McCain and His Ayers Problem
The question is, if McCain mentions 60's radical Bill Ayers in Wednesday night's presidential debate, how will Obama react?
For many Obama supporters, it seems troubling that McCain has gone relatively unchecked on his assertions that Obama is friends with a terrorist. However, even more unsettling to these supporters is that Obama has not countered with assertions about McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal or McCain's connection to the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor John Hagee. To whatever extent McCain's involvement with these two examples, nothing seems more egregious than what John Wilson conveniently outlined in his Huffington Post blog John McCain's Terrorist Connections:
Indeed, McCain's experience, without a doubt, trumps that of Obama.
Either way, Obama has options here. First, he could assert that McCain does not want to go down the road of "guilt by association," because he can just as easily mention several "bad guys" to whom McCain has been connected. Or, Obama has the option of the high road and say that this is a clear distraction from what voters want to focus on the most, the economy, jobs, healthcare, etc. while at the same time mentioning one or two of the bad guys. Finally, Obama can directly tell McCain to "say it to my face," to stop the duplicity and act like a man. The latter I like the most, since I have never been one to shy away from a fight or tell someone to "act like a man" when I was directly challenging them. Also, the last option could really set McCain off the charts and we could see the angry old man finally emerge. In any case, Obama has McCain right where he wants him.
For many Obama supporters, it seems troubling that McCain has gone relatively unchecked on his assertions that Obama is friends with a terrorist. However, even more unsettling to these supporters is that Obama has not countered with assertions about McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal or McCain's connection to the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor John Hagee. To whatever extent McCain's involvement with these two examples, nothing seems more egregious than what John Wilson conveniently outlined in his Huffington Post blog John McCain's Terrorist Connections:
In the 1980s, McCain personally funded a guerrilla group (the Contras) that engaged in terrorist acts. Just last year, McCain expressed how "proud" he was of an ex-felon who urged shooting law enforcement agents in the head (G. Gordon Liddy). And earlier this year, the McCain campaign trumpeted the endorsement of a man who illegally provided weapons and money to terrorists; when a reporter questioned this, the McCain campaign refused to even criticize this criminal (Oliver North).
Indeed, McCain's experience, without a doubt, trumps that of Obama.
Either way, Obama has options here. First, he could assert that McCain does not want to go down the road of "guilt by association," because he can just as easily mention several "bad guys" to whom McCain has been connected. Or, Obama has the option of the high road and say that this is a clear distraction from what voters want to focus on the most, the economy, jobs, healthcare, etc. while at the same time mentioning one or two of the bad guys. Finally, Obama can directly tell McCain to "say it to my face," to stop the duplicity and act like a man. The latter I like the most, since I have never been one to shy away from a fight or tell someone to "act like a man" when I was directly challenging them. Also, the last option could really set McCain off the charts and we could see the angry old man finally emerge. In any case, Obama has McCain right where he wants him.
posted by Caleab at 2:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home