Colin Powell is widely respected among members of my own family. In fact, one of my siblings gave me a copy of his autobiography as a Christmas gift. I wouldn't say that Powell's endorsement of Obama is unexpected; Powell, a Republican, had declined to endorse since McCain clinched the Republican nomination months ago, which is not a good sign (it is improbable that Powell would somehow learn something over the next 6 months about McCain he didn't already know from dealing with him as senator over 20 years). The differences between McCain and Obama in terms of military and foreign policy knowledge and experience are stark; McCain has endorsements from over 100 generals and admirals and four secretaries of state spanning four administrations (Kissinger, Schulz, Eagleburger, and Haig). Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard) predicted Powell's endorsement of Obama a couple of months back.; the big question was whether Powell would make a keynote endorsement at the Democratic convention.
My guess is that Powell deliberately held back his endorsement of Obama until the homestretch of the campaign, hoping to maximize the impact of his endorsement. I'll go over his stated rationale shortly, but I'll point out I'm not surprised for the following reasons: (1) Colin Powell has for some time made it clear he was not a social conservative, i.e., he's "pro-choice" on abortion; well, weren't the Bushes, whom he supported, pro-life, too? I think the difference is that he's worried the next justice to retire may be a reliable liberal vote on abortion, and he sees the Court maybe one vote away from revisiting Roe v. Wade; (2) there was well-known friction between Powell's State Department and the Rumsfeld's Defense Department under George W. Bush. Powell resigned under pressure, and I suspect Powell sees the Obama endorsement as payback, against the Bush Administration and a Republican Party I suspect he considers is more ideological than pragmatic, both in social and foreign policy and which he suspects will dominate a McCain presidency.
As for Obama, I suspect that it's "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". I personally am somewhat surprised Obama would accept the endorsement, given the fact that Secretary Powell was the public face of what Obama considers to be his most fundamental competitive validation of judgment in this campaign, his opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Obama wants to "turn the page" on the Clinton-Bush years by embracing the man whom carried out the much-criticized Bush Doctrine on his watch?
Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House and someone I've admired for recasting conservatives ideas for a 21st-century American agenda, said on ABC-TV that he was impressed by the endorsement, saying he believed it buried the experience argument (favoring McCain over Obama). Sorry, Newt; you are wrong. I think Powell's endorsement reassures people whom have already a decision to vote Obama and are still somewhat anxious about Obama's lack of foreign policy and national defense credentials. But if you look at the arguments that Powell makes, he is not making a judgment about Obama's expertise in military matters and/or his competency and experience in foreign relations and international trade.
Powell's Rationale for Endorsing Obama
Instead Powell is basically making an assessment based on how he's perceived the campaign over the past 6 months, the same kinds of matters all of the American people can judge on their own merits. Let me summarize: (1) Powell thinks we need a transformational figure, someone who is inclusive and inspiring, has oratorical abilities and a fresh voice from a new generation of leadership; (2) Obama has maintained a low-key, sure-footed presence during the debates and the economic crisis and made a great choice in Biden as VP, with the gravitas to be President; McCain seemed to be all over the place during the economic crisis and made a questionable choice of a VP in Sarah Palin; (3) Colin Powell has generally disliked what he considers the increasingly negative attacks of the McCain campaign, which he thinks takes casual contact with disreputable people, like Bill Ayers, out of context, and also disdains the polarizing atmosphere of McCain's rallies.
A Critique of Powell's Rationale
First of all, I respect Colin Powell's right to vote the way he wishes, and I also respect that he went on the record with his rationale, because he didn't need to provide a reason. However, I think a response is in order to his stated reasons.
--Transformational Leadership?
I don't agree that Obama has been as inclusive as Powell believes. Obama did not work with the House Republicans during the recent bailout process; he voted for poison-pill amendments to the 2007 Immigration Bill, one in which he played a minor role in negotiating; he refused to join the Gang of 14, which defused a Senate crisis over the use of filibusters in judicial nominations; he briefly joined a bipartisan committee headed by McCain on Senate ethics legislation, only to drop out and announce his support for the partisan Democratic bill; on legislation where Bush took a position, Obama voted with the majority of his Democratic colleagues 96% of the time.
