And once again, the "guilt by association" attacks come back to bit McCain in the ass. Seems a group he chaired funneled about half a million dollars to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies.

It would be funny if it wasn't so blatantly sleazy and dishonest.

Quote:

Even if that is true, it's a bit different than Barry's close relationship with Khalidi (See link below)

And this is sheer hypocrisy. If he's going to use the association as a political attack, he has to explain his own association, not his surrogates, not the media, McCain himself. If Khalidi is a known anti-semitic mouthpiece for palestinian terrorists, what's McCain's commitee doing giving grants to his group?

The same goes for ACORN. Don't tell me Obama's association with them is trouble if McCain's not going to be forthcoming about taking money from them himself. If they're as disreputable as McCain says (and they no doubt are), he needs to either give the money back, or drop the subject. Don't tell me he didn't know what they were about, he knows now, and he needs to answer for it just as much as Obama. So far, he hasn't been expected to.

Quote:

I agree, guilt by association is wrong - in the cases of two people coincidentally being in the same room and talking once or twice, but when it's a deep friendship, it becomes a problem.

It's a problem that Obama has consistently tried to downplay his associations. He has consistently said, however, that their politics do not inform his own.

I like you Cattivo, and Syd. I think you're both intelligent people and I enjoy exchanging ideas with you. I think Syd's a good writer, and I recommend his website to friends. Does that mean I'm a fan of Ronald Reagan? Or that I think Obama's a serial liar? No. I can associate with you without sharing your world view. People do it all the time.

Quote:

I agree that Obama's personal ties are very troubling, and his excuse that he wasn't even born when Bill Ayers was making bombs is very telling of his moral fiber. True, he wasn't born when Bill Ayers was engaged in criminal activities, but that doesn't change the fact that he launched his political career from an-excriminal's living room.

Again, sheer hypocrisy. Apparently, since Media Matters and David Letterman are the only people who've bothered to bring up G. Gordon Liddy, McCain's allowed to attend fundraisers held in his honor in the living room of a criminal, an unrepentant criminal at that.

It's a straight-up double standard. Obama pals around with unsavory characters, and it's "troubling." McCain does the same thing, and, well, "it's not as bad." I say there's no difference unless you want there to be If there is, it's one of degree, not of kind, and everyone knows it.[/i]

Quote:

What does it mean? Is Obama going to bomb Israel? What does being on a board with Ayers mean? He's going to bomb government buildings? What does going to Wright's church mean? He's going to damn America? It's so much easier to be scared than to actually learn what's important.

No. The problem here is that Obama comes from the liberal Chicago political milieu, which is full of holdovers from the more radical elements of the 60's cultural revolution.

They brought about some important and necessary changes, but as is the case with Ayers, they ended up going way too far. The problem now is that the sort of radical liberalism of that era is not only no longer necessary, but not compatable with our current society.

Quote:

Befriending someone from the other political party is quite different than befriending a radical - It's questionable to associate yourself with someone who condones violence, but it's perfectly acceptable to be friendly with someone with a legitimate ideology.

Well then, explain Liddy, Cattivo, he's condoned violence on several occasions. Are we to believe McCain is bosom buddies with him because he attended a fundraiser at his house? Of course they're not good friends. McCain has a political base, which happens to contain some fringe radicals, with whom he's going to have to associate from time to time. Do you think the fact that McCain hasn't called a press conference to condemn him even after it's been brought up by the media means he approves of the things he's said and done?

Quote:

For example, you can become friends with William F. Buckley as a liberal, but if you are chummy with the Ayatollah or Kim Jong-Il, mainstream America would find that bewildering and dangerous.

Apples and Oranges, Cattivo. At their worst, Ayers an co. don't even come close to the Ayatollah or Kim Jong-Il.

Quote:

I've said before that the ACORN thing was the weakest of that group of McCain's arguments since he's spoken before them in the past. But, as I said then, Obama's connection is much more extensive (which I think would apply for the Khalidi situation as well).

You've said it was a weak attack, but you stop short of moral condemnation. If McCain is indeed claiming the moral high ground, then he has to live up to it. If Obama doesn't get a free pass on this issue (and he shouldn't), neither should McCain.

The fact that he's not been forthcoming about his own connection is in direct opposition to his claims of politcal courage, by the way. Why are you so eager to let him off the hook?

Quote:

What I'm saying is that extremes such as communism, socialism, fascism, or terrorism are abnormal and radical. Associating with such people is unforgivable in moderate America, while being friends with someone from the opposite party is perfectly acceptable because their party is considered mainstream and normal.

Bullshit. Marting Luther King, the suffragettes, Upton Sinclair, Thomas Paine, were all radical by just about every concievable measure. Certainly they weren't mainstream. Radical? Try reading the Jefferson Bible. Cultural change comes from radicalism.

So let me get this straight, in a free and open democracy, I'm not allowed to hold, or associate with people who do hold beliefs that aren't considered mainstream and normal? And I'm what, to be branded as a thought criminal if I do? By this standard, we would have to outlaw the Libertarian party, or the Constitution party. How is this not authoritarian, if not downright fascist?