Round 2
I appreciate the kind welcomes that were posted. I want to pose this question: If a person whether or not we knew it at the time turned out to be a terrorist, would our judgement of who we associate ourselves with be in question?
To be proactive in answering: I do not think it has anything to do with guilt by association, I think that it is a tired, tired political game.
I was asked in an earlier post to respond to what Obama will not talk about. Here it is. Obama has a relationship that is deeper than is being presented to the people with William Ayers. Millions of dollars were granted to this terrorist for education reform by a grant. Obama was chosen by Ayers to give the money to reform education. However, the money was not given to schools, it was given to radical groups to in turn pair with educational institutions to help bring this reform. I do not think that Obama is a terrorist. I just want him to answer what his relationship truly was, because it was not just a guy who lives in my neighborhood. The documents which laid this out were conveniently released during the middle of the ecomomic crisis last thursday. They had been called for for some time. I realize that this information is coming from a secondary source, but as like most of us we never get to see the documents we would like.
On a tangent: An Obama advisor asked Sean Hannity if he was an anti-semite because of a person he had on his show. Colmes had to defend Hannity. It is a lame response and a distraction from the issue at hand. Do we really know who Obama is as a person? Do I really know what his stance on the role of government? Why am I not allowed to read a thesis that he wrote on Soviet Nuclear stances? I should be able to read all documents of possibly my future president. There is a neccesarily increased need of transparency. I would say that if this was McCain and he sat on a board with someone who bombed an abortion clinic, the democratic side of the aisle would be treating a situation like this very differently. I am asking for a fair discourse where all facts are laid out an the public can decide.
I am sure he knows what is in that paper. I am sure Obama knows what his relationships are. As a citizen who is about to chose my president I deserve that knowledge and transparency.
six comments:
Then give up on the major parties. They don’t want your ideas, they don’t want your input, they only want the power from your votes. Stop voting for them, and vote for honest men or women with whom you agree.
The media thinks they own the mind share of the American Public. They think they can play god with public opinion and sway it back and forth. They manipulate and distort until no one knows what to think of any of the politicians. They convince everyone that they don’t have any hope of getting what they want, so they capitulate and vote for one of the annointed and perpetuate the duopoly.
We, who are here, who have a voice, need to speak up loud and clear and tell people that they DO have choices, that they CAN make a difference, and it doesn’t take much to make huge changes.
Jeremy D. Young - 08 10 08 - 19:33
My question is still this: “How do you let McCain benefit from Obama’s horrid history?”
McCain has a horrible history too. His is longer and more storied since he’s been a politician longer.
These stories drive me away from both of them, not back and forth between them…
Keating 5 is definitely something that should be investigated. As a man, McCain isn’t so great, leaving his wife because she wasn’t the pretty trophy wife she was when he left for the war…
So they’re both guilty by their own actions AND by their associations.
Investigate the other 4 candidates and pick someone that stands for what you believe.
Jeremy D. Young - 08 10 08 - 09:03
Unfortunately the political discourse has reached such a point that transparent, honest discourse is impossible. The same people who cry about Obama’s connections being shown are the same ones who have no problem trying to insinuate that Sarah Palin was the one who didn’t want to pay for rape kits when she was Mayor.
It’s to the point that both sides have skeletons in the closets but one side gets to call racists anyone who challenges the connections of their Presidential candidate to those of a questionable past and the other side gets to use the term sexist to those who question the VP.
Jason () - 08 10 08 - 09:38
Honest discourse may be impossible in the television world, but here, on the internet, the media of the FUTURE, we can have well thought out discussions and actually address things that matter. We can disagree and still be peacable. (anonymity is at odds with peaceability)
Jeremy D. Young - 08 10 08 - 19:36
Sorry for the multiple comments, it’s telling me I have a banned word in one of my paragraphs.
Turn off the TV and quit watching the sound bites. You’ll be much saner for it.
Jeremy D. Young - 08 10 08 - 19:38
Hi. Welcome to the blogosphere. Interesting thoughts.
Sky Girl - 08 10 08 - 19:55
No trackbacks:
