Colin Powell: I Think I’m Still a Republican

By Bob Ellis on January 21st, 2009

2009-01-20-193652At about 4:00 minutes into the video the newsman asks Colin Powell if he’s still a Republican.  The response: “Uh, yes, I think I’m still a Republican.”

Ooookay.  

I would say that as a general rule of thumb, if you think you’re still a Republican…probably you’re not.

I don’t know of too many Republicans (except RINOs who hold no allegiance to the values of the Republican Party) who endorse Democrats.  Well, there’s South Dakota legislator Stan Adelstein…but then, I already mentioned RINOs who have no loyalty to party values, didn’t I?

He then says, ”I think America needs two parties. But I have also been saying to my Republican friends, ‘We’d better get the right lessons from this election.’” 

I was unclear from his comments which followed that statement whether he was talking about a racial message from the election, or a political one.  But if he took away from this election (where the Republican nominee was a RINO who was rejected) that the message was that the Republican Party needs to be more liberal…well, again, that explains a lot.

Couldn’t get the video to embed, but here’s a link.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: ,

  • Troy Jones
    Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman are two sides of the same coin. Despite generally holding a philosophical outlook consistent with their party registration, there were one or two issues they determined were so overwhelming that they endorsed candidates of the other party.

    It is ironic that Democrats blood boils at the mention of the name Lieberman despite him generally supporting the Democrats broad social and public policy goals and Republicans blood boiling at the mention of Powell's name despite him generally supporting the Republicans traditional military/State Department and economic policy goals.

    Have our parties really become so intolerant that they expect absolute conformity on every issue? If so, ultimately the Independents will become a larger and larger component of our electorate. As a proponent of the two-party system and strong national parties, I believe both parties are being foolish.

    I interpret Powell's statement to be, "I believe that I'm a Republican but I'm not willing to stay where I am not welcome." Mr. Powell, even though we don't always agree, you are welcome in my Republican Party.
  • Mr. Powell is welcome in the Republican Party even if he does not ascribe to all its values. That is what the "Big Tent" is all about.

    However, if he feels compelled to actively work against those values or publicly malign those values, then he is no longer welcome. Someone who shows disrespect in someone elses house/tent/turf deserves to be shown the door, especially for the good of those who want to be there.
  • Haggs
    I was disappointed that he still claims to be a Republican too. He should've seen first hand that Republicans are evil and are destroying America. Maybe one day he'll see the light and joins us liberals on the side of truth and justice. :)
  • He's embraced the easy road, the path of emotionalism over substance. It takes a lot of discipline to be a conservative (and even a Republican, to some extent). You have to develop and maintain a philosophy based on the way the world is rather than how it might operate in some Marxist utopia, and go from there. Unlike liberalism, conservatism isn't governed by the axiom:

    I want to=must be right
  • Haggs
    Actually it's been my observation that, to be a conservative, you must remove two key parts of your brain: The rational-thinking part that understands reality and the part that has compassion for other human beings.
  • As I explained earlier "reality" is not the fantasy of a Marxist utopia, nor is it defined by the axiom "I want to=must be right." Reality deals with the fallen human nature, takes it into account, and develops policies designed to motivate people to the best behavior possible while taking that nature into account.

    As is typical of liberals who have no understanding of our Constitution, our nation's historical approach to compassion, or of Biblical compassion, you confuse real compassion with government wealth redistribution disguised as "compassion."

    Biblical compassion involves people helping people, not government confiscating one person's wealth and giving it to another person regardless of the circumstances that created the need...or whether there is a genuine need in the first place. You might consider this Biblical wisdom:

    - If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

    - Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

    - Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

    - If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

    - These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

    - As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

    - If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

    Our nation was designed to operate according to this wisdom and not wealth redistribution schemes:

    - A wise and frugal government…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

    - Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

    - With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

    - I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

    - Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

    - We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »