grylliade.org Free minds. Free markets. Free beer.

Here's the picture he mentioned. Very touching.

I will never forgive Colin Powell for carrying water to the U.N.

Agreed. Powell should stay out of public office after what he did. In a just world, the people who held federal office in 2003 would all be in Iraq doing charity work for war orphans, as penance for what they wrought.

The Bush Administration violated the Powell Doctrine in a number of ways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_doctrine

I'd throw in the "Pottery Barn Rule" too as something they seem to have ignored, but I think that's covered in points 3 and 6 of the Powell Doctrine.

It seems to me that the Bush Administration used him to sell the war. They used him for his integrity and because he was famous for the Powell Doctrine. I believe he was duped into supporting the war. Once ousted, I think he worked behind the scenes to mitigate the damage his good reputation had done. I know he played a role in keeping Bolton from being confirmed. And that's just what we know about, maybe there was more.

But, yeah, I think the Iraq War failed the Powell Doctrine in a number of ways, and I think he did his level best to stick to the Powell Doctrine.

...but I think he was duped. We might not have gone to war had it not been for the report he gave to the UN. Had it not been for the bogus photographs of mobile weapons labs and had it not been for his having testified to and suggested collaboration between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. I do not believe he would have passed on the information he'd been given by his own intelligence staff at the State Department if he'd known it was bogus, but then, for all I know, President Bush wouldn't have said what he said in his address to congress about WMD and Al Qaeda collaboration either if only he'd known... ...but what difference does that make?

It doesn't make much difference to me. We still made a big mistake.

It's very sad that he's the only current or former member of this administration to ever have done that.

Hey, I like that video.

After viewing it my opinion of Powell just shot up a few points. I can't agree more strongly with the points that he is making.

After just reading the hundreds of posts on the Powell endorsement of Obama, and seeing an American dude at a market in Cairo wearing an Obama t-shirt, my despise for the Obama supporters was at an all time high. I mean I am rooting for Obama to win (and it looks like he is going to) because my despise of McCain is higher, and I think the damage that a McCain presidency will do is greater (no R opposition).

Still I despise the "I'm so smart and I support Obama" people. Specially when they can't name any particular thing Obama has done or will do. I mean I can name something Obama has done, that I support (thanks to joe).

Anyways I disagree about Powell;
I disagree that WMD is a good reason to invade a country (Israel, Russia, India, China, France, North Korea are to be invaded?)
I came to understand that he was a pretty crappy Sect of State, probably better than 'NotsoBright' but crappy compared to Condolezza.

But before that I did admire the guy. I liked the Powell doctrine, and liked the guy, liked his opposition to using American troops willy nilly.

OK, rant over.

Bottom line, I like this video, and I agree with what he is saying.
I hate to see Republicans retreat into the racism and xenophobia. That was the area of the Hillary supporters and it was not a winning ticket.

As Americans in war, (whether right or wrongly in war). Are we fighting for freedom? A freedom that all are welcome to? Or are we fighting so that our tribe is on top? If it is the latter, we are just a bigger stronger Israel. IMO

Edit: One reason that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama irritated me is that the reason he gave was Judges that McCain might appoint. I personally think that from a right or libertarian approach, McCain's appointment of judges would be disappointing in that it would be too much like what Obama would appoint.
One of the best things of the Bush presidency, maybe the ONLY thing I can unconditionally endorse has been his appointment of judges.
(the ones he actually got to onto the bench).
And maybe the ONLY valid reason to vote for McCain over Obama, is that the socialist judges that Obama would appoint might do damage that a route after two years (a la Gingrich) might not be enough.

It really looks like McCain is Done. Done Done even. I find myself laughing at his demise.

A certain part of me is very concerned about an undivided Democrat goverment, but Palin was so insulting I just feel like the guy needs to be kicked in the nuts.

Not if it remains Democrat vs. Republican. Demographically, the Republicans are increasingly being left with the Gen Xers and the segments of the Baby Boomers that they've always had, while younger people are Democratic to an overwhelming degree. And the Republican party has lost any ability that they had to actually engage the unconverted in a conversation and convince them, in favor of their habit of using right-wing talking points from the Reagan era that, frankly, don't make a whole lot of sense to people who aren't predisposed to respond to them. Add to this the fact that the Democrats finally understand how to keep and hold the House and Senate (hint: it has to do with people's uncanny ability to hate Congress while seeing their slimy Rep as "one of the few good ones") and the fact that they're going to be the ones to redraw the lines in 2010, and the Democratic majority in the Senate is safe for at least 5 years, and the majority in the House is safe for at least 10.

Now, if a viable third party emerges, probably promising a change in the economic system in the face of Dem and Rep inability to fix a Depression, that would be different. But the Republicans can look forward to at least 10 years in the Congressional minority otherwise.

