Why not Colin Powell?

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-07-10 05:50pm

This question seems like it hit me all of a sudden when a freind of mine asked me "Why doesnt Bush run with someone like Powell instead of Cheney?" and i responded, "Yeah, why not?"

After all, i dont recall ever hearing a bad word about the man. He never drove a car off a bridge, got head under his desk from an intern, snorted crack, faked militay records...hell the only thing i can think of was that bull about the WMDs. And remember he's the guy they went to to tell the world about their little plan; he's the one the trusted to win over the UN, he's the one they thought was respectible enough to go on live TV and sell it, and it sorta' worked didnt it. All in all, he seems like a rather regular, not sleezy guy, though i could be missing something. Could it be, an acutally honest politician?

So i have a two-fold question: if George Bush ran with Colin Powell would you vote for Bush, and if Colin Powell ran as president, would you vote for him? And why doesnt Bush dump Cheney and try to get Powell as the new running mate?

My answer, BTW, is no i wouldnt vote for Bush i dont acre who he runs with, but i could see myself reluctantly voting for Powell, so yes with a tone of maybe for the second question.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-10 06:02pm

Powell doesn't want to run. He doesn't want to put up with the bullshit of a campaign and being president and his wife especially doesn't want to put up with it.

Second, while Powell is probably the most popular Republican in the country, he isn't actually all that popular among the Republican Party base. He's very much a moderate Republican, and among other thing's he's pro-choice. He wouldn't be a lock for the nomination for preisdent by a long shot, even though in the general election, he'd stomp any Democrat I can think of. That's one of the big flaws of the primary system.

As for being vice-president, first of all, I don't think he wants the job. Second, there's no way he could replace Cheney in terms of what Cheney does in the administration. Dick Cheney is a probusiness neoconservative technocrat in an administration dominated by probusiness neoconservative technocrats (don't let moderates like Powell or fundies like Ashcroft and Bush himself fool you--the moderates are windowdressing and the puritans are for the benefit of the Christian right). Cheney virtually functions as the Prime Minister of the United States. Powell in that role would find himself even more isolated than he is now. At least as a member of the Cabinet he has the weight of an entire department of the Executive Branch to throw around. As Vice-Preisdent, he'd be the chief funeral-attender and ribbon cutter of the United States while Rumsfeld dominated the Cabinet.

As for whether I'd vote for him: much as I like him, I wouldn't vote for a Bush-Powell ticket because Colin Powell isn't enough to counterbalance George Bush. If, however, Powell was running for President, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, regardless of his running mate (who would probably be a southern conservative to balance the ticket).

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-10 09:44pm

The short answer is that Powell is a complete idiot, AND he disagrees with several administration policies. Powell's record is... less than stellar--he was directly responsible for American casualties in numerous low-intensity conflicts (most notably, he was the one pulling strings behind Task Force Ranger's deployment to Somalia, and later some of the difficulties they had with getting equipment that they requested).

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-07-11 01:28am

He used to be cool, now he comes across as just another political puppet.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-07-11 01:30am

Powell lied to the UN's face about Iraq's weapons and capabilities. That's one bad thing about him.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-11 01:33am

Hamel wrote:Powell lied to the UN's face about Iraq's weapons and capabilities. That's one bad thing about him.

Or he lied to America's face. They talk about Kerry flip-flopping, Powell and Rice SERIOUSLY flip-flopped with Iraq.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-11 01:36am

Master of Ossus wrote:The short answer is that Powell is a complete idiot, AND he disagrees with several administration policies.

Idiot? rather a strong word for a former general..perhaps you mean he lacks judgement? and so what if he dissagrees with some policies?

Powell's record is... less than stellar--he was directly responsible for American casualties in numerous low-intensity conflicts (most notably, he was the one pulling strings behind Task Force Ranger's deployment to Somalia, and later some of the difficulties they had with getting equipment that they requested).

And Esienhower was innocent of some of these sorts of things as well in WW2? there is a difference between responsibility and blame. Powell is probably the only man in this US government that the western world, bar Tony and Johnny, that has any respect for.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-11 01:37am

Hamel wrote:Powell lied to the UN's face about Iraq's weapons and capabilities. That's one bad thing about him.

