Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (275529)	10/20/2008 9:33:12 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

I think Powell was buffaloed by the polls. He thinks Obama will win. Given that, he may be rationalizing to himself that this will get him a job in an Obama administration and he can be a lone voice of knowledge there. This is being generous. It may just be a cynical self-promotion thing.

To: John Carragher who wrote (275529)	10/20/2008 12:48:06 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

From my Email... This is my take on his position of this morning's "Meet The Press" interview my friends. "Other evils there are that may come... Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule" As to General Powell's "inability to support" some of the McCain campaign's decisions, I summarize his "Meet The Press" interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608) and the positions that prodded him to break his long held public "neutrality" since his retirement as SecState as follows. All well spoken, with the "thoughtful" demeanor which is his rep: ------- (Powell view) McCain: Good man, but his Party has moved "too far to the right" Inconsistent approach to our economic problems Un-ready VP pick (and again "too far to the right") Narrowing of focus Not focusing his campaign on central issues, but on divisive ancillary ones (like Bill Ayers) Couldn't support two Supreme Court nominees that would (again) be "too far to the right" ------- (Powell view) Obama: Steadfast, depth of knowledge, intellectual curiosity & "vigor" Way of doing business "serves us well" (Inspiring, inclusive, rhetorical ability, "Style & Substance") Inclusive ("all have value") Good VP pick ("ready") Not divisive ("Something wrong with being a Muslim President?") "The individual we need now" A "transformational" figure ------ When you listen to General Powell & watch his persona, its very much like listening to Obama. Both articulate well seemingly thoughtful & rational positions. But when you look at their positions without their personas present, you find some very unusual self contradictions. For example, If your desire is to have an "inclusive" Chief Executive whose positions recognize that "all have value", how can you then critique (almost in the same breath) one candidate for "being too far to the right", for choosing a VP who is "too far to the right", and potentially nominating Supreme Court Justices who are "too far to the right"? It would seem that General Powell, like so many others who purport to be "inclusive of all opinions", is really only inclusive of those opinions which are not in his opinion "too far to the right". Intellectual curiosity and intellectual vigor are not the same, no matter how artful their articulation. Vigor means having consistent opinions which have been proven over time, not casting about for any intellectualism that peeks one's interest. "Narrow" focus is not intrinsically a "bad" thing, neither is "broadness" of focus an intrinsically "good" one. In my "prior life" in SAC we were "narrowly" focused on the intricate details of a highly dangerous and specific mission. I think you can make a very valid case that the reason we have experienced so many problems in our "nuclear enterprise" is that we lost that "narrowness" of focus. As to the focus on "ancillary issues" not germane to the major issues of the day - like the economy, I have a large bone to pick with the good General's expressed position - and indeed with a great many others who defend Obama. As he himself articulated on many occasions (and indeed as is still taught in many service organizations), the character of a man is far more important than his competence. Both are important, but the latter is trumped by the former every time. I cannot in my wildest stretched imagination make a case for long held, private (dare I say counselor) associations with such admittedly and unrepentant aberrant personalities as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright NOT being "germane" to the elucidation of a man's character. How many of you would you have had any desire to have listened to me in your life if I had been long known to have had a close personal mentoring relationship with the likes of David Duke & the LA branch of the KKK? Of course not - and well you shouldn't. Why is that same dynamic of self revelation always "off limits" when it comes to Obama? Its almost like the three step dynamic I sent around a couple of days ago which always seems to end with "How dare you question such a "good" man as Barak Obama?" Of course I dare to "question" his character - because it matters more than any other thing in public and in private life. As to being a "transformational" figure, that is one of the things which scares me most (yes, scares, not just causes concern, and as most of you know I am not one to "scare easily"). There is something in our jointly held American character which seems to prize "newness"...even when what is being offered is quite the opposite of "new". I tremble for our nation my friends if we prize the "new & different" over the "tried & true." The Framers knew that the mob loves "new & different" (the definition of which seems ever to change with the prevailing wind direction) and their institutions of governance were set up to keep the tidal waves of public "enthusiasms of the moment" from over whelming the government - as happened in the French Revolution which followed our own in mass enthusiasm, but not in proper structure of governance. The result was that we were able to birth a Constitution while they were only capable of birthing The Terror - followed shortly thereafter by Napoleon Bonaparte! * * *