Posted 1 year, 2 months ago in 
Loading ...
Two letters in the Sept. 4 edition of The Daily Sentinel use the well-worn strawman tactic of defending Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign and attacking Gov. Sarah Palin’s campaign.
Elizabeth Rowan makes the argument that we can’t be held responsible for our casual associations. Clearly, if only one radical associate appeared only occasionally in Sen. Obama’s background, there would be no issue. But when several radical associates appear routinely over a period of several years, and none of these relationships are clearly explained, it’s reasonable to ask whether the candidate was influenced by and is comfortable with the views and philosophies of those associates.
And to simply declare that “the Obama campaign did not take issue with the alleged connection” because there is a campaign policy in place is to ignore the facts of the story which have been widely reported and have not been disputed. For all its efforts to suppress another citizen’s free-speech rights, it has had the opposite effect, making us wonder what is in those public records that the Obama campaign is so anxious to cover up?
Joel Prudhomme used the same straw-man tactic by attacking Gov. Sarah Palin’s mayoral experience while completely ignoring her accomplishments as an elected governor of a state. Why even address her mayoral experience? You might as well have attacked her experience on the PTA as inadequate to qualify her to be vice president.
Beyond his relationships, I haven’t heard of any record where Sen. Obama ever attacked a corrupt Democrat in the Chicago political establishment resulting in their imprisonment. Is that because there aren’t any corrupt figures within the Chicago political establishment? Gov. Palin has had the courage to stand up to corrupt Democrats and Republicans, resulting in prison terms for their crimes. And that’s not a strawman tactic.
BOB BRIDGES
Molina
4 Responses to “Strawman tactics prove nothing”
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And besides all of that, how is Barack Obama going to take care of his two children if he is elected to be president? How good a father can he be? Or maybe he is planning to send him to the Rev. Wright day care and reeducation center for lessons on how to respect America? And while we are on the subject of double standards, I wonder how the Obama campaign staff views sexism? Could that have had something to do with Obama’s choice for VP?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But she didn’t stand up to Ted Stevens, did she? She loves earmarks but are against them? She was for the Bridge to Nowhere until it became an issue, then she opposed it. Except she took the money for the bridge anyway, one of the most egregious earmarks in recent times. A paragon of consistency and integrity. Guilt by association–Wright and Ayers Guilt by deed–Keating Five Heard that before? One commenter said that McCain was only given a reprimand because he was in meetings with Keating but did nothing for Keating. If that’s the case, they are saying he IS NOT guilty by deed but by assocaion. So, who has a problem with past acquaintences?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee, John, I thought is was the state of Alaska that took the money? And which one of her associates was it that bombed the Pentagon? I guess association is as association does. What did Obama say? He could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community and guess what happened next? He disowned Rev. Wright. Do you think Sarah Palin is going to be a problem for the Democrats? Sho you right, right on.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, that’s about as lame a response as you have come up with. Of course it’s for the State of Alaska. She obtained it and it was a dreaded earmark that she and McCain hates. You seem to have a compulsion to comment on everyting whether you know-or care- anything about it. Try for something where you can add something meaningful to the coversation rather than just writing for the sake of “being there”. Also try to keep to the subject at hand without getting into personalities for any reason other than degradation. You don’t make yourself look smarter when attempting to bring somebody else down.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.