Comments on I Beg to Disagree: Obama's Defense: "You Say Guilt By Association"," ...

Associations do matter. That's why Obama's repeate...

2008-10-10T22:56:00.000-04:00

Associations do matter. That's why Obama's repeated disavowals of the rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright and the crimes of Bill Ayers are so important - and why they're on record. That's why it's also important to scrutinize the nature of the relationships in question. Obama and Ayers were not intimate friends - they were colleagues. Ayers' relationships with countless professors and politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are no different. Obama's association with Wright was closer, longer, and thus it is potentially more damning, which is why the media justifiably demanded Obama address those specific aspects of Wright's rhetoric that were distasteful. And he did.

It could not be more clear how Obama feels about the statements/activities of both these men. He is repulsed by them.
Mr. Obama is a good, non-violent, patriotic man with a healthy, loving family. He is arguably the most normal person who has ever run for president - the most non-average thing about him is his intelligence.

Thus I ask you: what IS the standard here, if not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?" What could possibly make Obama trustworthy in the eyes of those who make these attacks again and again? Would they be appeased by a public trial in which Obama proved that he was a) not a terrorist b) did not hate America nor c) did not hate white Americans?

No, because only the most ignorant and hateful of them find possibilities a, b, or c remotely plausible - and nothing would convince them because they do not seek to be convinced.

There is no proposed standard of "guilt" for very good reasons - the accusations are not designed to be defensible. They are designed to whip up resentment and mistrust. Nothing more or less.

There is no equivalent demand on the right that McCain demonstrate that his own associations with a racist pastor or with Charles Keating be similarly "cleared up" before the right is willing to trust him. Why? Because this is transparently a politically motivated set of attacks, not a fair effort to understand two men's actual beliefs through the lens of their associates. Every reasonable person understands this to be true.

When one considers the recent McCain speeches/ads in this light, they do indeed belong beside the worst kind of McCarthyism. They are repetitive, egregious smears that have no place in a constructive debate between two men whose devotion to public service and to their country is not in any serious doubt among sober, normal people.

That's why they only serve to make McCain look bad in the eyes of undecideds, even as they energize some small (sad) portion of McCain's base. They are the last desperate gasps of a man who knows he has lost.

The applicability or lack of applicability of a logical fallacy will do nothing to change that.

STOP THE MADNESS! Are you kidding me?

Who w...

2008-10-06T18:14:00.000-04:00

STOP THE MADNESS! Are you kidding me?

Who we are is defined by the company we keep. Let's examine:
1. Frank Marshall Davis- Mentor to Barack in Hawaii. Obama referenced him in his book as such; Pedophile and Communist
2. Odinga- Islamic sympathizer and supporter of Sharia Law, openly Socialist, partially responsible for the massacres and church burnings in Kenya. Obama visited and supported him in Kenyan 2007 elections.
3. William Ayers- Domestic Terrorist, Communist, Radical. Friend and co-board member with Obama in Chicago. Threw Obama a "coming out party". In his social circle.
4. Reverend Wright- America Hater, Racist, Black Liberation Theologist. His church gave the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan an award. Obama was a member of his church nearly twenty years.
5. Father Flagher- radical priest, anti-capitalist, race baiter, openly supported rebels in El Salvador and Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
6. Tony Rezko- Indicted Slum Lord. Charged with Corruption. Funneled money through his two companies to Obama's Senate campaign. Hosted parties, several shady connections in real estate; too detailed to go into here.
7. Khalid al-Mansour- Principle adviser to Saudi Billionaire. Raised money on behalf of Obama before Obama went to Harvard. Anti-semite. Hostile to Israel. Too much for here. Look him up.

Obama is a fraud and is very dangerous. Be careful. All of this information is avialable through legitimate sources.

Your argument that Obama is culpable for continuin...

2008-05-28T12:17:00.000-04:00

Your argument that Obama is culpable for continuing to associate with a congregation in which unattractive things have been said from the pulpit exaggerates the importance of the sermon in church life. Have you examined the entire program of this church and its benefit to the community? If (as I have no reason to doubt) the effect is wholesome and civilizing, perhaps crucially and uniquely so-- i.e., if its members didn't have this church to attend, would they be likely to attend another, yours for example-- then you take on quite a burden of proof indeed in suggesting that an upstanding citizen would repudiate it.

I would argue, further, that a preacher is quite correct in condemning any image, ideology, or instutition, including the government of the United States, or the image of the United States as something deserving of uncritical support. These are demonic idols. This theology, first articulated by the late William Stringfellow (who, curiously, happens to share certain biographical details with Barack Obama) and after his death has been rigorously developed by Walter Wink-- an Episcopalian and a Lutheran respectively. These ideas are not the product of a lunatic fringe.

Whatever the church is, you have far from made a case that it should exist for the purpose of propping up knee-jerk nationalism. Where does this notion come from?

All else being equal, given a choice between a Presidential candidate who understands the temptations and dangers, both to himself spiritually and to his responsibilities to his fellow human beings, in this office, and a candidate who does not, I'll take the one whose eyes are open any day.

thanks, Ralph, for your prompt comment.

I t...

2008-03-31T21:45:00.000-04:00

thanks, Ralph, for your prompt comment.

I think that the public links between Obama on the one hand and Wright, Farrakhan, and Hamas on the other establish at least an appearance of some sort of connection between them. Obama had every chance to sever that connection conclusively, but chose not to do so. (You may wish to read Deborah Hellman -- the link is in my posting -- on the importance of appearance here).

Now of course Obama has every right in the world to be loyal to Wright, and Wright has every right in the world to be loyal to Farrakhan and to Hamas. But people like us have every right not to be thrilled by these choices.

Obama can't seem to cut loose from bad company when he's a candidate. What is he going to do in the White House, when there is no election imminent ?

There is nothing ironclad here. I am also not reas...

2008-03-31T19:48:00.000-04:00

There is nothing ironclad here. I am also not reassurred by Obama's association with Wright, and Wright's association with Farrakhan and Hamas. This doesn't mean, however, that Obama = Wright = Farrakhan, et al.

Unless we had good evidence from a variety of sources that Obama was tainted by his association with Wright to think like him about Farrakhan and Hamas, and the related issues we care about of Jews and Israel, this should have limited import.

Based mostly on the overall experience of the two Democratic candidates, I have supported Sen. Clinton. It's going to take much more, however, for me to totally reject Obama as a plausible recipient of my vote in the general election. I understand if Werner feels otherwise, but I think this is an emotional rather than a rational choice on his part.