And I'm the King of England

Colin Powell states that "I am, too, a Republican!" " I am! I am! I am!" (Well, that's kind of what he said.)

Well, I state that I'm the King of England.

And both mean about the same.

Mr. Powell believes that the Republican party needs to "broaden" its base, declaring, "I am still a Republican."

In what way? Either you believe in Republican principles of smaller government, less spending, more freedom,....or you don't. Either you support the Republican candidates (yes, I know, McCain barely qualifies, but he did.) or you don't. I wonder what his fellow soldiers might say if he had applied his reasoning to military matters and loyalty to the US...... "Oh, I'm just helping out THIS enemy of the US. This one's ok...."

Either Mr. Powell is disloyal or an idiot. Either way, he should be shunned by the party:

"I would like to point out that in the course of my 50 years of voting for presidents, I have voted for the person I thought was best qualified at that time to lead the nation. Last year, I thought it was President Barack Obama. For the previous 20 years, I voted solidly for Republican candidates."

I'm banking on DISLOYAL, SELF-CENTERED IDIOT. (empahsis mine)

Is he serious that we should believe that he actually thought, with all of his decades of training and experience, that OBAMA was the best candidate to lead this nation? Would he put a 2nd Lt. in charge of a division of troops? Rush Limbaugh insists that Powell voted for Obama on the basis of race. I believe that Rush was not insulting him. rRather, he was giving Powell the benefit of the doubt, because Rush probably could not believe this either. There had to be at least one reason why Powell was abandoning his party for this wet behind the ears novice.

"Let's debate the future of the party and let all segments in… What we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are, and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party."

So says Colin Powell. By his own words, he shows that he has very little basic principles on which he stands. He will let others define what he stands for......except for the "right wing." I thought that was what the Republican party was doing: debating and fighting for the direction and control of the the GOP. Except that he and other so-called moderates get upset when he realizes that conservatives mean what they say. Conservatives want Republicans to vote on the basis of the platform and conservative principles. Surprise! Its not just lip service. And the moderates get worried when the realize that the party may not become a majority party without those conservatives busting their collective butts in the trenches. And conservatives are fed up and are willing to stay home.

"I have always felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years and I believe that we need a strong Republican Party that is not just anchored in the base but has built on the base to include more individuals. And if we don't do that, if we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base," he told "Face the Nation."

Include more individuals? As opposed to groups? Collectives? If those individuals decide that the Republican principles are worth something, then they are welcome. If they intend to pay lip service to them and then vote their own self interest,.....NO THANKS.

Colin Powell apparently has been dissatisfied with the direction of the party FOR YEARS. He said so. And we've heard SO MUCH FROM HIM TO GUIDE THE PARTY. So, words are cheap. What does he want?

“I think the Republican Party has to take a hard look at itself and decide what kind of party are we,” Powell said. “Are we simply moving further to the right and by so doing opening up the right of center and the center to be taken over by independents and be taken over by Democrats."

Since the GOP has moved left since the invention of "compassionate conservatism" just how far right does Powell think the GOP will go? Back to center is obviously too far. Shouldn't, in the logic above, moving right, ENCOMPASS those voters that are already there? How does moving "right" open up this area to Democrats and Independents? The only way you get "right wing independents" is by having the party move to the left and leaving them behind.

Shouldn't the GOP stand for something? What principles should the party change? Should we let in the likes of MoveOn.org and let them change the platform? That would lead to a debate. Why is Colin Powell so hostile to the "right wing" of the party? Whom has the GOP excluded that Powell would like to see included? Black people? Brown people? Purple people? Gay people? Women? Men? Asians? Native Americans? Punks? Rockers? Golfers? Guess what? These people are already included. All they have in common is a belief in basic principles. And all of them could be conservative. Why is Colin Powerll against having standards? Why shouldn't an association of people that profess to stand for certain principles decide on whom they wish to represent them, demanding that those same people ALSO stand for those principles?

Shouldn't the GOP "reach out more" by convincing the so-called "moderates" that the conservative principles of the Republican party are more desirable than the wasteful policies of the Democratic party? Of course, the only way the GOP can do that is by doing some hard work, primarily by LIVING BY THOSE PRINCIPLES!

I believe that Colin Powell is trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the press and the political elite. He disappeared after serving as Secretary of State. He was consigned to the wastelands by the powers in DC, both Democratic and Republican. He is naming himself as a Republican, thereby standing out as a "good Republican" that agrees with the "common sense" of the current powers that be. If he identified himself as a Democrat, he would be one among many, hidden in the crowd of other syncophants. He is positioning himself to take advantage of prevailing winds. He wants to ride the coattails of the winners.

The best way to do so is to disagree with those most articulate about the Republican policies:

Reiterating his support for closing down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Powell said Cheney’s opposition was an affront to Obama’s predecessor as well.“Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama’s policy, he’s disagreeing with President Bush’s policy,” Powell said.

And, citing Cheney’s suggestion in a speech last week that President Obama only wanted to close Guantanamo to make Europeans happy, Powell said, “No, we’re doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people around the world, that we’re a nation of law.”

Since when did President Bush want to close Guantanamo's Camp Delta? And more proof that Powell is nothing more than a political hack is is word above. HE CONFIRMS THAT CHENEY WAS CORRECT! And bashes the US as it was when Bush was President and when HE was Sec. of State by implying that having the camp in Cuba, the US is NOT a nation of laws. If the US was not "a nation of law" because of Gitmo, why didn't he resign in protest? He was part of it.

Colin Powell is a self-centered political hack whose opportunism is disgusting. All Republicans should shun his participation in the party. At least Arlen Specter had the courtesy to change his affiliation when his disloyalty was too obvious to hide.

h/t CNN and Politico