Anchorage Daily News endorses...

[nmoira]

And do the Democrats like Powell now? I'm just wondering because its been about 5 years of talking about how he lied to the UN and the world about Iraq and then tried to cover it up in a too little, too late fashion.

Powell himself when asked in 2005 about whether that incident tarnished his record said:

 

"Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

I recall none of the vitriol directed at Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or Cheney. Powell was widely viewed as a moderate figure compared to these men.

 

Colin Powell parted ways with the Bush Administration after an affirmative action court case involving the University of Michigan. The Bush Administration did not fundamentally support affirmative action; Colin Powell did. This created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush.

Citation please. Powell publicly defended affirmative action in opposition to Bush's position in January 2003. Powell's controversial speech to the UN took place in February 2003. Powell was asked to resign in November 2004 and Condoleezaa Rice's nomination for Secretary of State was announced the next day. I'm not sure how you make the conclusion you do.

 

You'll find a lot of disagreement from liberals at places like Daily Kos and Huff Post and the NYT if you look back at what was written about him pre-endorsement.

You'll find a lot of disagreement among liberals just as you'll find a lot of disagreement about conservatives.

[brehon]

You know, I can't imagine giving one ounce of credence to anything those lunatics say. Whether they say it about Palin, or Nader, or Clinton, or Bush, or McCain, or Obama. Whomever. Whatever.

 

You know? Less than a Paris Hilton endorsement. Lower than a Britney Spears endorsement. Just crazy chatter by crazy lunatics. For them to imagine they can influence US politics is beyond ludicrous.

 

When they chatter about who will die next and when, we need to pay attention with a sprinkle of wisdom and discernment and double-checking that we're not being played thrown in. But when they "endorse" someone? Meh. I'm less than impressed, and I hope the general American public feels the same way.

 

While I agree that intelligence agencies should take postings like this with a grain (a glob?) of salt, remember that one of the big reasons the Socialists won back power in Spain at their last big election (2004?/2005?) was because of the massive train bombing days before the election. This was when al-Qaeda had been promising to take revenge on the countries who assisted the US (Britain, Spain, and Italy prominant among them at that time) during the invasion of Iraq.

 

Another big reason the Socialists won is that the then PM almost immediately blamed ETA for the bombing and didn't seem to listen to his investigators (what is the Spanish version of the FBI?) until later.

 

And I understand that supposedly this group was "endorsing" McCain, not necessarily actively planning an attack. Hmmm...perhaps I've rambled on enough. Just the random musings of a tired medic.

[Michelle in MO]

that "Colin Powell parted ways with the Bush administration after an affirmative action court case involving the University of Michigan. The Bush Administration did not fundamentally support affirmative action; Colin Powell did. This created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush." Did I state a time frame? No. But, the incident did help create a rift between Colin Powell and President Bush.

 

Here's a recap. of the incident, from CBS News:

 

(CBS) Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he disagrees with President Bush's position on an affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, as the White House called for more money for historically black colleges.

 

Powell, one of two black members of Mr. Bush's Cabinet, said he supports methods the University of Michigan uses to bolster minority enrollments in its undergraduate and law school programs. The policies offer points to minority applicants and set goals for minority admissions.

 

"Whereas I have expressed my support for the policies used by the University of Michigan, the president, in looking at it, came to the conclusion that it was constitutionally flawed based on the legal advice he received," Powell said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."

 

It was a rare public acknowledgment of dissent with the president and with other top White House aides.

 

Citation please. Powell publicly defended affirmative action in opposition to Bush's position in January 2003. Powell's controversial speech to the UN took place in February 2003. Powell was asked to resign in November 2004 and Condoleezaa Rice's nomination for Secretary of State was announced the next day. I'm not sure how you make the conclusion you do.

 

Other factors certainly led to the rift, such as the handling of the war in Iraq and Bush's stance on the use of torture; his criticism of those situations happened after he left the Bush administration, of course.

 

But, I think it's fair to say that the University of Michigan case was the beginning of the end of the rapport between the two, or certainly contributed to a deeper rift between their positions, which may have been more undercurrents up until that point in time. But, no---if you're looking for a "smoking gun" or a definitive statement from Powell that that was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", I don't have that. This is my opinion and observation. Perhaps in Powell's biography such statements can be found. Previously, Powell had pretty much supported the president in most matters; after that, his opposition became more apparent. On Powell's behalf, I would say that he has generally been pretty diplomatic in his disagreements with Bush.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[GreenKitty]

Barack Obama for president of the United States.

 

Anchorage Daily News

 

The current endorsement list of newspapers across the country has Obama far in the lead, 160 - 59. I have only posted threads when I came across one I felt was a significant departure from a major publication's norm. I don't know how the ADN leans politically but I thought it significant in that it is an important publication in Palin's home state.

 

The link for the editorial endorsement list is here:Editorandpublisher.com

 

deidre in ga

 

 

um...ok, that is certainly not a surprise.

 

I really don't care what the media (liberals) have to say.

 

I would NEVER vote for anyone who mocks the bible.

[Storm Bay]

Here's a copy of his birth certificate. And here's a discussion about the controversy on Snopes.

 

I do hope you find what you're searching for. I have several good reasons to vote for Sen. McCain. Four reasons not to that are complete deal breakers. Several good reasons (and three very strong for me personally) reasons to vote for Sen. Obama, and no deal breakers. So I understand what you're saying, and I wish you well on your quest.

