Colin Powell has for a long time struck us as a mushy moderate, David Gergen type, and not much of a deep thinker on most issues, way too concerned about what the “world community” (i.e. pacifist, welfare statist Europe) thinks, and his comments today did nothing to change that assessment. We won’t dwell on his endorsement of Obama, which is really not a surprise at all.

First, a bit of positive – in Powell’s area of expertise, which is military matters, he remains stalwart on the liberation of Iraq, to his credit:

I’m well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn’t get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I’ve never blinked from that. I’ve never said I didn’t support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren’t ready for it and we didn’t respond to it well enough, and things went very, very — very, very south, very bad.

And now it’s starting to turn around through the work of Gen. Petraeus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts, and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. …

How Powell squares that view with Obama’s opposition to the successful surge, and his desire to pull out regardless of conditions on the ground, Powell didn’t say.

But when you get outside of national security matters, Powell seems to understand things less than, say, Joe the plumber:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

Of course taxes are necessary, and of course John McCain has never said nor implied otherwise. But to suggest that “all taxation is redistribution” is just asinine. It should be obvious to anyone, even to Colin Powell, that paying to build a road in no way compares to Obama’s plan to take money away from some Americans to send unearned checks to other Americans (for the purpose of buying their votes).

(It would have been nice to hear a good follow-up question for Powell, to ask him how much “the rich” now pay, in order to gauge his understanding of the issue. Answer: “The rich”, i.e. the top 5% of earners in America, pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. It would be really nice if someone asked Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for that matter, that question. But which reporter would want to put their guys on the spot?)

And to focus on people like Mr. Ayers and these trivial issues, for the purpose of suggesting that somehow Mr. Obama would have some kind of terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top.

….

And to sort of throw in this little Muslim connection, you know, “He’s a Muslim and, my goodness, he’s a terrorist” — it was taking root. And we can’t judge our people and we can’t hold our elections on that kind of basis.

But no one in the McCain campaign, certainly not John McCain or Sarah Palin, has said nor implied that Obama is a terrorist or has terrorist inclinations, or that he’s a Muslim. Barack Obama has a long and consistent pattern of allying himself with far left, radical individuals and groups. Of course that’s relevant to the campaign. Of course the DeMSM would be all over it, non-stop, if John McCain had similar associations with any far-right equivalents of Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc.

And notice that Powell didn’t show any discomfort with all the “negativity” coming from the Obama campaign and his allies in the press. In what moral universe is it worse to point out Obama’s ties to a parade of radicals, which are true, than to compare John McCain to George Wallace, which is nothing but a despicable slander of the lowest kind? And how in the world does Powell think Obama is going to bring Americans together again by accusing anyone of racism who dares to criticize him?

One day after the final debate between Senator Government and Senator McCain, less than three weeks until the election, and the pathetic DeMSM have already done more investigation of Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher than they have of Barack Obama in two years.

Every Republican office-holder or candidate in America should from now on treat members of the mainstream media as hostile Democrat partisans, because in truth that’s what they are. A return to the days of mere subtle liberal bias in the media would be a big step up at this point.

McCain did pretty well, but very unfortunately missed several major opportunities:

McCain failed to refute Obama’s false claim that he’ll cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers, when in fact Obama proposes sending checks to people who didn’t earn them, who don’t pay any income tax.

In a major omission, McCain failed to point out that Obama wants to force every American to pay for abortions, even if they have a strong moral objection. This is not a pro-choice position, taxpayers will pay whether they like it or not. That’s a pro-abortion position.

McCain also didn’t follow up when Obama brazenly lied to the audience about the Born Alive Infants act. The act required care for babies born alive after botched abortions, live babies out of the womb; Obama voted against it. It’s hard to imagine a more extreme and callous position.

McCain failed during the education discussion to point out the failure of Obama to improve education in Chicago as he handed out over $100 million, preferring far-left activist groups to groups that emphasized reading and math.

McCain didn’t tie Ayers to a larger pattern of unsavory and radical left-wing associations.

On health care, McCain didn’t defend his plan well, and should have pointed out that your employer-based health plan will do you no good after you’ve lost your job because your employer’s taxes went up.

McCain should have repeated the fact that Obama gave over $800,000 to ACORN for this campaign, it’s not some fleeting past association.

McCain did pretty well over all, but likely not well enough to change the course of the campaign, there was nothing approaching a knock-out blow or “game-changer”.

Senator Government, on the other hand, avoided and/or misrepresented his record throughout the debate. But we’re sure all the objective, non-partisan journalists and “fact-checkers” out there will get right on it and correct the record. Right? Right?

McCain needs to pick a short list of key points, and hit them hard every minute until election day, especially in the final debate.

• Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, their Democrat enablers, and the Obama / ACORN / Frank / Dodd / financial meltdown nexus. McCain should pound on this for most of the debate, keep hitting Obama on it, and not let it go, like a dog on a bone. He must do the job all the “journalists” refuse to do. Obama will try to wiggle away with his usual phony bromides about Bush economic policies causing the crisis, but McCain can’t let that happen. The moderator will likely try to ring the bell for Obama, and move on to to other issues, but McCain can’t let that happen.
• The Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and the fact Obama and the Democrats want to force Americans to pay for abortions at taxpayer expense. McCain should make these points in the debate whether the moderator sees fit to mention the abortion issue or not. The DeMSM obviously doesn’t want to mention an issue on which Obama has such an extreme position.
• How Obama’s massive government spending and tax increases on America’s employers will kill jobs and raise prices for consumers.
• A little Ayers / Wright / Pfleger / Rezko / Khalidi / ACORN / CAC / etc… Just talking about Ayers in isolation is not going to do much. McCain needs to establish the pattern of radicalism.

McCain should probably not open with this – “my friends, let me explain how this financial crisis began…”

Imagine you live in a cave in hunter-gatherer society. Og is going to spend the day hunting. You have previously harvested some berries, lived frugally, and now have an extra handful of berries you can give Og to eat while he hunts all day. You and Og make a deal. When he returns from the hunt, he will give you two handfuls of meat. That’s debt. If instead of promising you a fixed amount of meat, you agreed that he would give you a fixed share – say half – of what he brings back to the cave, that’s equity.

….

The Family Research Council is hitting Barack Obama for his extreme position on abortion (via Hot Air):

They chose to leave out his opposition to the Born Alive Infant act, for some reason. But how many pro-life voters, or voters who are moderately pro-choice but nevertheless have moral qualms about abortion, know that Obama and the Democratic leadership in congress want to force Americans, including those with strong moral objections, to pay for the procedure? Forcing people to pay is not a “pro-choice” position, it is a pro-abortion position, or at least a pro-abortion-lobbyist position, from the candidate who also baselessly claims to be against lobbyists and special interests.

The DeMSM take on this election continues to amaze. Let’s get this straight – John McCain himself is responsible for what any random person in a crowd of thousands might say at one of his rallies, but any inquiry about Barack Obama’s years-long, close ties to a parade of anti-American radicals is out of bounds. Amazing.

“It’s easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division,” Obama said in Chillicothe, Ohio.

Well, he would know. Perhaps accusing anyone who criticizes Obama of racism is a bit divisive, no? Anyone considering a vote for Obama because they think he’ll “bring us together” is ignoring an awful lot of evidence.

Update: Similar thoughts at Commentary.

Update 2: Without a hint of self-awareness or sense of irony,

Civil rights icon and Georgia congressman John Lewis is accusing John McCain and Sarah Palin of stoking hate, likening the atmosphere at Republican campaign events to those featuring George Wallace, the segregationist former governor of Alabama and presidential candidate.

George Wallace? Who is it who’s stoking hate now, congressman?

So the panel “investigating” Governor Sarah Palin for firing her Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan has issued their findings. The AP reports:

Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

The question immediately arises, what personal gain? How did Sarah Palin gain personally in any way by firing Monegan?

The primary findings:

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Finding Number Two

I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
[emphasis added]

So she had every right to fire Monegan, his refusal to do anything about a corrupt officer may or may not have had something to do with it, and there were other legitimate factors in the decision to fire him.

Accusing someone of “an abuse of power” over this trivia? That is itself an abuse of power. In short, this report is extremely weak, and doesn’t change our earlier view of the issue at all.

Update: More analysis from Townhall:

Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn’t been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion – after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin’s most vocal opponents and one of Alaska’s staunchest Obama supporters – that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.

Barack Obama has to be the most naive and/or easily duped man on the planet. His latest story, which has now changed several times, on his relationship with terrorist radical Bill Ayers, once just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, is that he, Obama, assumed “that he [Ayers] had been rehabilitated”.

And he didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was a radical, racist, anti-American hate-monger, that Father Pfleger Flav was the same sort, that Rezko was a crook, etc. Obama just happened to associate with a bunch of radicals throughout his career, but had no idea what any of them were like. He attended Wright’s church for 20 years, but just happened to be absent whenever Wright went off on one of his regular bigoted tirades. He got a sweet deal on his mansion with some help from Tony Rezko, who Obama also helped to get millions of dollars for building some of Chicago’s slums, but had no idea Rezko was dirty. He had no idea the kind of thuggish radicals he was working with at ACORN. And he helped Ayers dole out tens of millions of dollars to left-wing “education” groups, kicked off his political career at Ayers’ house, and publicly praised Ayers’ book about juvenile justice, but had no idea what Ayers’ current views are.

And this is the guy who is going to go in and engage in “tough diplomacy” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to end Iran’s nuclear program?

So which is it? Is Obama being utterly dishonest about his record, or is he completely lacking in judgment? Either should be disqualifying.

Obama starts right in with the “Bush-McCain deregulation caused the economic crisis” myth.

McCain should have gone right after Obama’s false narrative. He’s instead going into the old talking points. Not good.

Obama hits again with class warfare and promises of handouts. Obama is here to win.

McCain hits on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac – “Obama’s cronies” – here we go.

Obama effectively ties the credit problem to it’s effects on ordinary employees. But then he dives back into the phony “deregulation” talking points.

Obama points fingers, then claims he doesn’t want to point fingers – cynically smooth.

