Maybe we can tie McCain's willingness to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to one of his leading fundraisers, and co-finance chairman in Florida Harry Sargeant.
A few problems there...
McCain has been consistent when it comes to Iraq and his position has
always been to stay there until we accomplish our goals. He was saying that
well before he was running for president. So to try and say that his position on Iraq is somehow influenced by his fundraisers is based in cherry-picking your information and misrepresenting it, because it totally ignores the chronology of events.
Could it be that McCain is on the same page politically as Clayton Williams? Let's see, McCain also kept the money raised by Williams from a cancelled fundraiser (noticed, they cancelled the fundraiser, but McCain kept the funds that were sent in from people to attend the fundraiser). Williams is somewhat well known for uttering that wonderful line in the 1990 campaign for Texas governor - comparing rape to the weather...“As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.” (Fundraiser to have been held 6/16/08)
You are trying to compare someone who's "sin" was making an off-color joke in a campaign to a terrorist who tried to blow up government buildings?! That is a stretch...
Let's look at Carl H Lindner - another one of McCain's fundraisers whose was the CEO, and on the board of Chiquita Brands from 84 to 02. Chiquita has admitted to illegally funding the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a terrorist paramilitary organization. Chiquita's payments to the AUC began in 1997 and lasted seven years. The group has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department. For the last 5 years that Lindner was CEO of Chiquita, the company sent money to the the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia. (Fundraiser event - Linder's home 6/26/08)
First off, how is Lindner's funding illegal? What law (or laws) are being broken? When was that group designated a terrorist organization by the State Department? Do they have a beef with the U.S.? Did Lindner have any part in the actually planning and implimentation of their "terrorist" activities? Those last to questions need to be proven to be a "yes" for this point to be anything more then a false analogy.
Of course he isn't any of those things himself - I know that - but, if you just go by 'guilt by association' that is what you got...
That is the problem... the left is creating a strawman argument by mischaracterizing at a claim of "guilt by association".
To make it clear, guilt by association is a type of association fallacy. Here is the definition of an association fallacy:
An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
All the things you have pointed out about McCain are irrelevant associations in reference to his politics.
However, Obama's
political alliances are very telling when it comes to his politics and his judgement about those politics. Also, who he keeps as friends is very telling about his judgement and influences. "You know someone by the company they keep".
As
Thomas Sowell puts it...
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance-- but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
As Stanley Kurtz
points out, "documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were
partners in the CAC." He also points out...
...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
Conservatives are not arguing mere guilt by association... they are arguing that Obama actively allied himself politically with people (like Ayers) who consistently are anti-American, and supported that agenda, and now Obama is doing everything in his power to downplay that; including intimidation tactics to stifle any info coming out. Any claim that the argument is merely "guilt by association" is a strawman mischaracterization that only serves as a red herring. It is an extremely intellecually dishonest tactic. I would hope you can do better.
It is interesting to note that there is some speculation that Ayer's wrote parts of Obama's autobiography which is
backed up by a computer comparison of the autobiography and Ayer's writings.:shifty: