Isn't it wonderful. Now Powell can now freely mingle awhile with the left in the snooty Washington inner-circle.

Reminds me of a Scripture I learned as a child:

Rev. 3:16 "So then because thou art lukewarm. This lukewarmness was most offensive, and hence the Lord declares I will spue thee out of my mouth. They shall be rejected like nauseous food."

Another core-less, valueless, lukewarm Washington hack.

It's not newsworthy to the msm, or citizen sugar for that matter. That is so sad.

well, go team red!

Honestly, I think Colin Powell's endorsement is more about job security than political ideology.

wow that's huge
I know the media is bias but I can't believe I haven't heard a single mention of this
grrrrr

I agree Laine, my Dad and I were having that conversation last night.

It's also possible that it has alot to do with his falling out with the Bush cabinet. When that happened and Powell resigned, I think many in the sitting cabinet felt he betrayed them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you always do as you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

Mykie, my fiance thinks that that is the reason.

I honestly thought that he was above those kinds of things, and really cared about his country- and more importantly about our troops.

That is awesome that his son is supporting McCain!

I too was sadly disappointed in him. Until this, I always said that I would vote for him for President. People would tell me, "You don't want Barack to be president just because he's black!" And I would ALWAYS use the fact that I thought Powell would make an OUSTANDING president, but was just too smart to run.

His judgement has seriously come into doubt, for me at least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you always do as you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

I just sent this to citizen via pm:

former FCC Commission Chairman Michael Powell and four secretaries of state have endorsed mccain. Could we get a citizen sugar post about that please?

Expect it to show up around 2am and to be followed by 15 more posts so that by morning when people sign on, it will be buried.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you always do as you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

Colin Powell is a fence straddler. Plays it all ways; goes right then left...I recall he always did... "he's been straddling the fence so long his crotch must be sore!"

Thanks for the post about Michael Powell's endorsement of McCain.

GS, did you send them the link to this post, so that they'll have the original sources cited?
I never visit Citizen anyway, so if it does show up, I'll never know. :cranky:

No one cares who Michael Powell endorses - he didn't exactly ignite the country with his fiery leadership at the FCC and its brave handling of Janet Jackson's breast.

Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Haig remind us all the McCain/Bush connections some people like to insist aren't there and of warmongering ex-Presidents the specter of whom wouldn't help McCain with the 70% of the country who feel we shouldn't be in Iraq. Imagine how quickly someone like Olbermann would find video of Haig's famous "I'm in charge here" announcement.

Is the 70% number as accurate as the gamut of polls we are seeing that range from 1-2 points to 14?

And you really should word it, "I don't care."

Response:

Yes, but also four secretaries of state. Including Kissinger, who Obama misquoted in the second debate. Rudely I might add. Kissinger released a statement the next day correcting obama. I just don't see why we don't get stories like that on citizen, but we get a story every time obama opens his mouth or anyone says anything bad about mccain or palin. We got a story when Obama went on vacation even.
> Hi!
>
> Is this the story you're referencing?
> http://www.thehill.com/leading-the-news/colin-powell-splits-with-son-mic...
>
> Thanks for your note,
> Citizen

So hopefully we will be seeing it over on CS.

Since Michael Powell endorsed McCain back in January, it's safe to say NO ONE cares - you guys haven't even brought it up before.
As to the 70% - that number's been consistent for several months but even if you figure a margin of error of +/- 5%, that's still most of the country.

GS: I can tell you the conclusions of the group it it does show up.

"Our secretary of state trumps your four."
"That was too long ago, it doesn't count."
"He spoke to GWB on the phone once, and his judgment therefore tainted."
"Just because even family members of the endorser don't agree with him/her, that means nothing."

Or the group might go with these:
They're all tainted by the Iran Contra scandal. Kissinger's been associated with war crimes and underhanded political manuevers for decades so I'm not sure he inspires much confidence in the notion that McCain's a maverick. He and Eagleburger were tainted by the BNL/Iraq loans scandal, and I'm not sure a banking scandal connection to two McCain endorsers looks real good right now. Baker's law firm has been accused in the past of trying to get around sanctions against Iraq on behalf of its clients. He also was involved running the first Gulf War which W of course, felt he had to go finish properly.

Before the FCC, Powell served the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and as an adviser to Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense for George H.W. Bush. Again, do we want McCain/Bush connections to keep coming up?

Or, here's a thought, see that there are positive things about BOTH campaigns!

