“Just when I thought I had written all I needed to concerning the attacks against Barack Obama over his relationships with men like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, one morning I dared to turn my radio dial to The Glenn Beck Program.
Beck’s guest, colonel-turned-commentator Oliver North, said that Wright’s fiery language was helping recruit young men into Al-Qaida. I’m not kidding. North really said this, and Beck agreed with him. “Just how stupid are we going to get with this controversy?” I thought to myself.
North and Beck are not alone. Take a quick listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, and the entire Republican talk radio echo chamber, and you will find all-Obama attacks, all day, every day, as hosts offer the most tortured, guilt-by-association arguments imaginable. These hacks aren’t simply beating a dead horse at this point — they’ve buried the horse, dug it back up, and are now obsessing over the carcass.
Each host insists that they are doing voters an invaluable service and believe it’s fair game to judge Obama by the company he keeps. Fine. But why not apply the same logic to John McCain?”
3 Comments
Barak Obama is a Presidential Candidate. He wants to be the leader of this nation. Who his associates are matter.
If Bush had been a member of a White supremacy organization for twenty years, are you telling me that the left wouldn’t be commiting guilt by association til the cows come home?
Make no mistake, Obama’s church and its pastor are Black supremicists and that is a big deal. The media has given him a pass and are smearing those who dare ask the hard questions about Obama.
Great points, SA. If you wanna talk guilt by association, how about McCain meeting with La Raza this week?
And to the guy above me, there are about a thousand reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with knowing some crazy old preacher. I’d be willing to bet you know people in your personal life who have unpopular (and maybe even disgusting) views. How would you feel if people judged you based on those friends’ opinions, completely ignoring the fact you don’t agree with them?
I agree with you about the double standard in media scrutiny, I do not agree with your assumption that who we surround ourselves with does not matter. I can appreciate that although you are friendly with someone, you can still share different opinions. However, it is human nature to stereotype. We lump people, things, ideas, whatever, into the same group because of certain commonalities. Do not think for a second that you can stop someone from making a split second judgment based on someone’s looks, what they say, or even the people around them. Because unless you know someone personally, you can only judge their character based on the things they have said or done, and the people they surround themselves with. You made the point in an earlier commentary: multiculturalism. You said that differences are good, and forced diversity is not; because people tend to gravitate to similar people. Would it not be wise to judge a public official by the only facts you have available (comments, actions, and peers)?
Fight on against the slanted media, and the unfairness in today’s political landscape. Until I know a man personally, all I can do is judge his character based on what he chooses to display through action and speech, and company he keeps.