So What Would Colin Powell’s Ideal Republican Party Stand For?

I think Colin Powell voiced his views in a public fashion because he felt that he had been publicly maligned. As I recall, he stated very clearly his rationale for not supporting McCain e.g. the inflammatory tone of the campaign, the incompetent pick of Palin, the incompetent handling of the issue of economy etc... It is my belief that Powell would have voted for McCain as well as a majority of voters if he would have run an effective campaign. Remember perception is significant when trying to win an election. It is not what conservatives know to be true about themselves but what others think of them that will in many cases be the turning point in elections with regard to minorities.

As to the question you posed, I think Powell's ideal Republican Party would be in the likeness of Jack Kemp. His vote for Barack Obama clearly shows that while he is a Republican he is not a conservative. Moreover I think his vote for Obama demonstrates an alienation from the GOP due to the shrill rhetoric coming from conservatives. We as conservatives will win with our conservative principles, if we use an effective strategy with a more reasoned tone.

Who is doing this? "shrill rhetoric coming from conservatives"

I do agree with running on conservative principles will get us a win, more so then this "big tent" "moderate"

His reason for supporting BHO was because he was black.

McLiberal ran a poor campaign, if not for the pick of Palin he would have had a worse loss.

Who is doing this? "shrill rhetoric coming from conservatives" When you and other of my conservative brethren figure this out the GOP will be on its way to a sustainable conservative governance. Again it is not what conservatives know to be true about themselves but what others think of them that will in many cases be the turning point in elections with regard to minorities.

I find your statement "His reason for supporting BHO was because he was black" questionable; and, in the same manner I think, at the very least, it is questionable to assert "you seem to like Palin because she is white." As conservatives, I think we need to maintain objectivity in our arguments and avoid unverifiable, to say the least, assumptions. Why should anyone attribute racial motives to you or Powell with regard to how you vote?

McCain did run an incompetent campaign and the Palin pick was definitely part of that incompetency. The Palin pick was identity politics at its worst e.g. she was not properly vetted, she was under an ethics investigation, she was censured by fellow Republicans with regard to the ethics probe, she was not ready for prime time media etc... Barack Obama was so far left that I believe that as incompetent as McCain was he would have won with Huckabee.

Not questionable.

Powell friend of McCain, etc. then comes out for BHO, doesn't just vote for the Socialist quietly, he's sure everyone knows it.

I like Palin more then McCain seems more conservative then McLiberal, you say "shrill rhetoric coming from conservatives" I would say it's up to you to come up with those that are doing it.

Not ready for a BHO friendly media, the media was/is so far in the tank for BHO they would have made anyone look bad.

Palin was liked by the conservatives during the campaign, so what's wrong with that.

Nobody knows what a Republican is anymore.

You say, "Colin Powell, he's a Republican." Fine. Somebody tell me what he believes on any issue. What does he believe on terrorism? What does he believe on tax cuts? What does he believe on abortion? He voted for Obama. He must believe what Obama believes. But he doesn't say so.

What's a Republican today? What does a Republican stand for? When you say "Republican," what does it mean? To a lot of people, it means racist, sexist, bigot, because Republicans have not fought back on that and have accepted the premise, and that's why because they think they're viewed as racist, sexist, bigot, they've gotta not offend anybody so as to prove that a lie isn't true. Imagine that. Republicans are trying to prove that the way they're lied about isn't true, by not standing for something.

The GOP in general is more conservative than the Democratic Party; but, it is accurate say that not all Republicans are conservatives e.g. against statism, pro traditional marriage, pro life, constitutionalists etc... Do not forget that Colin Powell voted for Reagan, Bush and Bush. Does that mean that he agreed with every conservative stance of theirs? I think Powell is a disaffected Republican who some of my conservative brethren are unwisely maligning. Again as I recall, he stated very clearly his rationale for not supporting McCain e.g. the inflammatory tone of the campaign, the incompetent pick of Palin, the incompetent handling of the issue of economy etc...

I do not believe Republicans have accepted the premise that they are racist, sexist and bigots. Some may think that this scotus pick is as good as it gets. Perhaps they may think they ought to quit while they are ahead. I think that this is an excellent opportunity to expose the thinking of Obama. I believe conservatives/Republicans can move public opinion in their favor as long as they strike a reasonable tone in the confirmation hearings.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/25/w hat_right_do_colin_powell_and_tom_ridge_have_to_lecture_the _republican_party

"What right do Colin Powell and Tom Ridge have to lecture the Republican party?"

