Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942
So, based on Obama's choice's of association and advice so far (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of others), you would agree that John McCain is the better one at association?
|
Bill Ayers and a great deal of the other, so-called, "associates" and "friends" that various media organizations have placed him with, are non-issues to such an extreme extent that anyone that brings up Bill Ayers, especially, is trying to delibrately mislead any actual discussion (considering the fact that Obama had nothing to do with Bill Ayers outside of a partial connection in the early 1990s).
That being said, Rev. Wright was a large blow (even though Wright was not an advisor, nor was he sought for to help construct policies, so it is largely inconsequential what Wright said or did), and while I commend Obama for his loyalty to a man he has known for 15-20 years, I do feel that Obama would have been better suited to "fire" Wright instead of simply denouncing his oppositional idealogy, but in the end, Obama clearly and succinctly divorced Wright's policies from his own, and Obama can not be held accountable for anything Wright said or did (for instance, one of my ancestors was a slave-owner, does that mean I should be held accountable for thier disgusting act? or, more recently, one of my grandparents was a soldier in the German army (as nothing more than a front line soldier) during World War I, does that mean, since I knew and supported them (while they lived the rest of their life in England), I can be held accountable for their actions? The answer to all of these questions is "No".)
Added to that, events occuring 10-20+ years ago are non-issues and have no effect on the current candidate, whether Obama or McCain. Do you hear me (or the media on a regular basis) talking about the fact that McCain broke his, as some would say, "Holy" vows to his first wife by seeking a divorce, or that he was cheating on his first wife, etc. No, that is unimportant to the current discussion. I would also not talk about Obama/Clinton/Bush/etc taking drugs in college (or McCain in Vietnam) or a variety of other inconsequential material from that long ago. All that matters is their records in regards to helping or hindering the American public, and their current plans and associations.
That being said, the majority of McCain's immediate "inner-circle" staff are far more questionable than Obama's staff. And let us not forget Palin. I mentioned earlier that hiring the right people for the job was important, and that it speaks well of a leader/boss when they hire compotent employees. So, what can we call McCain's hiring of Palin? "Failure" and "obvious political agenda" immediatly spring to mind as well as a variety of other phrases and words that do not speak well of McCain or Palin (this was, honestly, the point that drove me right out of McCain's camp (though the possibilty that he might be able to appoint several new Supreme Court Justices was a bit scary, as well).)
---
I am shocked you would compare McCain to Eisenhower and Obama to Montgomery. A more complete analogy would be McCain vs. Obama = Montgomery vs.
Slim, with McCain clearly being Montgomery and Obama being Slim.
Montgomery was conceited, boastful, and often went against the majority. He was a "maverick" that always thought he knew best, and never accepted any of his failings. I could go farther, but, quite literally, almost every personal detail of Montgomery's personality matches up to the personality that McCain is desperatly trying to sell to the American audience (not to mention sometimes rash decisions based on preconceived notions, etc).