I agree that Obama has rhetorical skills, but (Ronald Reagan aside) we don't simply choose leaders from the performance arts or someone from Toastmasters. Colin Powell may find something inspiring in vacuous powerfully delivered speeches, where nobody remembers the substance or can specify even a single accomplishment of Obama; I don't. I find John McCain's unconventional straight talk, his haunting account of his POW experience where he admitted to being broken, and his rousing "stand up and fight" cadence at the end of his nomination speech and recent rallies far more inspiring than Obama's pretentious "we are the moment we've been waiting for" nonsense or the fact that Obama even had to steal the lines of the current Massachusetts governor's 2-year-old speech ("Just Words?") and pass them off as his own. You know, all this warm and fuzzy talk about getting everybody together--that's not leadership. It's what you do once you get people in the room. And Obama's general wishy-washiness on all sorts of issues (e.g., oil drilling, nuclear energy, gun rights, FISA, the success of the surge in Iraq, the end status of Jerusalem, etc.)--trying to pander to independents and moderates--hardly inspires confidence in leadership (which makes Powell's discussion of the economic crisis arbitrary).
Some (including myself) would argue what we need in a two-war environment and a global economic crisis is not an on-the-job training President with no significant military or foreign policy or management experience, but someone who is ready from day 1. I find Colin Powell's argument for thin-resume Obama in troubled times as rather curious luxury we can't afford, because we don't have much of a track record of what he's done--beyond vote "present" around 130 times in the Illinois Senate, which I don't find reassuring in picking a President.
--Choice of VP
I have my own criticisms of Sarah Palin; I certainly cannot defend Palin's convoluted responses to questions regarding the federal bailout, the Bush Doctrine, and even the magazines and newspapers she reads. But she is a small business owner, she has energy experience (a key national priority) as a commissioner, she was a City Council member and mayor, and she is the current governor. She has more administrative experience than the entire Democratic ticket. She has a bipartisan record, a proven record of restraining spending, and has taken on corruption within her own party. Let's contrast that with Barack Obama's choice--Obama did not select Hillary Clinton, whom was the obvious "unity" choice after finishing a very close second in the campaign and some 18 million votes. Obama did not choose someone with administrative and/or business experience (e.g., NJ Governor Corzine or perhaps NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg), or even someone from the moderate/centrist part of the party (e.g., Governor Bill Richardson or Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska). Powell seems to think part of a "transformational" leadership change is a 6-term senator from Delaware as VP, ranked the third most liberal senator (after Obama), with no economic or administrative experience? In what way is this "inclusive"? In what way is this VP choice transformational?
What makes me even more critical of Powell's argument here is that he argues that Sarah Palin, whom has been responsible for personnel decisions and would be working with a cabinet, would make a worse President than the walking gaffe machine, Joe Biden, whom despite 36 years in Washington, by one account, made at least a dozen factual errors during the VP debate? What about the fact that Barack Obama, a 3-year US Senator whom has been running fulltime for the Presidency over the past 18 months, has spent only 12 years in selective office, including the last two years, and Sarah Palin's career in local politics predated Obama's career? Many governors, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Reagan, had no more substantive military and foreign policy or even federal experience than Palin.
In fact, if you look at accomplishments, you can argue Palin's record, in terms of cleaning up corruption, passing reform legislation and providing energy rebates, vetoing millions of dollars in excessive state spending, and getting a natural gas pipeline agreement in principle to the lower 48 stacks up well against Obama's own meager accomplishments, which Powell and most Obama supporters can't or won't enumerate.
The key question Powell doesn't address is if Obama did not make a difference as a community organizer and state senator and US Senator from Chicago, on what grounds does he expect Obama to adequately accommodate the even more difficult issue of transforming America?
--Obama's Presidential Temperament
Now, as to the low-key "looking Presidential" bit. I think that Colin Powell here is trying to project his own measured-tone, always-in-control persona. I don't find this convincing at all; I think in Obama's case, it's a public facade. If anything, I find it manipulative, not unlike the guy whom is on his best behavior during courtship and then the young woman learns his daily personality. Mr. Powell, do you really think what you see in the so-called "debates" or on the stump constitutes a real-life simulation of how Obama will respond to a crisis, manage priorities, etc.?
