Ken Adelman, Conservative Staffer from Ford to Reagan, endorses Obama

Another former heavyweight conservative supporter has lent his support to Obama. Ken Adelman, has endorsed Obama for President:

Adelman:

So, based on some of the comments regarding Powell's endorsement, let me guess - Adelman was never a conservative, actually? No - sorry, got it wrong. Adelman was never white. He's actually a black guy and a radical leftist, merely posing as a longtime white guy, and a staunch conservative, in order to make a pitch for a job. 'Kay, carry on.

 

Intertesting post - thanks.

It is amazing that some still tout Palin as the most qualified of the 4 running for President and Vice President. That type of pronouncement shows an appalling and willful ignorance or just plain old stupidity - either way, people holding those view will have to be content with people like Palin running small towns and the occasional small state. People like Palin simply do not stand up to honest scrutiny.

 

Adelman was a member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board. He was on it for years. At the beginning of the War he was amongst the loudest and most vociferous supporters of the War in Iraq.

Down the line he started to change. He acknowledged mistakes.

His support of Obama is another startling example of highly placed, distinguished, and thoughtful Republicans, who have problems with McCain.

In his case its doubly astonishing as his own Republican credentials come from the far Right on a bunch of issues, more so than those of Powell.

Lot of cracks in Republican support for their candidate. Its also rather telling that the Republicans with deep experience on National Security Issues have direct problems with McCain's choice for a VP.

I guess they don't like that he decided to diss the entire nation with that choice.

 

It's not just him. I'd bet most conservatives don't really like McCain or have problems with him.

It's obvious (to me any way) from the way they choose to support him. They don't stand up for his policies, decisions, or even the way he runs his campaign. They just attack Obama. They try and give Palin credit for McCain's temporary bump. But I'd argue that their hatred for Obama does more to rally the base than Palin and McCain combined. And that's pretty telling.

It sucks sitting there watching the other side get really excited about their candidate and not being able to do the same about yours. A lot of Democrats know that feeling (Kerry).

 

Who cares!

After this thread was posted, I did some reading on Ken Adelman, and to me it sounds like he flip-flops more than Pamela Anderson's titties in that scene of her running on the beach!

 

Firegirl, I haven't followed a good many of your posts, lately. To be completely honest, my last recollection is that you were claiming you "repeatedly saw Obama's gaffe over three WORDS: J - O - B - S !!!", when that was shown to be simply false. Now you are claiming Adelman is a "flip flopper" without providing any evidence as to how you came to this conclusion. Did you have some evidence to support the notion? Are you seriously wishing to make the claim that this longtime GOP presidential staffer, from Ford through Reagan, one of the strongest hawks on Iraq, assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, is simply a "flip flopper?"

As to why it is significant, it matters because in the face of the baseless claim that Powell's endorsement "was all about race," well, the excuses are running thin when you have guys like Adelman making their views known, as well. McCain flat out blew it, this campaign, for many reasons - and picking Palin is not the least reason as to why.

Most generally, to all, I guess I remain astounded with Brown, Earl, George, that these "outings" don't just send a screaming message to most supporting the McCain ticket, and the GOP generally, that something is rotten in the State of Denmark. If I were the party faithful of the GOP, I'd be paying attention - not trying to dismiss it by baseless innuendoes, smears, and all the rest.

 

Firegirl:

Adelman has changed his mind. You could call it flip flopping. You could call it something different.

After a lifetime of being involved in serious levels of the Republican party and serious levels of international concerns, his current perspective is astonishing.

He supported going into Iraq in the first place. Like McCain, as conditions got bad he started to speak out against administration policies.

Going forward McCain has one perspective on Iraq. Obviously Adelman differs.

For a variety of reasons various folks with significant credentials and long Republican histories are moving away from McCain. That is always surprising within elections. On these national security issues it questions where McCain is coming from.

 

Wow, guess I should have started a "Ready to Dump on Adelman?" thread.

Either you're for us or against us. No room for your own opinions

 

Where was that shown to be false? The post you cited is basically you whining that people don't agree with you again. That doesn't prove what I was stating as false anywhere. Stop making shit up.

