Gingrich Praises Powell’s Endorsement of Obama

October 20th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Former (Republican) Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich praised General Colin Powell on Sunday for the way in which worded his support for Democratic candidate for president Barack Obama. 

“What that just did in one sound bite… is it eliminated the experience argument,” Gingrich said. 

He went on to say that Obama has created a true movement, the impact of which should not be underestimated. “There is a racial effect on both sides, that African-Americans will disproportionately turn out and they will disproportionately vote for Obama, and they have disproportionately registered for a good reason. The Obama effect is real and legitimate. It’s authentic,” Gingrich explained.

Gingrich made the remarks in an all-star roundtable edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” 

Former presidential adviser David Gergen called Powell’s endorsement of Obama “the most important endorsement of the campaign so far.”

Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, agreed: “Gen. Powell helps a lot, I think, especially at this moment, you know. That’s a real affirmation that the country can trust Barack Obama as commander in chief, and Colin Powell still has a lot of cred[ibility] with Republicans and Democrats.”

Personally, I found Powell’s endorsement to be highly, highly impressive. Especially the way he defended Muslim Americans appealed greatly to me. He said exactly what Barack Obama and all others should have said when it was implied by this or that person that Obama may have been raised a Muslim, or be one now: “so what?” His story about the Muslim American who was so horrified by the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was deeply touching.

Another major reason I was impressed by Powell’s endorsement was the way he talked about John McCain and the Republican Party; for a large part, one got the impression that Powell’s decision to endorse Obama came forth out of frustration and disagreement with the GOP as a whole. The party, Powell rightfully said, has drifted increasingly towards the far-right in recent years, and Sarah Palin is most certainly a product of that trend.

It’s a compelling argument for moderate conservatives not to support McCain this year; many believe – I myself am one of those people who believe that it would be healthy for the Republican Party to have a major internal debate which should result in moderate Republicans and moderate conservative Republicans gaining more influence – that the right-wing has too much power, and has not done the United States much good.

Having said that, I was less impressed with Powell’s ‘case for Obama.’ The aforementioned could also mean that one would vote third party, for instance, or choose a candidate of one’s own choosing and write that person in. Powell could have done that as well, and I think he would have been able to make a stronger case for such a decision.

In general, though, it was a good endorsement, coming from a highly respectable man, who made some very important observations.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. c3
    October 20th, 2008 at 03:33
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I finally watched it.  Here are the key messages I heard:  1) A repudiation of what the Republican party, in Powell’s opinion, had become 2) A view of Obama as a “transformational” figure and as someone who reaches across lines.  3) Some of the aspects of the McCain campaign (attack ads, Palin choice, changing direction on economics)

    Now here’s my take on these (admittedly as a McCain supporter for the past year).  1)Will the party be “admonished” and then “reformed” as result of this election?  Wasn’t the need for the party to be reformed, as described by Powell, true a year ago regardless of the candidate  2)  Is Barack Obama a transformational candidate or are we a nation desiring to be “transformed”?  Again  was this not true from the “get go”?  Have we not seen that reaction from his crowds from the beginning?  Frankly, I haven’t seen “great intellectual depth regarding the economy from Obama.  Hell, some of the “deepest” thinkers on economic matters seemed dumbfounded by all this.  I sure hear “unprecedented” a lot.   3) The critique of the McCain could be a critique of style or a repudiation of those aspects of the campaign that would appeal to the right wing.

    So a conservative Republican but with a clear record of reaching across the aisle and one who history indicates he’s is closer to the political center than the average Republican is not what this ostensibly moderate Republican (Gen. Powell) would want as a candidate.

    I’m sorry to say but I am surprised at how “standard” of a reason(s) Gen. Powell for his support of Sen. Obama, particularly a message of a need for change which in essence is a need to change the party in control.

    I’m sure the gravitas of Colin Powell will make this endorsement meaningful.  I’m just surprised at how much this sounded like an Obama talking point memo.

  2. c3
    October 20th, 2008 at 03:36
    Reply | Quote | #2

    PS As I wrote this I realized what this endorsement sounded like (in its essence): Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain.  In each case saying more about the individual and his disappointment with his party than providing new “insight” into the race.

  3. Saxxon Domela
    October 20th, 2008 at 03:51
    Reply | Quote | #3

    First, let me say I appreciate the reasoned approach of C3’s post. It is good to discuss without the hubris displayed by some. In that same spirit, let me add my comments.

    John McCain is a good and decent man. He has, however, made some very bad calls during his campaign. His selection of Governor Palin was the worst decision he has made. As has been pointed out by many from George Will to Chris Buckley, she is simpley not ready for this level. Senator McCain has been as erratic as Senator Obama has been steady and thoughtful. The product a an admittedly wild youth, Senator McCain squandered the opportunities for education that were provided him by the fact his father and grandfather were four star admirals. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. Senator Obama scrambled to get an education and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. While we should honor Senator McCain’s service, we need to vote for Senator Obama.

  4. kritter
    October 20th, 2008 at 04:34
    Reply | Quote | #4

    First, I thought Powell’s endorsement was thoughtful and deliberate, and obviously motivated by a desire to pick the person who would be best for the times and the set of challenges that we currently face.

    His criticisms of the GOP and the campaign McCain has conducted were valid, but reasoned. He never lapsed into hyperbole or demonized McCain, but appeared to be conscientious about his choice. Powell may be finished with the GOP, or they may be finished with him, but he appeared to have few regrets.

    Obama has pledged to name a bipartisan cabinet (if he wins) and seems to be open to Republicans like Hagel, Powell and Dick Lugar. He’s smart enough to know that he can’t do much to solve the problems in our country by isolating half of America.  I’m hoping that if he wins he will keep his word and work as a consensus builder. Having watched the debates, that was definitely his modus operandi– even finding agreement with McCain on certain issues. That can only be good for a nation that has been divided too long.

  5. Michael Merritt
    October 20th, 2008 at 05:52
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Careful Newt.  You praised someone’s endorsement.  This means you’re now a target of the ire of the far-right.

    Oh yes.  He already has been for sharing a couch with Pelosi.  Nothing new, then.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.