Who Am I kidding, THAT'LL never happen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you always do as you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

"Honestly, I think Colin Powell's endorsement is more about job security than political ideology."

Powell's a retired general and former secretary of state - why would he worry about job security? And as for the cabinet feeling betrayed it was more the other way around - Powell felt Cheney and Rice had worked against him in their rush to get to war.

Also two years ago, Colin Powell's fee for a speech was $100,000 plus first class expenses for two to include a Lear 60 Jet.

Steph - I'm curious as to your source for the 70% figure?

Didnt Colin Powell come out of retirement?

Me too. Bet it is CBS, the same source as the only poll that has Obama having a large lead over McCain.

Did Powell rejoin the military or take another government job? He still gets his military retirement pay and the speech money. He doesn't NEED job security.
The 70% has been the figure cited by major news organizations for most of this year.

I'm happy to concede media bias where it actually exists, but it seems silly to me to expect the media to give equal coverage to Republicans endorsing a Republican as they give to a Republican endorsing a Democrat. It's classic dog bites man vs. man bites dog. The more unusual thing will draw more pairs of eyes and generate more ad revenue.

Also, the endorsement of a former FCC chairman from many months ago (who had to resign) means very little to me.

(Madeline Albright has also endorsed Obama, but it's not getting the same press since one would presume she would, given that she served in a Democratic administration.)

"As to the 70% - that number's been consistent for several months but even if you figure a margin of error of +/- 5%, that's still most of the country."

70% of the US population? Or 70% of those polled?

I wasn't polled.

I wasn't either that's why I was asking.

When you try steering the discussion that way Kim, it's clear you've got no better response to the real issue.

I'm not trying to steer the discussion in a certain way, I'm asking a question. You said that the 70% was the majority of the country. and I'm asking if that is the case or if the 70% is actually of the people polled.

And you're right, I don't have a better response to the real issue. Which is what? Who's promoting which candidate? So why don't I have a better response? Because I don't care who promotes who it doesn't affect my vote either way.

Stephley, I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to find out what that 70% actually represents. Because I disagree with you that it's "the majority of the country". since it's unreasonable to think they actually polled the entire population. Even if they polled 50% of the population, 70% of 50% is only 35%. Which is not "the majority of the country". I don't follow polls at all so I'm clueless on where the 70% comes from.

Would everyone indulge me? I just reread my post and must have been multi-tasking since my comment came off very unclear.

Again:

Great for McCain & all the endorsements including Powell's son. Shame on Powell for always straddling. I have NOT respect for him. Thats what I was trying to say but didn't say it well.

this is too funny & embarrassing... I can't type and need to proof much better.

Colin Powell: thumbs down

The McCain endorsements: thumbs up! finally think I've got it. whew!

I'm pretty sure the only time we actually try to talk to every single person in the country is during the census, so when you read a statistic about a percentage of Americans who think something, it's usually safe to assume that conclusion was derived from polling a representative sample.

Yes ts I would agree with that and it would also be safe to assume then that it isn't "the majority of the country". But that's just how I see it, others may obviously see it differently and that's ok.

by the way is that Rita Rudner on your avi?? Or is it just too early in the morning for me to see clearly??

It's Allison Janney.

I don't understand, others might see it differently? I'm not trying to be abrasive, I'm just not following. Whether statistics are based on sample polling isn't really a matter of opinion--it's just a fact...

ahh ok yep apparently my eyes are not working well yet this morning lol (I don't know who Allison Janney is though).

I just don't see how polling a "representative sample" can be considered the majority of the country is all I'm saying.

I can tell you're not trying to be abrasive and I appreciate that - I don't debate well and I don't respond well to abrasiveness so, thank you.

Oooh. I thought you meant it was a matter of opinion whether the statistic was based on sample polling or not.

Obviously polling is never 100% accurate, but if you poll 5,000 random people, you get a general idea of how the country will go. It may not be exactly 70%, but it's almost impossible that the number is actually more like 20%.

Oooh. I thought you meant it was a matter of opinion whether the statistic was based on sample polling or not.

Obviously polling is never 100% accurate, but if you poll 5,000 random people, you get a general idea of how the country will go. It may not be exactly 70%, but it's almost impossible that the number is actually more like 20%.

Yep - and that's why I don't pay attention to polls

Ok I have to start my day and get children to school... have a good day everyone!

Sure. "Polls are just a fancy way of systematically predicting what's going to happen."

(Couldn't resist...)