Follow the link

Thank you for the FYI; and, I must say that I appreciate the tone of Mr. Toby Harden's article. As a conservative who is not party first it would be duplicitous of me to require that of Colin Powell. If I had to guess, I would say most conservatives would not describe themselves as Republicans first. Now just because the GOP cannot count on me to vote for liberal and incompetent candidates does not stop me from offering my input to them, nor should it stop other independent thinkers from offering their advice. I do agree with Mr. Harden that Powell's public support for President Obama was politically damamging to the GOP. I disagree with Mr. Harden that Powell will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama in 2012, if the GOP puts forth a competent candidate with a reasonable campaign tone. I think if my fellow conservatives stop "getting Powell's back up"/putting him on the defensive, buyers remorse will start to settle in regarding his support for Barack Obama.

Powell is not unlike a lot of voters who I think are having or will have a hard time admitting the error of their vote. Please don't misunderstand me. No conservative who shares my belief system could vote for Barack Obama. My concern is that Republicans/conservatives share their views with consideration of how fragile many people's egos are.

Own opinion Swollen Colin NEVER did or accomplished anything other than be the the "Token"

". . . make clear that "the Republican party and the conservative movement are two different things."

Most Americans understand, that the Left's mantra of change isn't for them. "We don't need to remake the United States of America," "We have to stand up for it."

". . . conservatives should be unafraid to voice their opinions on today's important issues."

Conservatives need to offer alternatives to liberal ideas, not simply parrot the left.

"Most Americans understand, that the Left's mantra of change isn't for them." I hope they understand "the Left's mantra of change isn't for them" and will admit via their vote in the upcoming elections that Barack Obama was a liberal disguised in (shall we say) moderate rhetoric.

I agree that we need to engage our political adversaries; but, my contention is that we need to do so in a way that will grant us a sustainable governing majority. I want to win the war. Others may satisfy themselves with shrill dialogue; but, my sense of triumph will come with the political power to see the government run in a conservative fashion.

Most major talk hosts, and politicians don't, I believe, use any shrill talk.

There may be some outliers who use that type of talk, but for the most part they use conservative dialogue. You may not like some of what they have to say but that does not make it shrill.

"Most major talk hosts, and politicians don't, I believe, use any shrill talk." You will get no argument from me on your stated belief, since I have not heard most politicians and what may perhaps be considered major talk show hosts.

I do not hold my self to be the final arbiter of truth; and, I do not think that my thoughts have any determinative impact on the definition of "shrill." I do think there is truth, and I do think that my conservative brethren need to avoid a shrill tone. Moreover I think "perception is significant when trying to win an election. It is not what conservatives know to be true about themselves but what others think of them that will in many cases be the turning point in elections with regard to minorities."

To determine what is shrill to voters I think the GOP ought to conduct focus groups with Independents and minority voting blocs. Understand I want to win; and, I do not think that stating one's conservative principles in a scientific tone is equivalent to compromising one's principles.

What??

"To determine what is shrill to voters I think the GOP ought to conduct focus groups with Independents and minority voting blocs. Understand I want to win; and, I do not think that stating one's conservative principles in a scientific tone is equivalent to compromising one's principles."

Letting focus groups, etc. set conservative policy, because it's what these groups come up with? What if they come up with BHO ideas.

This is what I said: "To determine what is shrill to voters I think the GOP ought to conduct focus groups with Independents and minority voting blocs. Understand I want to win; and, I do not think that stating one's conservative principles in a scientific tone is equivalent to compromising one's principles."

This is what you said: "Letting focus groups, etc. set conservative policy, because it's what these groups come up with? What if they come up with BHO ideas."

Do not ascribe your thoughts to me. I am talking about communication tone and strategy; and, communicating one's principles in a compelling way without adopting the liberal oppositions agenda e.g. statism, pro abortion, radical homosexual agenda, cap and trade, ineffective immigration policy etc...

Now if you want focus groups or any other group alien to conservative principles setting policy for the GOP, that is your desire and definitely not my desire; however, having said that I want you to understand that I do not believe you would be supportive of liberal policies.

My point is not to have these focus groups, etc. involved.

Your words, I think, "To determine what is shrill to voters I think the GOP ought to conduct focus groups with Independents and minority voting blocs."

We [conservatives] do set forth out principles about these topics in a clear concise way, and are attacked by some of those very groups you want to draw to the party.

When we did about immigration policy were attacked by the "moderates" in the party, I'm sure you remember when that happened. We didn't know what's best, can't send them all back, etc.

The strategy that I propose is aimed at those who are changeable. Of course, everyone will not change their party vote due to civil and intellectual discourse, but, I think more probable that some will, if they are not met with offensive rhetoric. I opt for strategic communication to targeted voting blocs. Barack Obama won the election in part due to his calm demeanor and polished communication style. Many conservatives were ignorantly dismissive of his political abilities. He is not shrill but he carries a big stick. It is never good to underestimate your opponent. I propose that we use focus groups to perfect our message to Independents and minority voting blocs; because, the GOP/conservative message, which is the better doctrine, is not having the desired affect. I understand that polls show that the majority of U.S. voters are not as left leaning as our current president and congress; therefore, I think the reason that they are voting for Democrats is GOP/conservative communication strategy.

