How does that excuse McCain's associations?

Who said it did? ALL politicians associate with persons of questionable backgrounds, mainly because those people have deep pockets from which campaign funding comes. Its all about the money. Besides, did Liddy and North belong to terrorist organiaztions?

And to think this thread got started by another JLH "race card" post...
Go figure.

Always has good bait, doesn't he?

Yea, but is starting to smell like sandshrimp left in the sun

The first portion of your post points to hyprocrisy, then, by inferring Obama is unfit to be elected because of his associations, yet ignoring McCain's by omission.

Liddy simply committed arguably treasonous acts, yet North supported our enemies--which are terrorists--with arms sales. Perhaps the same arms that are killing members of our armed forces today.

By definition, Ayers did not belong to a terrorist organization either; he was a radical activist of an anti-war organization.

Bottom line , Obama is unfit because he is UNQUALIFIED.. not because of who his friends are, and not because of the color of his skin. You may think he is qualified, but I see him as merely "Present!" 142 days as a Jr Senator does'nt make him qualified for squat. Those peace loving hippie radical activists bombed american soil. Was Vietnam a just war? NO! But the lefty radicals decided that the only way to demonstrate peace and love was to bomb! I'd call that pretzel logic AND hypocrisy. "Flower Power" with a vengeance.

That about says it for me & this thread.

But gotta add this link for goharley since it seems he doesn't do his homework.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/finally_the_media_discovers_ob.html

I would argue that Bush has set the bar so low that anyone with a pulse is qualified.

And the only way Liddy could win an election was to commit treason? Or the only way for North to bring democracy to Latin America was to commit treason and arm our enemies?

Yesterday, in a rehash of the MSM acknowledged issues of the day, NPR did a short piece on Obama and Ayers. Fortunately for many, they made news.

First, Obama began working with Ayers and others (Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Well, what is the Anneberg Challenge? Who is Annenberg? Well according to NPR,

The Obama campaign says he first met Ayers in 1995, when Obama became chair of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million fund that awarded grants to groups trying to implement new programs to improve inner city education in Chicago.

Walter Annenberg, a lifelong Republican and former ambassador who was appointed by Presidents Nixon and Reagan, funded an ambitious program to reform urban education in many cities in the mid 1990s. Ayers was an important member of the group that developed and wrote the grant proposal to the Annenberg Foundation.

Second, there were people of all political persuasions working on this effort with this "terrorist" Ayers and who saw him as acceptable and Obama was no closer than any of the others.

...no one on the board or on the Annenberg Challenge staff remembers Obama being any closer to Ayers than to any other member of the board. The Annenberg board also included several civic, business and education leaders, many of them Republicans...

In fact one person close to the issue states:

"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

Oh, really?!

So not only was Obama working on a Republican funded initiative, but prominent Republicans were involved on the board with Ayers. Do they all hate America so much that they are "palling" around with terrorist? He had been in their midst for years, why did not the republican's run him out of town.

Obama was new to Chicago. He hadn't been elected to anything. He really did even know where the bodies where truly buried in Chicago (evidenced by the thumping he received when he ran for the state senate). He just wanted to serve the community and do good work. However, Ayers had been there for years, building a reputation that was so mainstream that a life long Republican, who was a former Ambassador appointed by Nixon and Regan, allowed the release of $50 Million to let him, prominent Republicans, corporate, civic leaders, and a Harvard trained community organizer form a board to oversee the disbursement of these funds related to school reform.

And finally, the author notes:

Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, "a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous."

And as noted earlier a former Illinois Republican state representative states:

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95442902

Did Liddy run for office??? Not that I am aware of.When you you say our enemies, do you mean Iran? North got caught up in double dealings yes, but remember he was arming Iran, who was at that time our friend. Remember the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Iran was embroiled in a war with Iraq at the time. Even with the arms we provided, Iran still got their lunch handed to them.

You simply don't get it knuckie, but you don't get much, do ya ?

North was prohibited by law from arming the Contras, and he did so without regard for the law. He did so becuase that was what the folks Bush 41 pardoned were asked to do, circumvent the law.

Reagan came on TV , and lied his ass off about it, untill it was so damn obvious than even his simple brain could wrap around the fact that North, and the whole affair was illegal. He then had to go on TV again, and admit he was a liar.

North should have been hung, Reagan impeached, and Poindexter and the rest sent to prison.

Rule of law and all that.

I think you need to go check your history books, there ND. Iraq was our friend then and we convinced them to attack Iran. We gave weapons to Iraq, a la Rumsfeld, which ironically they used against us in the early 90's.

And finally, did Ayers run for office?

Does any of that change the fact that he bombed the pentagon? Does any of that change the fact that instead of spitting in his face Obama shook his hand, carried on with him & maybe even called him friend? Just like sitting down without preconditions to meet with Ahmadinejad & the likes. Most people make a stand & draw a line to that which is unacceptable....not Baracko though...So why is that?

I get it enough to know, and I 'll say it again , Obammy is NOT QUALIFIED TO BE WITHIN 1,000 MILES OF THE NUCLEAR FOOTBALL! And for the sake of argument. NEITHER IS MCCAIN!!! That being said I'm voting for Ron Paul.
During all of this horsesh*t, I have only stated that McCain is better qualified than Obammy, But I have never said who I would vote for. Well, there you have it. If it happens that Obammy ends up winning, I hope you staunch supporters enjoy the ensuing tea-bagging that is sure to follow.

Well knuckie, the minority view deserves some respect, and so...........:).................you represent the minority view.

As a republican you should begin the process of acclimating to being the 'minority view', because you're going to be there for quite some time.

First, let me say this..I applaud you KK for having the guts to stand alone, without ToddBama here to lend you moral support. Second, I must ask, when did I claim to be a Republican? I have no loyalty to any political party, I vote for the candidate MOST QUALIFIED, regardless of affiliation. As it stands, none are qualified to lead us out of the morass that we now find ourselves in, but I will still vote for the MOST QUALIFIED, and that candidate is not OBAMMY!!! Oh and as a minority? I take that as one of the few free thinking logical minds left.

With the approval rating of Congress being what it is, I don't see the current Democratic majority lasting much longer.

Why not ?

In 2010, once again the Dems will be defending less seats than the republicans, and while I know it's hard to believe, with a working majority, as opposed to 50-49 (can't count on Lieberman) somes of the bills that never made it out of the Senate, will. People could very well like them if they did just a few high profile items.

Simple things having to do with Civil Rights will be first I'd guess. Things like warrants, even though so 'Pre 9-11' might become fashinable amongst the government once again. Habeas ? Could be a huge news headline. Considering how Republicans in the Senate deliberatly gummed up the works, with 'em out of the way and irrelevant, things might get done. People would like that, maybe not the wingnuts, but they're becoming irrelevant too.

Now it looks like the Republicans will go into next year the 2009 Congress having lost 13-15 Senate seats, and over 50 house seats in two years, and in 2010, playing defense once again. And those numbers could very well end up being on the short side..............

And so what about those numbers makes you think a Dem majority woun't be around for long.

It's still a long ways till 4 November, and Obama has his work cut out for him ahead, but looking at the race, who'd you rather be right now, if you wanted to win ? I am beginning to doubt McCain't really wants to win anymore frankly.

The House and Senate don't get competitive gain in after 2012, when the Dems defend their 2006 wins in a few red states, but given the nature of big party ID swings and election swings, historically speaking, I'd be figuring on about 20 or so if I were you.

Could be like '32 though, and then figure 40........................

Damn 'mornin' in 'merca agin'is what it is right here, dawgone it.....................