--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama > > > downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing > > > the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. > > > > > > But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's > > > life from decades in the past. We want people working on > > > education, right? > > > > Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. > > > > As we've discussed before, part of the problem is > > the "downplaying," or not being straightforward > > about, the associations with folks who have unsavory > > pasts. This is a character issue. That he "downplayed" > > the associations because he feared they'd raise a > > ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; > > he should have known the right-wing would claim he > > wasn't being straightforward because he had something > > to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to > > Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) > > > > Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether > > it speaks to character that Obama would associate > > at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean > > his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we > > don't want a president who has no compunctions about > > "palling around with terrorists" even if they're only > > *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really > > "pals" per se). > > > > I'm in sympathy with both these points. > > > -snip- > > i find it odd that those who would criticize our next > President for the company he may keep hold him to an > impossible standard, and one that is impossible for > any public figure to uphold. > > the way these accusations are always framed imply that > as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, > values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you > have ever had more than a passing association with, > past and present.
FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry.
