Democrats hate Carson because he is black

[Correll]

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

 

[Faun]

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

My recollection is that Powell never ran for president, so who knows what exit polls you speak of? :duuno:

Jackson did run; and had he not been caught using the derogatory term, "hymetown," he might have won the Democrat nomination. Regardless of this speculation, a black candidate had made a serious run for the Democrat party. That, plus Democrats electing 35 members to Congress, I don't see how it would have been true to say Democrats would not elect a black for president.

Do you need a specific link to that exit poll? DO you truly doubt it, or are you just dismissing information that doesn't fit your agenda?


Regardless you see my point about Jackson. ONly a jerk would try to claim that the lack of a Jesse Jackson win was proof that the dems would not elect a black president.

Jackson's problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His antisemitism was one, as was his far left political positions.

Herman's Cain problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His campaign was sunk by a smear campaign run by the media. His lack of any political background did not help, of course. But his skin color was not the reason he was not nominated or elected.

Only a jerk would say that the lack of a Cain Presidency is proof that the republicans would not elect a black president.

Ditto the lack of a Powell Presidency.

DItto the lack of a Keys Presidency.

Again, my recollection is that Powell never ran for president. Maybe I'm wrong, what exit poll are you speaking of?

 

[Correll]

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

My recollection is that Powell never ran for president, so who knows what exit polls you speak of? :duuno:

Jackson did run; and had he not been caught using the derogatory term, "hymetown," he might have won the Democrat nomination. Regardless of this speculation, a black candidate had made a serious run for the Democrat party. That, plus Democrats electing 35 members to Congress, I don't see how it would have been true to say Democrats would not elect a black for president.

Do you need a specific link to that exit poll? DO you truly doubt it, or are you just dismissing information that doesn't fit your agenda?


Regardless you see my point about Jackson. ONly a jerk would try to claim that the lack of a Jesse Jackson win was proof that the dems would not elect a black president.

Jackson's problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His antisemitism was one, as was his far left political positions.

Herman's Cain problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His campaign was sunk by a smear campaign run by the media. His lack of any political background did not help, of course. But his skin color was not the reason he was not nominated or elected.

Only a jerk would say that the lack of a Cain Presidency is proof that the republicans would not elect a black president.

Ditto the lack of a Powell Presidency.

DItto the lack of a Keys Presidency.

Again, my recollection is that Powell never ran for president. Maybe I'm wrong, what exit poll are you speaking of?

Cain ran. Did he fail to get the nomination because he was black? Or was it some other reason?

Keys ran. DId he fail to get the nomination because he was black? Or was it for some other reason?

A lot of republicans WANTED Powell to run. Polls showed that he would have won both the nomination and the Presidency. Was the reason he did not win his skin color?

Race was not an issue in any of these instances, nor many more.

That was my point, would you care to actually address it now?

 

[Faun]

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

THe polls at the time including the Gold Standard of Polls, the Exit polls said otherwise, as did my personal observations.

That was the general election. And what you're saying is that the Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they'd nominated a liberal Republican:

This is Colin Powell on the issues:

Colin Powell on the Issues

lol, you're saying what I've been saying for years,

that the best hope for the Republican Party is to move to the left.

 

[Correll]

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't vote for any of them, they weren't running in my district. Tough to vote for those not in your district. I know you probably commit voter fraud and vote early and often. Most Democrats commit voter fraud and as this thread has proven, Democrats are very racist.

You're delirious now. Who said anything about voting in districts one does not live in??

You said a right who've elected. You have no clue to who I have or have not voted for. Again, the left making up shit. The fact is the voting public votes for elected officials, not the party's. Pretty simple to understand, for most people.

Your one vote is meaningless when compared to the tens of millions of other righties who vote.

So that makes us individuals who make up the voting populous, not democrats, not republicans, not lefties or righties, American people elect Presidents, not parties.

The right votes mostly for Republicans, the left votes mostly for Democrats. Very few Republican candidates win without the right voting for them, very few Democrat candidates win without the left voting for them.

Now ya know. Will you learn? No, you're ineducable. But now you know.

Again you miss the point, whether on purpose or not. I don't think you are really this stupid, however...

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

 

[Correll]

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

THe polls at the time including the Gold Standard of Polls, the Exit polls said otherwise, as did my personal observations.

That was the general election. And what you're saying is that the Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they'd nominated a liberal Republican:

This is Colin Powell on the issues:

Colin Powell on the Issues

lol, you're saying what I've been saying for years,

that the best hope for the Republican Party is to move to the left.

NOpe. I'm saying that the polls showed that if POwell had run, he would have easily won the GOP nomination and the Presidency.

Your point about his stance on the issues is legitimate. It was a complaint I raised with my buddies back then. They had their reasons for looking beyond that because of Powell and Clinton.

As, apparently did the majority of republicans.

 

[Correll]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

THe polls at the time including the Gold Standard of Polls, the Exit polls said otherwise, as did my personal observations.

That was the general election. And what you're saying is that the Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they'd nominated a liberal Republican:

This is Colin Powell on the issues:

Colin Powell on the Issues

lol, you're saying what I've been saying for years,

that the best hope for the Republican Party is to move to the left.

NOpe. I'm saying that the polls showed that if POwell had run, he would have easily won the GOP nomination and the Presidency.

Your point about his stance on the issues is legitimate. It was a complaint I raised with my buddies back then. They had their reasons for looking beyond that because of Powell and Clinton.

As, apparently did the majority of republicans.

Then the GOP should be looking to the left if they want to beat Hillary Clinton.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

 

[Correll]

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

THe polls at the time including the Gold Standard of Polls, the Exit polls said otherwise, as did my personal observations.

That was the general election. And what you're saying is that the Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they'd nominated a liberal Republican:

This is Colin Powell on the issues:

Colin Powell on the Issues

lol, you're saying what I've been saying for years,

that the best hope for the Republican Party is to move to the left.

NOpe. I'm saying that the polls showed that if POwell had run, he would have easily won the GOP nomination and the Presidency.

Your point about his stance on the issues is legitimate. It was a complaint I raised with my buddies back then. They had their reasons for looking beyond that because of Powell and Clinton.

As, apparently did the majority of republicans.

Then the GOP should be looking to the left if they want to beat Hillary Clinton.

Powell was not just a point on a graph. He had history and an impressive resume. He demonstrated that a particular INDIVIDUAL could be a likely winner despite moderate views.

I am not aware of another moderate republican who could do that at this point in time.

Regardless, your concerns over his issues, AND the link you provided with Pro-life leadership moving to counter his potential campaign, shows that issues were the issue, NOT Race.

Which was my point.

 

[Correll]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

 

[Faun]

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

 

[Correll]

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

 

[Faun]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

Huh? Which Republican candidate is more moderate than Trump?

 

[Correll]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

Huh? Which Republican candidate is more moderate than Trump?

Bush for one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

 

[Correll]

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.