Retired General Colin Powell, former Joints Chief of Staff and US Secretary of State, universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and Americans publicly endorsed Barack Obama for president today.
Colin Powell calls Mr. Obama a "transformational figure." Why? Based on what? Speeches? Mr. Obama is certainly adept at igniting people's aspirations, including it now seems Mr. Powell himself. But from my vantage point, such people are falling under Mr. Obama's spell and missing the point as they get misty-eyed. Mr. Obama is as left as they come. That's his record. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. That makes him as partisan a senator as you can get. He has no track record of bringing people together in Washington. None. And he's preaching about unity and reaching across the aisle? If he wants to show how he can bring people together and reach across the aisle, then please test them in the real world first and establish a senatorial or governor's record that proves it. Then come back in 8 or 12 years with something to show for. But don't tell me you want to practice in the Oval Office. As President Clinton said, we can't afford to roll the dice with Mr. Obama. On what basis can someone make an argument for Barack being transformational? Based on his community work? There are thousands of fantastic community workers...does that qualify them to be president? Even the best of them seem to be getting it wrong.
On a related note,
Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput represents my view -- including how he frames Obama's position as the candidate "most committed" to abortion -- as to one of the big reasons why I think Barack is the wrong man for the presidency. If I can save millions of lives by not voting for Barack, it's not even a debate how I would vote. I can save more lives by not voting for Barack than voting for him so he pull US troops out of Iraq.
RichKao
2 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
I think there is more to it. I believe that there are many things that have reduced the credibility of any concerns that have been raised. I am not sure how best to describe it. My wife calls them hate mails which contain fabrications, lies and exaggerations that many Christians have been forwarding. How many times have I checked out fear laced emails from fellow Christians to find out that they were based on false reports? We are called to speak the truth in love.. and that means that we are diligent to check out the truth before forwarding.
Further many Christians, at least in the US, seem to prefer near sources where differences of opinion and valid questions are often shouted down or intimidated. What should we do about health care? Is global warming a real threat? Was it a mistake to go into Iraq? There are few forums that provide intelligent conversations where experts on either side are allowed and encouraged to finish their sentence. Yet these forums are dismissed by many as the "liberal press" and distrusted.
Also there has been a segmentation and intimidation of those who disagree within our midst. How many white believers have really talked to their black brethren about Obama, racism and the poor? How many are willing to have a civil conversation about health care, where the word socialism is not allowed, and where the choices are discussed on the basis of facts? We often search for those who agree as well.
I feel your discussions have largely been more intelligent than many. If that had been more the norm, then perhaps the church would not have lost its prophetic voice... perhaps we would be speaking about a broader range of issues and doing so with more intelligence and persuasion.
Ray
Thanks Ray...Yes there is much more to it. The scenario is very complicated with many layers of discussion. The endorsement from Gen Powell for Barack was several reasons, including Powell's perceived ability of Barack to change the tone of US's standing in the intl community. I posted my comment regarding his most lavish reason for endorsing Barack (transformational figure), which I thought was not based on sound reasoning.