Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

paxamicus AT earthlink.net wrote:
> > > But with respect, Bev, and I do mean this because I can see you 
> > > are trying to be civil and respectful, you are like a dog with a 
> > > bone on this Ayers thing. I never once saw you  discuss the 
> > > Republican campaign's holes...Keating 5...Troopergate...Cindy 
> > > McCain's drug use, John McCain's philandering. Your questioning 
> > > and discussion only went one way.

> Why aren't those tings campaign holes?

They are not holes, but they are issues that have to be considered.  I
considered them, and made my decision.  You considered them and made
your decision. A hole is when information is missing, or hidden, like
Obama's college years at Columbia and Harvard.   You cannot make an
informed decision on missing information.  It is foolish to just
overlook such holes, I think.  As an example, I will use Nixon. We know
that he was a debate champion in college. He was the Great Debater.  And
yet, he lost the election to Kennedy because of a debate performance.
The fact that Nixon was a college debater makes it very relevant and
sheds light on the truth of the matter.  We know that radio listeners
thought Nixon won,, and yet the eye of the TV audience thought
otherwise.  If we did not know that Nixon was a great debater, we might
just think he gave a poor debate performance.  The truth was in the
makeup and the lights of television.
Another example is Obama's community organizer skills.  We can see that
influence in his campaign and how it was run.  He had a great ground
game, and I think that was a result of his experience as an organizer.

But where there are holes, we cannot make such associations, and there
is no way to know what associations or actions there might be.  What if
during his college years, Obama had been active in the Black Panthers or
attended Communist party rallies or had a gay affair or converted to
Islam or wrote a paper condemning the Catholic Church or got into a bar
fight?  Would that affect anything now?  It might.  When we are talking
about the POTUS, all information about one's past is relevant and
important to know. It bothers me that America thinks otherwise and was
so desperate for change that they have elected Obama without full
knowledge of who he is today and how he became that person.



Why aren't they equally as
> important as something SOMEONE ELSE DID when Barak Obama was EIGHT 
> YEARS OLD?

What Ayers did is really not the issue.  You have fallen victim to
Obama's confuse the issue campaign.  Who Barack associates himself
with as an adult is the issue.

Why is this one thing more important than decisions that
> McCain HIMSELF made as an ADULT?

You know, the Liddy association came up earlier in discussion, and I'll
be honest, I was unaware of McCain's association with Liddy.  That, too,
is relevant, but the difference is that McCain does not deny his
association with Liddy.
The Al Khalidi association is another example.  Both Obama and McCain
know this guy.  McCain admits to giving him money for certain causes.
Obama claims he is just a guy in the neighborhood who is also a
professor.  I just want to know the truth about candidates associations.



> Look, I'm not sayin you shouldn't think about it, or ask questions, 
> but it has become (it seems) an overwhelming focus for you that you 
> are making much more of than is reasonable.

I actually had decided not to talk politics anymore post election, but
that kind of went out the window, didn't it?   ;)

Bev


--
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to
hate. Hate leads to suffering.”        Yoda