<< What Probably Happened to Bloglines | RSS vs. Atom >>

Another Installment of "Why Politics Drive Me Crazy"

October 19, 2008 17:18 by author

I wasn't going to watch Colin Powell endorse Barrack Obama. Anyone who has watched closely knows he was already in Obama's camp since he's subtly been dropping hints for months and I've always found endorsements to be kind of grating.

Then I saw this Tweet from Fred Wilson...

“listening to Colin Powell endorse Obama on Meet The Press A great analysis of the choice our country faces, I hope he ends up in the cabinet”

Now, though I disagree with just about everything he says and does, I like Fred Wilson a lot and respect his opinion. So after seeing the tweet I thought I'd take a look at Powell's endorsement for his "great analysis". So I watched and this is what I got as far as Powell Describing Obama...

Steadyness
Intellectual Curiosity
Depth of Knowledge
Intellectual Vigor
Definitive Way of Doing Business
Transformitive Figure
More Inclusive Approach

OK, this isn't even close to a great analysis. None of the above descriptions...actually says anything.

Let me put it another way, all of the above descriptors could just as easily be used to describe Joseph Stalin. He was Steady, Intellectually Curious, and absolutely had a "Definitive Way of Doing Business". But we'd never consider electing Stalin for President because of his ACTUAL VIEWS.

Analysis requires you to actually look at someone's views because it is the content of thought that matters, not one's ability to think.

Mr. Powell's "analysis" wasn't analysis at all. He didn't actually say anything about Obama. In fact, even more embarrassing for Powell, he went on in the Interview to defend the Iraq war and praise the Surge which are both things that Obama firmly disagrees with (which is relevant because Powell's endorsement is useful because it gives Obama foreign policy credentials that some feel he lacks)

Again, its just another example of people checking their logic at the door. I almost wish we could have elections where you don't see the candidate at all. You're just given a list of their views and are told to check which one you agree with the most. At least then, maybe, we could get people to look at what's important and ditch the platitudes.

A Little Bonus Annoyance...All the Republicans who made such a big deal out of Colin Powell being part of the Bush Administration in 2000 are now out there saying it couldn't matter less that he endorses Obama (though, given George W. Bush just barely squeeked by in 2000, they may inadvertenly have a point)

Tags:
Categories: Other
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | Permalink | comment

Comments (1) | RSS comment feed

Comment RSS

Comments

October 20. 2008 11:30

Tom, If parties served the function they should, then being an anointed one should carry the responsibility to follow party principles. There is some value in the competitors' specific plans, but I think most people who are really paying attention know they can't, or won't, carry them out to the letter.

Maybe they meant to, maybe they feint one way, and, later, say, "I tried, but the support wasn't there." The other party blocked me. Sadaam Hussein. But they have to stay generally on track to keep party support, and parties should be pressuring them. Recently, just having the White House seemed enough for most Republicans, even though Bush is not a conservative, and still infuriates liberals. Seems impossible. Most of the Powell analysis doesn't fit Bush, but is much closer to both McCain and Obama. No one can really promise and deliver on the details, I don't think, but it sounds nice, and HOW things are said, letting people across the country look you in the eye and see into your soul (hah!)... these, I think, matter to voters. I'll bet the number of people who vote on real issues is pretty small, as a % of the population. There must have been studies.

Before the economic "crisis" a lot of people were going to vote based on views of abortion, gun control, death penalty, legalization of marijuana, separation of church and state, civil/women's rights and a ton of causes, none of which are an issue in the election. Yet the non-issues could easily tip an election. (I know the Supreme Court pick issue, but history sort of shows that we can't predict human behavior and events all that well - i.e., who is nominated, who is confirmed, how he/she votes ... will creationism, book-burning, gay anything, even come up!?)

Of course, I am not being fair to the electorate. They really are much worse than I have portrayed. ...but... We take "the least of these" and teach them as best we can and drag them to the polls. They can vote any way they like. I can then sleep well, even in defeat, which is almost always.

If you can't guess my party, then I/we haven't done a good job "educating".

C.R.

C.R. Adcock

Comments are closed

About Me

Hi, I’m Tom and I run the IT department for a non-profit agency which provides treatment to special-needs children. Though I will (like any blogger) comment on technology in general my main goal is to detail how I’m trying to use technology to help treat the children we serve and its my hope that blogging will allow me to connect with people who can help in that goal.

More...