Obama is going to cut spending?!? He’ll really say anything.

Obama says “we’ve got to deal with education” – Bill Ayers for Secretary of Education?

Obama calls for higher taxes on America’s employers heading into a recession. McCain seems to be letting it go. He goes into his old riff on reining in spending. The gloves are still on.

Obama: “After 9/11, Americans were ready to come together” (then Democrats set out to demonize President Bush more than al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein).

Brokaw: What can the goverment do to keep Americans from going into debt?
Obama: “It starts with Washington” (doesn’t everything, if you’re a liberal?)

McCain: Tax-raiser Obama = Herbert Hoover. McCain seems to be warming up a little now. Good – “Let’s not raise anybody’s taxes.”

Obama: “A tax cut for 95% of Americans” (even many who don’t pay any income tax, so he’s really talking about spending, not tax cuts. McCain better hit him on that.)

McCain on Global Warmism: Touts his cap-and-trade bill with Lieberman. But then – Nukes! Yes. Clean, generates lots of power, with no carbon dioxide emissions, and no burning of fossil fuels.

Obama: The same double talk on nuclear power. “McCain voted against alternative fuels.” We assume this means McCain voted against taxpayer subsidies for alternative fuel boondoggles, like solar and wind power, that Obama supports. Again, everything has to come from Washington, with taxpayer funding (if you’re a liberal).

“Should health care be treated as a commodity?” Now there’s a loaded question.

Obama: “You can keep your plan” (How generous of him!) “We’ll work with your employer” (Whether they like it or not)

McCain: Obama’s approach is government mandates. We need to give people choice, not mandates.

Obama doesn’t understand what rights are. This should be disqualifying.

Obama hits McCain for opposing expansion of SCHIP, sold as a program for lower-income children, to cover adults and middle class families. Repeats the lie “McCain favors deregulation in every circumstance.” McCain lets it go! Come on.

McCain: “America is the greatest force for good in the world.”

Obama says he doesn’t understand why we invaded Iraq. Not that he disagrees, but he doesn’t understand. This too should be disqualifying. Maybe he should talk to President Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998.

“Should we respect Pakistani sovereignty…” Good question.

Obama blames it on Iraq. A knee-jerk talking point, not a thoughtful answer.

McCain is exactly right, that the intention to attack across the border should not be announced loudly and publicly as part of a political campaign.

Obama: “We have to withdraw responsibly from Iraq” But his plan was to withdraw in defeat regardless of conditions, even before the surge he opposed worked. He’s been dead wrong on Iraq, an advocate of surrender. This too should be disqualifying.

Good question form the audience on Israel and the UN.

McCain: We obviously wouldn’t wait for the UN Security Council.

Obama: “We can’t allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” Talk is cheap.

“When President Bush said ‘we’re not going to talk to North Korea” This is a lie, one that Obama has repeated. The administration engaged in multi-lateral talks with North Korea, the kind of multi-lateral talks Democrats usually advocate. But it’s more important for them to attack the president than to tell the truth or uphold their own standards.

Obama: “we need fundamental change” (to erase the great economic expansion started under Ronald Reagan, and retreat to the tax-and-spend policies and economic stagnation of the Carter years.)

From the AP today:

Barack Obama said Monday that John McCain is trying to shift attention from the troubled economy because the issue is bad for the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign.

And from Senator McCain, finally, the reality:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.

….

Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?

Barack Obama says McCain doesn’t want to talk about the economy on the very day McCain delivers a speech on the economy. But the evidence shows it is Barack Obama who’s trying to “shift attention from the troubled economy.” Classic Obama – say anything.

We noted it when the slimy Time magazine blog a couple of weeks ago accused the McCain campaign of racism when they showed Barack Obama in an ad next to crooked former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin “Heckuva Job, Frankie!” Raines who happens to be a black man.

We said then, “At this rate, pretty soon they’re going to accuse the McCain campaign of racism if they show Barack Obama by himself in an ad.”

The latest of this sort of slimy, slanderous attack from the DeMSM comes from the once venerable Associated Press, in an “analysis” piece by Douglass K. Daniel. This attack is as baseless as the one from Time. It doesn’t come in response to an ad, but it comes as close to suggesting that any criticism of Obama is racist as any we’ve seen to date.

Daniel accuses Sarah Palin, and by extension the McCain campaign, of racism for noting Obama’s long association with radical, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, who by the way happens to be white.

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

Daniel also proceeds to helpfully regurgitate Obama campaign talking points – “there’s no evidence Obama and Ayers were close” (false), “Obama … was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs (irrelevant), “has denounced Ayers’ radical views…” (false).

One of the central themes of Obama’s campaign, at least in much of his rhetoric, has been that he will “bridge the divides” in America, and “bring us together” (of course, like most of his campaign, this is mostly just talk and no action). But it should be obvious that the sort of knee-jerk accusations of racism like those from Time and the AP will have the opposite effect.

Others:
Michelle Malkin
The Corner

Here’s a really good ad from the National Republican Congressional Committee:

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and all the Republicans in Congress need to make these points every single day through election day.