There won't be any viable third party if by viable one means seriously challenging the duopoly party system and winning a threatening number of political contests. Whenever a third party sufficiently energizes enough independents and strays from the major parties, one of those parties or both simply co-opt the issues.

These things swing in small arcs and large arcs. Maybe we're moving into a major arc for the Democrats, maybe not. Harry Truman, dissatisfied by what he took to be the too conservative leanings of some of his fellow Democrats once said "If you run a Republican against a Republican you'll elect a Republican every time." Something of the same sort could be said about the Republican Party of the last eight years but who knows how their imminent loss of power will pan out.

Don't worry too much about undivided Democratic government--it isn't really undivided. The Democrats are good at fighting amongst themselves, and they've spent several years capitulating to Republicans with the help of their Blue Dog faction. Yes, the leaders will have less need to cater to Blue Dogs with strong majorities, but never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fight each other.

That said, I REALLY REALLY want Republicans to capture at least one chamber of Congress in 2010.

I meant once the dude had already won.
Once he had already taken the oath of office, what if he were to have done justice to that oath he took

It's more undivided, however, in some significant ways than it was back before the Democrats lost the South for a generation or so. And I think the emotional mindset and the public image of the Democratic party will make it difficult for Democrats in Congress to oppose Obama unless and until he screws up big time.

I don't see Republicans gaining control of either house until at least 2012 and here's why. Unless America in particular or the world in general goes all lemming-like economically, I doubt the recession will last more than a year or two. I also expect our foreign enemies will take a wait-and-see policy for at least the first year or so of the Obama administration. If nothing new and bad happens on the international scene and if the economy starts turning around in a year or two, if anything, the Dems are likely to gain even more seats.

I'm more optimistic than that. Our grandparents (parents, in some cases) survived the Depression and the New Deal. Eventually, things will get better.

No, I don't see any issue right now that could cause a meltdown of one of the two major parties. But people in 1850 didn't see the meltdown of the Whigs coming either, even if they could see things getting worse with regards to slavery. There's no One Big Issue that could cause that kind of problem, but there are plenty of small ones that could blow up if not handled properly.

And I'd find it a lot easier to buy the idea that a third party doesn't stand a chance if, 16 years ago, a newly formed third party hadn't managed to get almost 20% of the vote, with much more possible had the leader not flaked out part-way through and then tried to unflake. There's an awful lot of space between "tremendously difficult due to structural discrimination" and "impossible."

In the 20th and, so far, in the 21st centuries, third parties can play spoilers and can affect major party platforms at the margins, but I think you're about as likely to see a constitutional convention as you are the demise of one of the two major parties. (N.B. to Shem, I'm still not calling either eventuality impossible.) Perot was (is) nuts, but he was (is) a billionaire back when a billion dollars was a lot of money and even at that he only got < 19% of the popular vote and no electoral votes. Sorry, but that wasn't even close to being a challenge to the two party monopoly. The only other example worth mentioning would be Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, but mein gott, Roosevelt was a former president already and his Bull Moose / Progressive party was still largely a spoiler and a vanity affair.

So Perot polled the most in the prez race of anyone else since 1912 (or since). Can you say "cherry pickin'"? :-)

And it was still only 19%.

Again, the Repubs succeeded in 1860 because a nation splitting, Civil War fomenting issue caused a party that had only been around for 20 years to split into two or three. If the Repubs or Dems split up, that might encourage someone to enter the void. But it's a lot less likely now thanks to rules that favor the Dems and Repubs. Among other things........

Okay, George Wallace, then. Who isn't a spectacular example, because even when he ran he was on the wrong side of history, but even he still managed to pull 15% of the votes and a nontrivial number of electoral votes. It *is* possible for a third party to be a genuine contender in a Presidential race. They just can't do it like a Dem or Rep would and still be successful.

The game mechanics work against a substantial third party. If I go back to what makes voters vote, it is a handful of issues. Every issue in the land is divided between the two parties, settling roughly in such a way that internal cohesion will prevail. It is true in winner take all that if you aren't voting for the best chance of your issue being advanced, you are conceding it to the other side.

The only way this breaks up is if the rules change to make spoiler voting irrational or if the parties become indistinguishable such that substantial voting blocs are left out of the two parties altogether. If you consider the competition between the parties, it is hard to imagine either of them leaving that much scratch on the table.

I just don't see it.

You're joking, right? This country has never had free markets. It's just shifted around the ways in which they're unfree.

Fixed.

Well no I wasn't joking. We had the 'before the New Deal', and the 'before the Federal Reserve'. They weren't shining examples of libertarianism and free markets. But they were more free than now.

Or not?