But more important is how Obama has been extraordinarily defensive and thin-skinned; a comprehensive list is beyond the scope of this post, but, for instance, Obama played the race card several weeks ago ("they're going to tell you I don't look like those people on dollar bills"); Obama argued that Bush was personally attacking Obama in a speech before the Israeli Knesset, warning of appeasement of rogue leaders or nations; Obama got hypersensitive over the attention being paid to the fact he was no longer wearing a flag pin on his lapel; Obama was furious over the allegation he did not fold his hand over his heart during the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance (what was caught on film was his folded hands during the playing of the National Anthem, a violation of the US Flag Code); Obama walked out on a press conference in Chicago arguing he had had already addressed enough of journalists' questions over Rezko and the Canadian free trade kerfuffle; Obama has threatened to sue or file federal charges against a 527 organization over its free speech rights in questioning the Bill Ayers connection; Obama labeled as "liars" people whom pointed out his efforts in stonewalling the born alive infant protection act in Illinois; Obama dared McCain to allege the Ayers connection to his face, man to man; Obama has personally attacked people whom have criticized his wife Michelle's comment about being proud to be an American for the first time in her life; Obama accused a Nevada reporter (Ralston), whom questioned his support for the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, of being a surrogate for the McCain campaign; etc. Believe me; that's just the tip of the iceberg.
So, Secretary Powell, what exactly do you take as your standard of Presidential demeanor? The fact that Obama kept his temper in check during his first 3 Presidential debate "dates"? How in the world could you miss all of these reported incidents? John McCain has not reacted anywhere like this; he has been a true officer and gentleman.
In contrast to the character differences between Obama and McCain, here's this incident from a May 1 McCain townhall meeting where Obama (and former Biden operative) supporter plant Marty Parrish asked the following:
Marty Parrish: This question goes to mental health and mental health care. Previously, I've been married to a woman that was verbally abusive to me. Is it true that you called your wife a c*nt?If you watch the tape, you'll see and hear that McCain, with perhaps an unfair reputation in terms of temperament, maintained a respectful composure, did not raise his voice over something that would have set off many, if not most men. I mean, I do not think McCain could have survived years in a POW camp without self-control in what he said or did.
McCain: Now, now. You don't want to... Um, you know that's the great thing about town hall meetings, sir, but we really don't, there's people here who don't respect that kind of language. So I'll move on to the next questioner in the back.
However, Colin Powell ignores some key issues of personal integrity involving Obama; for example, he promised that he would abide by equally public funded campaign fund constraints (roughly $85M). Obama, when he found he was raising prodigious amounts of money during the Democratic campaign, decided to recant his promise.
What's particularly notable about this is he made a commitment to reform (e.g., Senate ethics reform), but decided earmarks and unrestricted campaign finances were consistent with his values. He has made a virtue of small contributions. But the mainstream media has underplayed a scandal uncovered by the FEC. Mr. Good Will from Austin, TX working for company "Loving" and in the profession "You" has contributed over $17K in 1000 contributions (most for $25). Also, by coincidence, Mr. Doodad Pro from Nando, NY, also mostly working for same company and profession ("Loving You") , although other times working for company VCX in a different profession, VCVC, gave almost $20K in 786 donations. The media reports also indicated what appear to be numerous questionable transactions from international sources.
--the financial tsunami
Obama did not have a single substantive contribution to resolving the crisis; he underscored a few predictable Democratic sound bites: protect the taxpayer, make sure that Paulson is accountable for how he spends $700M, blame it all on Big Business, no golden parachutes for target business executives, etc. (In fact, McCain essentially said the same thing, so Obama brought nothing new and distinctive, but was lobbying in support of the Senate compromise approach.) That's not what I take away from the crisis, General Powell: What I remember is this. When McCain suggested suspending the campaign and postponing the first debate, Obama refused, openly suggesting that McCain couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time and was trying to duck him in a debate (although McCain is on the record for wanting at least 10 joint townhalls and more debates). Furthermore, Obama was satisfied to go on with his fulltime campaign activities and handle the crisis with phone calls between events. To me, and I believe most Americans, this did not speak of true leadership and setting of one's priorities. During the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama's first priority was his campaign events and basically delegating responsibility as his party's leader during the crisis to House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid's efforts.
