong with his Presidency on W and the Republicans. He will have it made in the White House because he can continue to push his leftist illuminati ideals and play the poor, old victim.

    Jeff (9f2f2a)

  77. Thanks for finally answering that SJ.

    I don’t need anyone to list for me the abuses of the Bush administration. They’re burned into my mind:

    Manipulation of Intel, an unnecessary war and strategic blunder, lies about WMD’s, the outing of Valarie Plame, the Telecommunications immunity act, the suspension of Habeaus corpus in regards to foreign nationals declared “enemy combatants.” The denial of representation for American citizens suspected of terrorism and holding people for years w/o charges, Guantanamo, the continual defiance of Bush cabinet members (Rove, Meiers) towards subpeonas, the politicization of the DOJ and the firing of US attorney generals, the attempt take advantage of a weak and sick Ashcroft by Gonzales. Destruction of White House emails, presidential signing statements (more than all the other presidents of the country combined), Intimidation and manipulation of the media. Governmental listening in to private phone calls. The gutting of federal agencies and the attendant deterioration into their areas of jurisdiction whether that be FEMA (catastrophic criminal incompentence), FDA, Office of the Comptroller of the currency, SEC and even the CIA. Abuses of Vice Presidential mandate. And the approval of enchanced interrogation techniques in direct open violation of the Geneva convention article 3. Putting the nations soldiers in danger and at risk of inhuman acts.

    On and on and on it goes from the most secretive, backhanded, intimidating, failure of an administration that has ruined the country’s moral standing in the world, let big business write it’s own ticket to hell (and back for $700 Billion), set back the advancement of environmetal controls, systematically gutted every element of the federal government, even while growing it to the biggest ever, by instilling ideological poison into every part of of it.

    Hiring of private mercenaries like Blackwater, awarding bid free contracts to Halliburton worth billions…

    It’s almost over no, they’re done and they’ve effectively crippled the GOP politically.

    Some of these might come back to haunt Bush/Cheney et al…especially the politicization of the DOJ and the firing of the US attorney’s. That’s for sure going to have some serious legs, but I think history is going to be GWB’s harshest judge and frankly I am sick of talking about him. Living under this administration has been pure hell for anyone who thinks the president of the US should have the concerns of the people as first priority and not the concerns of the rich and the connected.

    I know that I’m never going to stop talking about this administration and all they did way down the road when I’m an old guy and they’re a hopefully bad and shameful memory I’m going to do all I can to make sure that the abuses of the Bush administration are never forgotten and never repeated. And I’m not the only one.

    The mind reels at what will come from the people who were inside the administration, who will soon feel free to talk about it and write memoirs. Not to mention the classified materials that one day will be made available. GWB and his crew are going to make Tricky Dick (his rightful mentor) look like an amateur.

    I’d rather look to the future now though.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  78. One problem is that Obama will just be able to blame things that go wrong with his Presidency on W and the Republicans.

    Well, yes that’s right and you look at that list above to see everything he can blame rightly on the Bush administration.

    But it’s only fair considering McCain and the Republicans are blaming everything on Obama and he’s not even president yet.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  79. Manipulation of Intel

    Not even supported by the Senate report … You made it slightly over 2 sentences before lying.

    Intimidation and manipulation of the media

    Snort.

    The gutting of federal agencies

    Have there been any cuts in spending anywhere?

    Putting the nations soldiers in danger and at risk of inhuman acts.

    Yup. Those terrorists would have never cut anyones head off with a dull rusty scimtar if we hadn’t interrogated KSM roughly.

    awarding bid free contracts to Halliburton worth billions

    I would love it, if just once, a Leftist actually could explain this process, and admit how fucking foolish of a talking point this is.

    systematically gutted every element of the federal government,

    The explanation for this one ought to be entertaining.

    especially the politicization of the DOJ and the firing of the US attorney’s.

    Another Leftist faux-scandal.

    JD (f7900a)

  80. Peter, it is amusing that all of your list is nonsense, long since debunked.

    Hardly your most dishonest statement, but certainly the most hilarious was when you write about “bid free” contracts to Halliburton, showing your ignorance of how KBR/Halliburton had actually obtained their military services contract during the Clinton administration.

    Again, not the most ignorant of your comments but among the funnier is when you label Rove and Meiers as cabinet members. You really are that ignorant evidently.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  81. SPQR – Was there any doubt?

    JD (f7900a)

  82. No, JD, there was no doubt. I’ve spanked Peter’s backside so often in the past on his imagination that I feel all naughty doing it again.

    His utter incompetence with basic facts of current and recent events would be hilarious were it not so consistent among Obama supporters. They have such emphatic opinions, and when they explain their opinions they end up showing 100% false foundation for them. But oddly, it seems to matter no one whit that their foundation is completely and utterly wrong – their opinions don’t change.

    That’s the sign of religious fanatics, not rational people.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  83. That’s the sign of religious fanatics, not rational people.

    Yet they concurrently seem to despise people of faith. Odd, that. It must be a weird kind of self-loathing.

    JD (f7900a)

  84. It is the usual kind of bigotry, JD, sourced in a need to convince themselves of a superiority they lack in reality.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  85. SPQR: I’ve spanked Peter’s backside so often in the past on his imagination that I feel all naughty doing it again.

    Is there something you’d like to errr…maybe come out about?

    No wonder you guys sound like a bunch of gay dudes going all super queen ballistic on Christopher street.

    LOL.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  86. Peter, someone who calls Rove and Meiers part of Bush’s cabinet has no business claiming others’ errors.

    None.

    You’ve demonstrated enough ignorance today.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  87. By the way, Peter, when someone has already made a joke, and you try to adopt it as your own and act like you have gotten one over the first person … well, it just makes you look more stupid.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  88. someone who calls Rove and Meiers part of Bush’s cabinet has no business claiming others’ errors.

    Give me a fkin break.

    when someone has already made a joke, and you try to adopt it as your own and act like you have gotten one over the first person … well, it just makes you look more stupid.

    Well, you’d know all about that.

    LOL.

    Gd night already dude. Give it a rest.

    Peter (e70d1c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1351 secs.