The visuals of McCain campaign rallys without any significant minority representation reinforced the public perception that the GOP is for whites only; and, needless to say that helped Obama with his achieving the "dream" spin. The world is different for our young people. They have grown up in an age of great diversity; and, when they see the lack of significant racial diversity within the Republican Party they view it with distaste. We,as conservatives, should focus our energy on things that we can change and that means adding to the diversity of our movement and polishing our communication strategy.

BHO won [in part] due to his speaking style of saying nothing and being backed by having the media in the tank for him and not calling him on what he was saying.

During this campaign the GOP had a terrible candidate, who for the most part was not saying things much diff from BHO. Also the Democrats had a black as their candidate so it would be expected that minorities would support BHO, to a great extent.

McCain's immigration policy was not that different from BHO so the only obvious difference [visual] one would see were black faces, because BHO was black [the reason I give for Powell supporting him]

Through listening to Obama I found he was an obvious liberal. I agree that Obama benefited from most of the mainstream media's coverage of him; and, I also think that many candidates for strategic purposes on both sides of the political spectrum tend to use many words without much substance.

As I have stated before McCain ran an incompetent campaign, and, yes I think the GOP shot itself in the foot by nominating him.

McCain was against abortion, for constitutionalist judges, against socialized healthcare, and strong on defense.

I reject the view that it was to be expected that minorities would vote for Barack because of his minority status. If minorities were not issue voters, they would vote for a minority regardless of political party whenever they could. When the GOP/conservatives stop blaming minorities for their ineptitude in making critical inroads into minority voting blocs the Republican Party will be on the road to success with regard to critical minority support. I don't think it is helpful for any individual or group to blame others for their personal failures. Accepting the premise of personal responsibility I think it is time for the GOP/conservatives to perfect their communication style and outreach strategy.

Blacks vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers most of the time [about all the time]. In NYC it does not matter who you put on the Democrat ticket chances are they will be elected. There is no conservative that's gonna win in NYC or NY.

Look at the number of blacks that voted for BHO, was he that much better then McCain?

Blacks are not issue voters, they vote Democrat most all the time, and this time with a young, clean cut well spoken black at the top of the ticket where else would they go?

"Blacks vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers most of the time [about all the time]. In NYC it does not matter who you put on the Democrat ticket chances are they will be elected. There is no conservative that's gonna win in NYC or NY."

Blacks and whites are issue voters. Whites in NY just happen to be Democratic Party voters and Blacks are issue voters who happen to be Democratic Party supporters.

"Look at the number of blacks that voted for BHO, was he that much better then McCain?Blacks are not issue voters, they vote Democrat most all the time, and this time with a young, clean cut well spoken black at the top of the ticket where else would they go?"

Again if Blacks were not issue voters, they would vote for the Black candidate regardless of party affiliation every time the opportunity presented itself. Please understand that Blacks do not support minority Republican Party candidates or appointees disproportionately.

Again "I don't think it is helpful for any individual or group to blame others for their personal failures. Accepting the premise of personal responsibility I think it is time for the GOP/conservatives to perfect their communication style and outreach strategy."

Try this at National Review;

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZTkxYTdiYjI3NmViNG VhY2RjMzg2MzQyNTRkNjhjZDI


"Beyond ‘No’

"As the GOP argues for spending restraint, it should also address the concerns of the middle class."

I think Ramesh Ponnuru & Richard Lowry's article offered important elements to a winning strategy for GOP/conservative ascension in the body politic; and, of course I agree with them when they say "the foot knows best where the shoe pinches." If the GOP holds targeted focus groups to gather what issues resonate and what communication strategy ensures that they resonate with independents and minorities, the Republican Party will be on its way to success in the midterm elections. Campaign ads need to focus on the concerns of the target audience; therefore, there needs to be a national media strategy, regional media strategy, state media strategy and a local community media strategy. If an issue does not play well nationally for the party, the GOP should not try to force feed it to the voters. Inundate targeted audiences with the things that they agree with the GOP concerning.