 

Thanks. It did seem odd he wouldn't produce it, and I'll cross certain people IRL off my list for good information.

 

As for the religion, you cannot tell from this, since what many people don't realize is that there have been many Muslims in Northern Africa for centuries--it isn't and has never been just an "Arab religion". But the thing is that it's not supposed to matter what religion you are when you run for president. What I don't like is that even though it's not supposed to matter, you always seem to see something about presidential candidates in church. Not that I'm against going to church, by any means, but what's the point of going if it's just to look good or garner votes? I can't speak for Obama's faith or any of them, but I have a hard time accepting that many of these people have strong Christian values. Not that Christians are perfect, but a slip here and there isn't the same thing as a pattern of unethical behaviour. Some athiests I know seem to have more self control in certain categories than some "religious" people, and I don't just mean so-called Christians.

[Storm Bay]

Powell wasn't referring to Obama's age. Obama would be the first post-Baby Boomer president. Some believe that the Baby Boomers are still fighting the culture wars of the 1960s and even the Vietnam War, to the detriment of us all.

 

. [/i]

 

fwiw, 1961 is still officially baby boomer, but perhaps Powell doesn't see it that way. It goes from post WW II to 1963 or 1964. I know because my sister, the eldest of my 3 brothers & I fall into the 1960-1963 part of the baby boom & this has come up so many times. We are the younger baby boomers, though.

[Soph the vet]

Here's a copy of his birth certificate. And here's a discussion about the controversy on Snopes.

 

I do hope you find what you're searching for. I have several good reasons to vote for Sen. McCain. Four reasons not to that are complete deal breakers. Several good reasons (and three very strong for me personally) reasons to vote for Sen. Obama, and no deal breakers. So I understand what you're saying, and I wish you well on your quest.

 

Should I even go here? Oh, its Monday, why not. Pam, this poor horse is being beaten by both of us:lol: until the Supreme Court rules on this, which is the next place Berg is headed according to his website www.obamacrimes.com . And Obama has still not produced any physical document for election officials to feel, touch, etc. like Factcheck and DailyKos supposedly did. My retort is sent with much love that I am sure you can feel. Feel the love:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:.

[nmoira]

 

And Obama has still not produced any physical document for election officials to feel, touch, etc. like Factcheck and DailyKos supposedly did.

One thing I haven't been able to figure out is who these "election officials" are -- I'm assuming they're members of state governments. Have the other candidates given documents to "election officials"?

[nmoira]

that "Colin Powell parted ways with the Bush administration after an affirmative action court case involving the University of Michigan. The Bush Administration did not fundamentally support affirmative action; Colin Powell did. This created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush." Did I state a time frame? No. But, the incident did help create a rift between Colin Powell and President Bush.

I see what you're saying now; "parted ways" can be read more than one way depending on the context. It's true that Powell for the first time publicly expressed a position at odds with Bush's, but I've seen no evidence that this "created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush." This was not part of Powell's portfolio, and he was not speaking in his capacity as Secretary of State. I personally think that it the events of the next month, culminating Powell's false testimony before the UN, that were the beginning of the end for Powell in the administration. He was obviously greatly bothered at having spoken falsehoods in support of a war he wasn't in support of. He has spoken publicly both about the UN incident and his opposition to going to war.

 

Other factors certainly led to the rift, such as the handling of the war in Iraq and Bush's stance on the use of torture; his criticism of those situations happened after he left the Bush administration, of course.

One would assume/hope that they also happened behind closed doors.

[LilyK]

this poor horse is being beaten by both of us:lol: until the Supreme Court rules on this, which is the next place Berg is headed according to his website www.obamacrimes.com . And Obama has still not produced any physical document for election officials to feel, touch, etc.

 

 

I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to this issue, so correct me if I am missing some obvious point here ,but can't the court, election officials, or anybody else simply get a certified copy of the birth certificate from the State of Hawaii? Is that not sufficient? What Obama provided was posted on a website. I can understand that the validity issue might come up. But why isn't it an easy thing for the court to resolve?

[Demal]

fwiw, 1961 is still officially baby boomer, but perhaps Powell doesn't see it that way.

 

I'm a younger baby boomer and I do see a big difference. The Vietnam War ended in 1975, when we were 14 years old or younger. We didn't really have the draft hanging over our heads, not like the boomers ahead of us. We weren't old enough to really take sides or even be spectators in the cultural battles of the 60s.

 

We also escape blame/credit for disco. Punk is all ours, though.

[Zelda]

I'm a younger baby boomer and I do see a big difference. The Vietnam War ended in 1975, when we were 14 years old or younger. We didn't really have the draft hanging over our heads, not like the boomers ahead of us. We weren't old enough to really take sides or even be spectators in the cultural battles of the 60s.

 

We also escape blame/credit for disco. Punk is all ours, though.

 

I think a lot of the cut-off has to do with who raised you. My dh was born in 1965 and he's a Boomer, by some cut-offs which makes sense b/c he was raised by people from the previous generation. I was born in 1971, not much later, but I was raised by early Boomers. So, a different generation.

[ekarl2]

I grew up in Anchorage. I just got a laugh that this is the ONLY time anyone outside the state gave a rabbit's rump who the ADN endorsed. Too funny!