Here's some video for you. It's actually of Biden making a similar mistake when trying to spell jobs because I don't have loads of time right now to sift through every single Obama campaign trail video to find the mistake. If I have time to search, I will post the video of a group of political panelists even making fun of Obama and his gaffe that was actually quite funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

Your "rotten in the State of Denmark" is so ironic. Tons of people here have been trying to tell you they want nothing to do with you anymore because you are completely impossible to deal with, yet you totally ignore it. So just as you are baffled by our "support" of McCain (whom I really DON'T support, it just drives me absolutely insane how blind you sheep are about Obama and refuse to see him as another corrupt politician), some of us here are completely baffled how you don't see that if several people are complaining (even close friends) that you've changed, there must be something "rotten in Denmark", and you refuse to see the light. I am personally disappointed in this as well because you are the person I started reading here in this section, and your posts actually got me interested in posting in P & R!

I don't even know why I'm responding to this, will make no difference. I have had you on ignore now for months and you haven't seemed to notice. I hated doing that, but you are impossible. Arguing with you is just one big circle of BS. You can't let anything go, and anytime you get into a really heated arguement with someone, you go around in circles bringing up every single bad or naughty thing someone did to you here in the past. So it's like we always end up back at square one with you and it's old, so very old. And it's also incredibly annoying that you, along with some others, continually report posts that don't even come close to breaking the rules, because your feelers get hurt. Half the time I don't even respond here anymore for fear of getting banned for an opinion that differs from someone else's. Please don't even try to deny this one because the forum spy is a handy tool! Now I know why the mods can't stand this section, they have people crying "Mommy, someone called me a name" every five seconds.

So go ahead, respond to this post showing every single thing I've done to you in the past, how I defended Guerilla, the usual crap you post. You are on ignore, and I have actually found a better place to go where people will listen and ask questions about different opinions and ideas....

 

Feel better? I suppose the bilious snivel is better than providing evidence that Adelman is a "flip flopper?"

I've never reported you, Firegirl. You do seemed to have been bothered by your (erroneous) perception that somehow I "drove" Guerilla off a long time ago, and it has stuck in your craw in a really bad, bad way.



You may be confusing "reportage" as much as you're confusing "seeing Obama all day saying THREE WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

All the best,

Paul

 

I gotta agree with NPT on this Adelman thing.

Over time, based on how things progressed, or actually went backwards, quite a number of the initial supporters of the war in Iraq became critics.

Adelman was one of them.

Acknowledging mistakes, as he did, is a typical adult response. Refusing to acknowledge mistakes is typically childish.

Adelman took a bigger step and endorsed Obama over McCain, who similar to Adelman, began to criticize the President with regard to strategies and implementation in Iraq.

Its astounding when lifelong Republicans, and neocons at that, endorse Obama. It really questions the foundations upon which McCain is running for office.

 

I've slept on this. As it's my name that is at the vortex of this drive-by, I will set the record straight. Whether it's me calling another to task, or it's my name being trashed, let it be for specifics, and let it be right.

I made nothing up. You did. To what you said:

Many people replied, correcting you. You have, as usual, chosen to portray it's a "northpointaiki" thing because you have some fucked up problem with me (no, I did not drive Guerilla from the board - and neither did LogicFlux. Yes, both Guerilla and I have forgotten our former differences, and yes, you need to get the fuck over your problem, as it drives your vehemence).

In fact, Obama did nothing of the kind, if the complete absence of anything about it on any global news source, from what I can tell, is an indication. Biden did, as I said. You may call it a whine. I call it a correction.

Let us know when you find the "proof." Beyond, as others said, to compare this kind of stupid gaffe to Palin's consistent idiocy is ridiculous. Whether this, or whether saying McCain "kicked Obama's ass," well, yes, I replied:

From what I can tell, your "tons" consists of the list: Gtech, Mia, and debunked. The others I have a consistent problem with include Homebizseo, and Simplyg123. Bogart, whom I admire for his intellect and wide-ranging interests, is someone I contend with regarding the candidacy of Obama, because I see smears, and little (though some) else. Not exactly a tidal wave of members, and you may detect a pattern among at least most of these folks.