The radical homosexual agenda, school choice, and abortion are our avenue to get critical support among the minority voting bloc. We have to sympathize with the minority community concerning these issues. With regard to the radical homosexual agenda we need for Fox News, talk radio and GOP candidates to speak on these topics non-stop. Conservatives need to show footage and release audio of Blacks protesting gay marriage; and, we need to show our outrage over police trying to suppress their free speech rights. Conservatives and Republicans need to stand with Black and Latino church leaders against the hate filled speech of the supporters of the radical homosexual agenda aimed at them. Attacking Black or Hispanic Liberation Theology (churches that hold to that teaching) is ineffective, at best; but, aggressively supporting minority outrage over the Gay-marriage issue will gain the GOP critical support among minority voting blocs. If GOP emphasizes opposition to gay marriage, support for school choice, and opposition to abortion and keeps the affirmative action issue out of the spotlight (at least in heavily populated minority areas), the Republican Party can gain critical support among minority voting blocs.

Doesn't it depend on who, which are the minorities you want to attract? Which minorities? Blacks, Hispanic, moderates [which ones?] disaffected Democrats? Gays, anti-abortion, etc, etc.

As an economic and social conservative, the strategic plan I have outlined to you is geared toward "racial" minorities; and, I think this plan will work for Black and Hispanic voting blocs, which are the two largest racial minority voting blocs.

When you ask about pro abortion, gays etc... what do you mean? As I have stated before the GOP should not be shrill and it should not compromise. My plan, as you may have noted has nothing to do with material compromise, but it has to do with political effectiveness. It speaks to the same idea of the article you sent me from National Review Online.

If the Democrats run BHO again it will not matter what the GOP does he will get just about the same % of the Black vote.

BTW Hispanics are not a "racial" group they are an ethnic group from many different countries but yet you feel that there is any single action that will attract a large group of them.

You want to attract minorities, etc. are not gays part of this group. Also you want to attract those that do not view the GOP favorably, those that are pro-abortion will fit that bill.

So you only want to attract some minorities [Hispanic & Blacks] not all of them.

"If the Democrats run BHO again it will not matter what the GOP does he will get just about the same % of the Black vote." If the GOP does not pursue a strategy such as what I have suggested and what the writers of the article you directed me to in Nation Review Online suggested, I agree with you. I am not a defeatist.

"BTW Hispanics are not a "racial" group they are an ethnic group from many different countries but yet you feel that there is any single action that will attract a large group of them." I apologize that my attempt to differentiate minorities in terms of race from minorities in terms of other criteria fell short. If you read what I have said, you will understand that I have not suggested that any single action will attract a large group of them.

"You want to attract minorities, etc. are not gays part of this group. Also you want to attract those that do not view the GOP favorably, those that are pro-abortion will fit that bill." I cannot make you understand what I have said. If gays and pro-abortionist want to vote for the GOP which stands for traditional marriage and pro life, there vote is welcome. If you want to change the GOP platform to advocate gay marriage and to advocate abortion, that is your view and not mine.

"So you only want to attract some minorities [Hispanic & Blacks] not all of them." You win by attracting all you can; therefore, of course, I want the GOP to attract every vote it can get without material compromise.

I do not want to be a defeatist either but if you believe that what I said about BHO and 2012 would not come to pass you are dreaming.

Unless there is a major disaster in the Democratic party BHO will get almost the same Black vote as 2008.

Whatever attempts the GOP tries to make they have to come up with a viable candidate to combat BHO.

If the strategy that I have suggested and the strategy of the authors of the article you directed me to in National Review Online suggested are effectively implemented, you will be somewhat dazed and think me and the aforementioned strategist are rather brilliant.

If the strategy that we are discussing is implemented, it does not require a major implosion on the part of the Democratic Party to gain us the victory in the midterm elections and in 2012, other than the implosion that is already occurring.

I definitely believe the GOP must have a candidate who is both an effective campaigner and a quality conservative to be sure of a victory in 2012. If we have the equivalent of the McCain Palin ticket with the accompanying ineptitude, things will be touch and go. I actually think the more probable way in which Obama maintains the White House is for the Republican Party to make enough gains in the midterm elections to move the president to center. If he continues on his present left leaning trajectory, he will lose in 2012.

No one makes sense any more.

jevica suggests, "To a lot of people, it means racist, sexist, bigot."

A lot of people are democrats who are racist, sexist and bigots who always play the race card then say Bush did it.

Remeber Wright? Remember the priest? Remember Gates?

Remember that obama didn't know any of these guys? but wrote in his life story that he was vry careful about whom he associated with at Harvard? The communists, the blacks, foreigners, chicanos, punk rock poets.

Remember that obama hardly knew Ayers?

Remember that Obama would be bi-partisan then "I Won?"

Remember transparancy? Of What? He hasn't read the health bill, nor the stiumlus bill. I guess he can't lie about them then? Like preferring the public option even if it took ten years?

As for Powell and his Republican committments - as long as he thinks he can be another Obama and change the way "conservatives think."

Powell missed his chance and now wants it back. He is tainted.

You are correct, Powell's time is over.

His support of BHO was because of race, pure and simple.