President Bush has been acting as a national leader over this. He could have used his bully pulpit to attack those in the other party who started this, but, to the detriment of those in his party running for office, he has not.

Why did Ayers appoint an unqualified Obama as CEO, especially if he hardly knew him? At the time Obama was green lawyer and had no educational or executive background?

Ayers had nothing to do with it. In fact, during the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers worked on two separate committees. Obama was selected by the Annenberg Trust.

Obama and Ayers don't share a common terrorist idealolgy, they do share a radical Marist world view.

Are you suggesting that they're radical Catholics? ;)

The casual association argument sounds too much like his I never heard Wrigth make those comments.

Obama and Ayers don't share a common terrorist idealolgy, they do share a radical Marist world view.

What's been happening the last few decades is that the presidency is seen as a purely partisan, political post rather than a national leader the country would unite around. The campaigns run by both candidates just makes sure that whoever wins this election will have a very hard job getting any sort of widespread support from the population.

Take more time to read my post.

Nah. Gave it all it rated.

I know it must be frustrating

Frustrated? LOL. Go look at an electoral map, then get back to me about frustration.

Repeat. McCain lacked the guts to talk this crap to Obama's face. He said he was taking the gloves off on Tues. He had a chance to do it with everyone watching. He passed, and is sending out a woman to do his fighting for him. End of story.

Alex, I understand your point about associations but with Obama we are talking associations that formed his character. Long term associations. Mentors, enablers, and so forth.

Your examples related to McCain consisted of people who were around McCain but history has shown us they did not influence McCain. With Obama's nearly blank slate we are left with looking at those who formed this political being. When we look there it's ugly.

There you go again. I know it must be frustrating to see "The One" being exposed in this fashion. You would not have been placed in the position of supporting someone so obviously not qualified if the media had done its job in the last 18 months (It is the MSM who, in my opinion, are the gutless wonders.)

You cannot refute the logic of my statements so you resort to name calling.

PS: Take more time to read my post. I did not write what you quoted from my post (It was, after all in quotation marks).

"So don't argue Ayers alone. Let's hear excuses for Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, Rezko, and whoever else might pop up as a bosom buddy of Obama"

You know what Davod? No one is making any excuses for anything. McCain did not even have the 'nads to say any of this to Obama's face. He sends out a woman to do it for him.

You and the rest of the gutless wonders can run along now. Take McCain with you...

You forget Obama's mentor in Hawaii who was a communist.

"Ayers did not kill anyone" Ayers was one of the leaders of the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground killed a number of people including two policemen. The New York cell blew themselves up building a bomb designed to blow up an NCO's club during a dinner dance.

The New York cell also attacked a New York judges home with four bombs. It was just luck that the family escaped.

And your insistence that the country and particularly it's PM should not move to defend it strikes me as singularly lothesome,

Ummm Bit? In 1946 there was no country called Israel to defend. Begin held no political office. These events took place before the founding of the Jewish State. Decades before Begin was PM. So do you want to rephrase that comment in manner that aligns it with reality? Amazon.com has history books, check it out.

The Irgun executed two British Sargents bit. How do you feel about that? You know, the Brits. Our staunchest ally? What exactly did that have to do with defending anything?

Incorrect, since the basis of the country IS the religion.

Are you saying that any criticism of Israel or it politicians is then the act of an anti-Semite? They just get a free pass on everything? Does that make critique of any country that has a religious foundation an act of religious bigotry? What about Iran?

Look at your own verbal attacks on Muslims. Certainly you attack Muslims in general for the violent actions of a few.

Is Bit's brand of religious bigotry good, while others (real or imagined) are bad? Really dude, I have come to expect all sorts of things from you. Irrationality. Disconnect from reality. Hatred of anything you do not understand. But you are starting to outdo yourself...

At least this is true for congressional Republicans![lol]
BTW; As you mentioned, McCain's association with Keating and four DEMOCRATS was enough to keep me from voting for him in the primary.
Then along comes the Democrat Party And makes it imperative that I vote for McCain in the election.

If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I'm not aware of McCains father-in-law ever directly helping McCain in any way... unless you mean to include Cindy inheriting her money. If you have anything to prove otherwise, I'm sure you'll provide it.

Read McCain's memoirs.

So, you don't want to defend the indefensible? Understandable, though weak.

I'm not going to delve into the guilt-by-association argument, because it's a logical fallacy and therefore stupid. You'd get flunked out of Freshman Philosophy for using the arguments the McCain campaign is trying to pull.

Voting present doesn't exactly qualify as a record.

Less than 1% of his votes were "present." Try again.

Outright lying by trying to paint a man he worked for and with for 2 decades as "someone who lives in my neighborhood" or whose "kids go to school with my kids" isn't exactly in the hope and changey spirit he fraudulantly claims to want to bring to Washington.

By my count, they met less than 20 times over the course of those years. Two of said times were PANEL DISCUSSIONS. Good grief.

John McCain worked much more often with Strom Thurmond, an unrepentant segregationist, for over a decade in his time in the Senate. Does that make John McCain a "segregationist sympathizer"? Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the AIP. Does that make her a "secessionist sympathizer"? Of course it doesn't. The whole line of argument is absurd.

Obama's plenty vulnerable on the issues. Why don't you try that instead?

"Also, of course, the way you stated those "facts" aren't exactly factually precise, but I'm not interested in pointing out the minutae because this whole line of argument is STUPID."

So, you don't want to defend the indefensible? Understandable, though weak.

Voting present doesn't exactly qualify as a record.

Outright lying by trying to paint a man he worked for and with for 2 decades as "someone who lives in my neighborhood" or whose "kids go to school with my kids" isn't exactly in the hope and changey spirit he fraudulantly claims to want to bring to Washington.

And your insistance that the country and particularly it's PM should not move to defend it strikes me as singularly lothesome, to say nothing of your shallow attempt at moral equivalence

What did Begin's terrorism have to do with defending the country of Israel? That country didn't even exist then. Do you, in fact, have any idea about King David Hotel bombing? To defend that action and to claim that it was in some way better than what Ayers did (who, BTW, never killed anyone) is really an attempt at moral equivalence.