My dear boy, the man is a politician.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-11 01:40am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:The short answer is that Powell is a complete idiot, AND he disagrees with several administration policies.
Idiot? rather a strong word for a former general..perhaps you mean he lacks judgement?

Have you ever heard him talk?

and so what if he dissagrees with some policies?

The question was why Bush didn't run with him, instead of Cheney. Usually presidential candidates do not like running-mates who disagree with them on key policy issues.

And Esienhower was innocent of some of these sorts of things as well in WW2?

Eisenhower's been out of politics for a long time, and I never claimed that he was the greatest thing since sliced-bread.

there is a difference between responsibility and blame. Powell is probably the only man in this US government that the western world, bar Tony and Johnny, that has any respect for.

For...?

Powell DESERVED the blame for several disastrous military endeavors. Whether he got it or not (he somehow manages to side-step his checkered history) is totally irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for a LOT of exceptionally poor decisions, many of which caused significant harm to American troops.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-11 02:20am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:The short answer is that Powell is a complete idiot, AND he disagrees with several administration policies.
Idiot? rather a strong word for a former general..perhaps you mean he lacks judgement?
Have you ever heard him talk?

Admittadly only on sound bytes on telly.

and so what if he dissagrees with some policies?
The question was why Bush didn't run with him, instead of Cheney. Usually presidential candidates do not like running-mates who disagree with them on key policy issues.

perhaps they would have to compromise then.

And Esienhower was innocent of some of these sorts of things as well in WW2?
Eisenhower's been out of politics for a long time, and I never claimed that he was the greatest thing since sliced-bread.

And neither is Powell. No person is perfect, lest of all politicians.

there is a difference between responsibility and blame. Powell is probably the only man in this US government that the western world, bar Tony and Johnny, that has any respect for.
For...?

Powell DESERVED the blame for several disastrous military endeavors. Whether he got it or not (he somehow manages to side-step his checkered history) is totally irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for a LOT of exceptionally poor decisions, many of which caused significant harm to American troops.

There is a world of difference between blame and resonsibility. Was Powell in direct command? if not he was not to blame, but responsible. If a mission went badly, was it the execution of it? the training? the command? enemy action?, warfare does not always go as you want it to. Politicians do make mistakes, but that does not disqualify them for high office.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-07-11 11:34am

Master of Ossus wrote:Powell DESERVED the blame for several disastrous military endeavors. Whether he got it or not (he somehow manages to side-step his checkered history) is totally irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for a LOT of exceptionally poor decisions, many of which caused significant harm to American troops.

I don't think you fully comprehend how the chain of command works in the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Cheifs does not command troops in the field, that is the job of that area's unified commander, who reports to the Secretary of Defense.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-07-11 11:44am

I must also add that Powell left his Chairman position due in part to the numerous low intensity conflicts with no clear goals that were a staple of the Clinton administration.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-07-11 05:01pm

From what I've heard, if he were to replace Cheney with anyone it would be Condoleezza Rice. But really, he'd have to replace Ashcroft too for me to consider changing my vote.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-11 05:26pm

Symmetry wrote:From what I've heard, if he were to replace Cheney with anyone it would be Condoleezza Rice. But really, he'd have to replace Ashcroft too for me to consider changing my vote.

Are you joking? Bush's fundamentalist base would never stand for having a woman as VP, much less a black woman.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-11 05:28pm

Durandal wrote:
Symmetry wrote:From what I've heard, if he were to replace Cheney with anyone it would be Condoleezza Rice. But really, he'd have to replace Ashcroft too for me to consider changing my vote.
Are you joking? Bush's fundamentalist base would never stand for having a woman as VP, much less a black woman.

Sure they would, the only crucial thing is that she's not a liberal.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-11 09:21pm

Bush needs Chancellor Cheney (as Gore Vidal called him) like underage kings needed regents to guide them.

Powell has some problems and he could never fit in with Bush the way Cheney does. Someone already mentioned Powell's support for abortion rights. He also supports affirmative action. But there's more. Powell served in Vietnam while Cheney was a draft-dodger and Bush a deserter. Also keep in mind, Powell is not a convicted drunk driver like Bush and Cheney. Face it, it just wouldn't work out. *