--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > <no_reply@> 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. > > > > > i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, > > Yes, you were. You quoted my remarks and my agreement > with the views I outlined. Then you said, "The way > these accusations are ALWAYS framed..." (emphasis added). > > But what you went on to claim wasn't how I had framed > the accusations at all. > > Have some self-respect, ed11, and take responsibility > for your own statements. > > but i am sure you > > get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not. > > Has nothing to do with "editorial perfection." I'm > saying you read into my comments something that wasn't > there and missed what was there. > motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected.
now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached?
