Former Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his "credentials" as a Republican. It seems that he did not like what Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney had to say about his so-called "moderate" stance.So I would ask, "Who gets to define what "credentials" are necessary to be considered a Republican?
Does one become a Republican simply by saying so?
In one sense, at least, that is so.
When one registers to vote, one can register as whatever he/she wants to, regardless of the stance he/she takes on major issues.
But there is more to being a member of one Party or the other in terms of political philosophy than just a statement that one is a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or some other brand of Partyism.
Colin Powell and I could not stand together on the same platform with a similar view of what The United States of America should look like. We are diametrically opposed to one another.
So does that make him a Republican and me something else?
He was here first...by five years.
Does that mean he gets to choose?
If we were to chart the history of the Republican Party in terms of philosophies and platforms, how many more or fewer would there be taking stands similar to mine, and which would be stances lining up with Colin Powells'?
In fact, that sounds like a good project for one of my "scholarly" investigations.
Look for it in the near or distant future.
In the mean time, I agree with Limbaugh and Cheney: Powell does not look like, talk like or walk like any Republican I've ever seen.
If it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, or walk like a duck, it probably is not a duck.
8 comments:
He is the MSM's favorite kind of Republican, a RINO.
Colin Powell a Republican - @ this point makes about as much sense as a bumper sticker I've seen, "Republicans for Obama" - diametric opposition, for sure.
Now, you've got a ticker to rest up, right?
:)
Shoprat: I agree...but who of us, from among all "Republicans," sets the standard? It seems to me that in the Party there no longer are any standards.
Susannah: I agree with you, too. But see my question above.
My heart seems to be doing well and the Doctor says I can go back to work...so I think I will try it out today for about three hours.
Hi Joe~
My limited understanding of party politics says that the Conventions set the standards. Delegates representing counties/states are sent to the National convention whence-upon (is that a word?) the National Party platform is voted. So, there is protocol.
Anyone else?
Ah, give us leaders whose standard is the word of God, whose face is like a flint towards doing and saying what is right, and seeks God for wisdom and direction.
A man who would be willing to stand-alone against evil and die if need be, before he would compromise the truth, that which is right, his relationship with Christ, and the will of God.
Imagine Powell voting for obama and calling himself a Republican?
enough said. Joe, republicans are , or WERE, CONSERVATIVE. Bush was wrong with TARP and obama's wrong on everything else.
What's small gov't about obama (though he says he doesn't like it!), what's good or conservative about continuing Bush's laxity on the borders? What's conservative about owning American companies? Powell voted for THIS and wants to be called a Republican?
Let's ask HIM what he feels a Republican is..the onus is on HIM, not us.
Great to hear your doc's so encouraged by your progress.
Susannah: You wrote, "Delegates representing counties/states are sent to the National convention whence-upon (is that a word?) the National Party platform is voted."
OK, so what if the NP platform is the antithesis of what we conservatives believe?
Does that mean we are not Republicans?
Then what are we?
Do I then have to choose between a very left wing Party and an extrememly left wing party.
"OK, so what if the NP platform is the antithesis of what we conservatives believe? -- Does that mean we are not Republicans?----Then what are we?--Do I then have to choose between a very left wing Party and an extrememly left wing party."
Very good questions, Joe. For myself, at least w/ our 2 party system, I choose the one that best represents my convictions. However, I'm firmly w/ Z - Bush shouldn't have gone w/ TARP. Bad idea, & it has gone from bad to worse.
Republicans need to decide on identity. If they're gonna be more of the same left-leaning stuff, then that's not me. But what choice have I? I'm not Libertarian - I want a platform that takes stands on social/moral issues...
Post a Comment