Powell seemed unnerved, not by Obama's lack of contribution to the process, but what the Democrats have been describing as McCain's so-called erratic behavior, i.e., first underscoring confidence in the economy, then the decision to suspend the campaign (after Reid's appeal for McCain's support and McCain's discovery of a disconnect with House Republicans), to go to Washington, only to find Democrats, worried about his possibly securing a bipartisan win at Obama's expense, basically forced McCain into a no-win situation of either conceding a foreign policy debate, his strong suit and being behind in the polls, or showing up at the debate with no agreement to show for the gambit of suspending his campaign. I myself disagree with McCain's putting himself into that position, but we also know from the record that McCain asked Obama to go with him to Washington before McCain suspended his campaign, so there's no doubt in my mind that McCain's motive was not personal political gain but putting resolution of the crisis above politics as usual.
Obama has repeatedly demagogued McCain's early response that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong, implying that McCain was myopic. I think what McCain intent was to express a vote of confidence in the resiliency of the robust American economy, versus Obama's talking down the economy in order to politically exploit dissatisfaction with the "Bush economy". I saw McCain as not unlike FDR's resolute response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which clearly crippled our Pacific fleet. One could argue that after Pearl Harbor, FDR's faith in our ability to prevail was unrealistic. However, when pressed on the statement, McCain gave a convoluted response of his belief in the strength of the American worker; why the worker and not confidence in innovative American businesses and entrepreneurs?
The point is, money/credit is the lifeblood of our economy; we may recall the running fitness guru James Fixx whom definitely seemed to be the picture of health but whom fell dead from a heart attack. The fact is, our economy grew at nearly a 2% annual rate in the second quarter; we've seen better, but we were doing better than recessionary Western Europe, with its higher unemployment, taxes, and social safety net, which Obama covets and wishes to replicate. So what we were seeing in the economy, with the sudden collapse of AIG, investment banks, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was a sudden fear between banks over whether their loans to other banks and other parties might put their own capital at risk. This has had an effect on businesses, even business with robust order flow and back orders, because they may depend on liquidity to meet payrolls, pay for supplies, etc. The underlying supply and demand for goods and services did not disappear overnight; we still have the largest, most diversified economy in the world, a target market for any other country and a key exporter of food, advanced technology, and other goods and services.
Colin Powell may be unnerved by some confusing moves at the start of an unprecedented crisis, and I would argue that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson himself, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, has himself shifted approaches, initially focusing on piecemeal firefighting and then migrating to a more comprehensive approach to get at the source of the problem. He says that Obama was shown more "intellectual vigor", yet if you recall, McCain, not Obama, outlined a 5-point program (including streamlining currently piecemeal government regulation) during the crisis (to which Obama campaign, which did not propose its own approach, reacted by claiming McCain had stolen some ideas out of their own playbook). Obama's reactionary response to the crisis is not a virtue, any more than his 130 "present" politically difficult votes in the Illinois Senate.
--the negative Republican campaign and charges of divisiveness
I have no clue why Colin Powell went on this long rant about Muslims with respect to the GOP. In fact, George Bush specifically went out of his way in the aftermath of 9/11 to plead for no reprisal mistreatment of Arab-Americans. George Bush and John McCain both fought for immigration reform last year, including people from Muslim countries. Now Obama did have a Muslim father and attended a Muslim school during his early school years as his mother brought him with her to Indonesia, but speaking for myself, I've never questioned Obama's Christian faith (and it wouldn't be an issue if he was Muslim). I'm more concerned out Obama's judgment in picking a divisive pastor and spiritual mentor (Jeremiah Wright), which I feel contradicts his post-partisan rhetoric. I have come across almost nothing in all of my sources where could justify Powell's undue attention. I think I've seen provocative columnist Ann Coulter stress Barack's middle name (Hussein), and I heard one rally questioner (Gayle Quinnel) allege that Obama is an Arab (and McCain promptly corrected her).
