Posted by
dieneces on Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:29:19 PM
Naturally, Rush Limbaugh's hypothesis that Powell endorsed Obama because of racial preference is drawing ire from many corners. This wouldn't be notable; but, the criticisms have revolved around Rush's character, not his argument. People are calling Rush a racist, idiot, fringe-right-winger, all the usual nominatives. Indeed, these sorts of unpleasant names seem to be the extent of the counter-argument. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like the way to go about slamming someone's argument is to slam their argument. So why aren't they doing this?
Could it be that facts support the plausibility of Rush's idea? For example, 95-6% of blacks will votes for Obama; just by odds alone, it seems unlikely that Powell is part of the 4-5% who won't for Obama. In addition, it doesn't appear that Powell has ever endorsed a white politician who shares Obama's modestly spoken radical ideas. Lastly, Powell offered no substanitive reasons for his decision - me merely said that BHO is transformation, of the next generation, etc. The only meaninful point he made had to do with Supreme Court nominations - which is also dubious since he doesn't seem to have a history of public concern on these matters. Take these facts as an aggregate, don't they at least confirm Limbaugh's argument?