Depends on who you were. You were more free if you were a business owner, but if you were a sweatshop employee, or immigrant, or non-white male, or any of the other lower classes during that time period, you were boned, economically and socially. Like I say, it's more a matter of "freedom shifting around" than it is "freedom getting smaller."

I seem to recall Ventura being rather lackluster in office and not getting much of what he wanted accomplished. That's all to the good in a gridlock-lover's eyes, but it didn't help his credibility for achieving higher office.

EDIT for nevermindedness.

Success at the state level should probably give 3rd party wishers more hope than Perot, Wallace or Lincoln. Problem is, it's a helluva lot harder to do nationally, and the record shows it.

Okay, here's what I think of third parties possibilities, likelihoods or whatever.

The likelihood's low enough for there not being much point to hanging your hat on it or even talking about it more than one-quarter seriously.

If a 3rd party or independent candidate has any chance at all in a particular election, you'll know it right from the start, as 3rd parties/indies tend to fade during the campaign.

The chances of building a movement into a meaningful 3rd party are nada. Okay sure, look at Ventura, Perot, Wallace, whoever. Individuals are what mattered, not political movements. I remember all my lefty friends hoping that if Nadar got 5% in 2000, then maybe he'd get 10% in 2004, then 20%, and up and up. Rotsa ruck. Doesn't happen. Never has, no reason to expect it ever will. Even 3rd parties that create a few sparks head southward in subsequent elections, for the same reason they fade during campaigns: people lose interest in the prospect of "wasting" their vote. Happened to Perot, Nader, the Communists, you name it. And as I've pointed out, the Repubs never came in third, their impact was immediate.

So, how about a successful third party becoming a meaningful movement after winning? Aside from winning to begin with being so unlikely, folks like Ventura and Weiker and Lieberman don't leave much legacy. And I've already gone into all the differences with 1860.

But hey, it's a (slightly) free country! Wish away!! :-)

Well, someone's going to need to accept these morons into their party. They need a bumper sticker that says:

I Have Two Brain Cells and I Vote

Tribal instincts. They probably hate their opponent and their opponent's supporters much more than they like their own candidate! IT'S WAR!

First you'd have to *think*!!

Talking about bumper stickers and McCain:

You know, if Powell had come out and said vote for a 3rd party member, I would have respected him a lot more.
Even if it had been somebody nutty like Nader.

Still, it must be said about straight white, educated Protestant males in generations before mine that they didn't exactly get to wander around raping women and lynching black folks and beating up homosexuals and keeping Jews out of Harvard and shoving their religion down everyone else's throats and oppressing poor, ignorant people all the time.

On holidays, sure, but not all the time.

I don't think that holds.

But when I wrote that, I was thinking, but didn't write it down because I don't have a set opinion, about Israel.
Half of the population of Israel is free, more so than any other Middle Eastern nation.
(And as such the country benefits from some of the advantages of a free nation, ie technical innovation and an army that beats the armies form the non-free nations)

With that I don't know what argument to make. Is that better or worse? I don't really know.

So, I suppose that today where supposedly all are treated equal before the law (Affirmative Action may be morally wrong, but it is not a huge deal compared to historical wrongs). I suppose todays standards are better.

Can't we have both though? Equality before the law, AND a pre-New Deal type freedom?
Wasn't there a point right before WW2 when all people were at least on the road to equality, and that there was no income tax, no standing army, no federal law enforcement over reaches? I wonder if from that time on, if government would have stayed out of race relations, that race relations would be much better today?

The way I'd put it is: I'd like everyone to be as free as the freest people could be in the less-enlightended past. Nowadays that degree of freedom is unachievable even as a potential, even if you can get to the top of the heap.

It is if your stated goal is to have children. They were McCain supporters; their stated goal was to get McCain elected.

and yet their actual actions were to shout loudly and seek out the electrifying contact one gets from telling strangers they're bad, bad people.

Re Shem contra dhex, there's no way of knowing for sure, but I would figure the goons in question probably rationalized that they were helping their political cause in a way that a masterbator is well aware that he's not furthering his reproduction. And on the surface of it, yes, that would seem imbecilic. But it's also most likely that these folks did not exactly sit down at a strategy meeting to plan this out. Consciously or not, and probably mostly not, they were most likely mostly attracted to the sick and mischievous thrill of it. That they thought they were doing some "good," to the degree that they thought that, was probably largely what's known as, and what I already already alluded to it as, a rationalization. And actually I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of them would even admit it's stupid and they just did it cause they felt like it. But even we look at their behavior as "rational" for fullfilling their need for thrills, "stupid" still seems like a good label to slap on it, even if that's primarily an aesthetic judgment (and it's not exactly ethical, either, but then that's rather obvious).