Guilt by ASSociation

A lot of us are tired of hearing the smears... especially when they are so incredibly outdated and irrelevant. However, if we were to believe the "Guilt by Association" tactics being used by the McCain campaign maybe we should first start with some actual relevant facts. 

McCain, the guy that would have you believe he's against lobbyists and earmarks has surrounded himself in his campaign with lobbyists and ex-lobbyists. Seven top McCain officials were lobbyists, though the campaign stresses that none is currently registered to lobby Congress. Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist (CNN). The Obama Campaign even started a website just to present these facts, if you'd like to read them: McLobbyist.com

Of course, it's important to note that ANY politician in Washington is going to have some ties to Lobbyists... including Obama. However, Obama's campaign team isn't the NFL Football Team of Lobbyists as is McCains. I think it's certainly easier to claim you plan to fight the corruption of D.C., and actually have it be believable, when your quarterback isn't identified as a major telecommunications lobbyist.

Let's also talk about the Keating 5. Yes, it was a long time ago, during a period in history eerily similar to what is happening now. It was the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989 when banks were collapsing. Guess who got his hands dirty during this moment in History? That would be your friend and mine, John McCain. 

Irrelevant you say? Too long ago? I'll give it to you that it was almost 20 years ago. However, the difference between this and the William Ayers story is this: McCain was a U.S. Senator at the time, and though he was cleared of criminal charges, the Senate slapped him on the wrist and found his judgement to be poor. Should he deny today that it bares little relevance during a political campaign of 2008, during a time when banks are collapsing and corruption issues are being raised, or should he minimize his participation by calling it a democratic smear job, then he also readily admits he's learned nothing of his own errors at the time. When you ignore the mistakes of the past you are bound to repeat them in the future. Want more info? Visit KeatingEconomics.com

Obama was eight years old when Ayers was out practicing his radical protesting of the 60s (and pardon me, but weren't many protests of the 60s quite radical?)... and since then has become a distinguished college professor, a man who has worked to legitimately reform education, and an anti-poverty philanthropist.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't condone his violent actions of the 60s when he was out protesting the Vietnam War. Nor does Obama. However, Obama was an young child during that time, and has only crossed paths with him many year later at events that could only be called good causes for the local community. To paraphrase something recently said by Whoopi Goldberg: To believe this man is a terrorist is to believe that every student who has learned from him, every college administrator who decides to let him continue to teach and every parent that pays for their very child to attend his classes are all a part of the axis of evil. I simply say, this is ridiculous thinking.

Plus, while McCain today is saying he doesn't want to talk about Ayers anymore out of one side of his mouth, while going on a TV interview and talking out the other side repeating more Ayers distortions, the Wallstreet Journal,  Keith Olberman, and other media sources have their own interesting stories about McCain's ties to Radical Protestors -- including tidbits of interest including links to organizations with their own shady past -- though this probably serves as only more fodder for the right-wing fanatics since they seem to be anti-semite, anti-gay and anti-abortion connections (including violence and bombing).

Ultimately though, if we really want to get into the "Guilt by Association" argument, there is only one that truly matters in this election cycle, best illustrated through pictures...

When Talking Heads Stop Talking Smart

How often do you find yourself ready to throw something at the television when you're watching all the political pundits argue after a given stump speech or the latest in revelations about a candidate? I find these days, for me, it's quite often. It's not because they lack an opinion, or even that their opinion doesn't support my own, it's from sheer anger over watching these "experts" argue without citing actual facts to support their claims. How can I know more than them when it's not even my job to know?

A few mind-boggling examples:

"Even Obama now says the surge was a success" -- sometimes expanded to include that he said it was "more successful than we ever imagined".

Ya know, I was screaming at my T.V. this morning over this one. Not ONE of the political opinionators could complete the quote. They either deny Obama said it (and in fact, he did say it in his interview with Bill O'Reilly), or they try to not-so-cleverly change the focus of the conversation.

Here's the RIGHT response you dip-shits... yes, Obama DID say that, but that isn't the complete quote. He said it was a success at reducing the violence in Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has still failed to take responsibility for it's own country while we continue to spend $12 billion  per month there. His overall point for disapproving of the surge to begin with was that it failed to address this exact issue... that it's time for the U.S. to start asking the Iraqis to be responsible for their own progress, and to set up a system of accountability so as to see they actually do it. Has the surge been a success? Yes, in reducing violence only, but not in all the other ways needed so that U.S. troops don't remain their indefinitely.

Another glaring example is the quote from Sarah Palin, "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere." Now sure, the news has reported that she was actually for the Bridge before she was against it, but the Democratic pundits seems to stop there... they don't connect the dots like they should.

Hey, idiots, how about she was FOR IT when she was running for office -- ie., telling the local people what they wanted to hear so she would get elected -- and then she was against it ONLY after she got into office and when Congress had already pulled the plug. Mind you, she kept the money, earmarks, for other infrastructure projects anyway, including the Road to Nowhere to support the non-existent Bridge.

Did you know that she dropped the line when giving speeches in recent days in Alaska? Apparently the Alaskans don't like her lying too much about her record when she's back on home soil, and with the recent Charlie Gibson interview, I guess she was pretty sure she couldn't get away with it... however, her good 'ole shtick has now returned that she's back out on the stump, this time in Nevada.

How do I know all this? Because I pay attention and look stuff up between my two jobs and family life. Why is it the experts that get paid to be on television, the ones that are supposed to question this stuff, can't seem to spend a little more time getting their shit straight?

I'm particularly angry over the fact that very few talking heads seem to be questioning our ability to criticize Sarah Palin without being considered sexist, while also failing to comment on the "vote Sarah hottest VP" on RNC buttons. I didn't hear any outcry tonight while listening to XM-Radio either, when one guy said "middle-class white men like her, in part, because she's hot." I think republicans need a lesson on what is sexist and what isn't, and SOMEONE needs to take them to task on it.

But lets forget Sarah Palin for now.

How about the whole fact that John McCain is the "candidate of change". Where are all the democrats on television screaming how ironic it is that McCain didn't start running his campaign on "change" until he realized that his own message wasn't working. Where are all the factual statements from liberal pundits being offered up as proof of how Bush-Like McCain is? Need an example?

I think we need to start paying John Cusack to be a pundit!