Overall, my problem has been personal, as in BEING CALLED A FUCKING TRAITOR TO MY NATION though I served as an honorable United States veteran, simply because I have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, or in being called literally psychotic/insane, and all the rest; that, or stemming back to at least 2006, the shitstorm of horseshit surrounding Obama's person that is just something I am frankly sick of in my country. I just don't like a politics based on this kind of bullshit, and I will speak to it - and contrary to your petulant "sheeple," it doesn't matter whether it's to Obama, or to McCain, or anyone else (to Mia, one of the leading lights of the bullshit smears, you will forget that I called him to task for trashing McCain, as well. You will forget, Gtech will forget, Grim, many others, won't forget).

I haven't cared, to be honest, whether you have me on ignore, or not. You showed me a long time ago that you have a particular filter in place, and that is something I can't change - you would have to do that. Other than that, I always find it funny to complain of involvement, only to get involved. In other words, you have a problem, then go away, or otherwise continue to ignore me. You chose to join the thread, you made a bullshit set of statements, and they were responded to. You don't like it, I'd suggest you stay away.

Join the club. Now, as I've tried to convey, I'm not big on taking a dump on someone based on vagaries and without proof. So, yes, as even with this post, I will provide "links and quotes" because unlike you, I think it's pretty damned damned important when calling someone to task that you provide evidence for it.

Take your pick - when someone who routinely smears Obama "as a Muslim," and routinely smears him as a "known Islamic terrorist plant," and routinely smears Muslims generally, and routinely defines terms in terms of race, and routinely refers to Obama's speech on race as "race hate," yes, I will call that characterization of his speech as a "race hate" speech as - shock! - a racist thing to say, and I will show why I call it racist - usually, by posting the original source material itself, so others may make their own evaluations. Again, you don't like it, I don't give a damn.

Well, as someone who regularly suffers attempts by just a few members to get banned, and who appears to survive the attempt, I'd say, join the club, again. Mia, as I have shown, regularly reports my posts. And I've done the same, with him, from time to time, though it's not a daily passion. I believe Biz is also report-happy, and perhaps a few others. It's what happens during the child-fights many of us seem to find ourselves in. You have again jerked your knee so fast and hard that you got it wrong - I have not reported you. And I certainly never reported Grim, as I personally like Grim, and wish he weren't banned. I suspect his banning stems from an ongoing web-fight with Gtech, and Gtech or Mia reported him, but I can't know.

I don't have a problem that you "defended" Guerilla. As I said, and as you can't seem to get through that skull of yours, I am glad Guerilla and I have come to a place of mutual respect. Now, as far as I can tell, this little tornado of anger stems from here. I won't repeat what was going on at the time that brought all this on, because it was, and is, painful, as it would be to anyone, but others can see for themselves. Whether there, or here, your choosing to puke your invective is your problem, and I'd suggest you get over it. As I said: if you're going to trash me, have specifics, and be right. I have no issue with a sincere mea culpa.

To all, I have said this. I can only go on my own good conscience. If folks wish to portray Obama as an Islamic terrorist plant/all the other bullshit, with zero evidence, I will speak to it - whether I am voting for the guy, or not. If people call me a traitorous anti-American, despite my military service, or others, the same - whatever their service status - simply on the basis of our opposing the Iraq War, for considered reasons, yes, I will speak to it. Forcefully.

If anyone here has a problem with me, I encourage communication; if I've said or done something off mark, "sorry" isn't hard for me to say.

I'm sorry this thread has been steered from its original intent, but I felt a response was necessary. Firegirl, I have previously offered to speak via PM to deal with whatever issue is on your plate. I'd appreciate if we stay on the topic of Adelman's endorsement of Obama.

 

There is no foundation. That's obvious. It's shaky ground at best.

That's what happens when your party supports a "Maverick". Especially when the whole idea is that he is going to run against what your party stands for.