But blaming McCain for something not part of his campaign is irresponsible, and Colin Powell should be ashamed of raising it. I'm sure that white and black racists may also vote for candidates of their own race as well. But most people are voting based on substantive reasons. For me, Obama represents an expanded government footprint; I don't believe he has enough knowledge and experience, under some very tough circumstances involving the economy and war. There are some notably qualified black American conservatives, like Thomas Sowell, Ken Blackwell, JC Watts, Larry Elder, or Maryland's former lieutenant governor and the man for whom I voted for the US Senate in 2006, Michael Steele.
I personally think that the McCain campaign is running the WRONG kind of campaign. Polls show that Obama, undeservedly, is rating higher than McCain by lopsided scores on health insurance and the economy. In part, I feel it's because McCain hasn't run a commercial on health insurance in months while Obama has been running commercials I've seen in Maryland, lying that millions will pay more in taxes, because McCain is extending tax benefits to everyone with health insurance, not just those in employer plans. There's not much McCain can do about being scapegoated for the financial tsunami, but he can argue that punitive tax increases or maintaining uncompetitive business tax brackets impede job creation. He can argue that Obama is not a reliable check on Congressional spending and lacks the federal and management experience to deal with today's challenging economic and wartime condition.
I think Colin Powell has the completely wrong idea about Ayers and why he's an issue. Colin Powell's approach to education issues is much closer to McCain's than to Obama's, and if he really understand that Obama and Ayers were funding education initiatives funding not things like vouchers and basic skills but to mobilize parents, to combat racism and social inequity, etc. The question of Obama's contacts like Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and Pfleger raise questions precisely because as a 3-year US Senator, we don't know enough about him to know how he would be as President. It's not so much that Ayers is a former terrorist; it's because he's an unrepentent former terrorist.
What I'm currently seeing is a perversion of politics; Powell thinks the negative ads are primarily McCain. In Maryland, I haven't seen a McCain ad in months, but I've been seeing ad nauseum ads misleadingly comparing McCain to Bush and making the false accusations against McCain health care proposal.
What Colin Powell's Decision SHOULD Have Addressed
Given Colin Powell's foreign policy experience, I'm sure that he noted McCain's quick assessment of the situation during the recent Russian invasion of Georgia; what was Obama (and his foreign policy team)'s initial response? To call on both Russia and Georgia to restrain themselves. Bush and Obama eventually migrated to McCain's conclusions.
We have seen Obama back off from free trade arrangements with Colombia and South Korea, both pacts to our advantage, and similar threats to reexamine NAFTA has Canada looking at a free trade deal with Europe.
But there are other things that bother me--Obama's near obsession with building up our forces in Afghanistan, the explicit suggestion of taking military action in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's permission, an issue Benazir Bhutto condemned before her assassination, his decision for withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground, the vacillation on the status of Jerusalem, promising to the Israelis an undivided Jerusalem, to Palestinians final status a matter of negotiations, his willingness to hold Presidential-level diplomacy (via the Youtube debate) with leaders of rogue nations like Ahmadinejad....
Also, General Powell, I'm just wondering just what you think of a future Commander in Chief whom would say, from the get-go, in light of the development of new, more sophisticated weapons systems from Russia, China, and others, that he would cut the Defense Department R&D budget and say the following, on tape:
"I will cut missile defense systems""I will not weaponize space""I will slow the development of future combat systems""I will not develop new nuclear weapons"
You see, General Powell, when people look for your input on an endorsement of a Presidential candidate, they are thinking your decision is based fundamentally on your expertise as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor or as Secretary of State, not for your personal opinions on robocalls, the financial bailout or the Presidential debates. That NBC-TV, a news media source totally in the tank for Obama, would fail to question you on more salient issues of a strong military defense and a consistent foreign policy is not surprising; that you did not address these substantive concerns on your own is nothing less than unconscionable.
