[CS-FSLUG] PD: OFB's Endorsement for President of the United States

[Timothy Butler]

HI Kevin,
> I enjoyed reading the endorsement as it offered strong arguments for
> John McCain, not against his opponent.

	I'm glad to hear that, that was the goal.
>
> the closing statement about the strength of john mcCains character was
> more relevant before the primaries ended. Unfortunately he hired the
> same bush team members, lobbyists, Rove tacticians, and religous
> fundamentalists as the G.W. Bush establishment. Most surprisingly, he

	I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. I think, actually, people have  
spent far too much time demonizing Karl Rove, for that matter.
>
> 1) If we have asked forgiveness for prior errors from GOD, and
> received it, as a candidate, should we feel compelled to address those
> errors that are revealed, even if the opposing candidate(s) did not
> raise the question themselves or attempt to use it for their gain?

	Yes probably so.

	Of course, both campaigns are trying to use each other's errors for  
their own gain, so perhaps the question is moot? But let's consider  
this:

	1.) McCain's big mistake, perhaps, was his involvement with Charles  
Keating. The Democratic prosecutor wanted to entirely drop McCain from  
the case, because he was only connected by the lightest connections,  
but he ended up being deemed to have "used poor judgment" in the  
findings afterwards. McCain frankly admits his mistake, though it  
seems -- as I said -- fairly unproblematic. He didn't seem to act on  
it, and there doesn't seem to be a long time relationship. Most  
importantly, he confesses he was wrong. President Clinton has also  
said he was wrong after his (very public) affair, and I accept that as  
well.

	2.) Obama's associations are more problematic, which I'll deal with  
under number 2.

>
>
> 2) In what cases can we use one's associations, even those that are
> strictly from business, as reasoning not to vote for them? Should we
> not forgive them? Or is it not so much forgiveness, but recognition of
> a lack of wisdom rather than versus a lapse in judgment?

	I'll deal with some of the negative stuff here, but let me say that  
my support for McCain has more to do with the sort of positive things  
OFB's editorial states than the negative things I am about to discuss.

	I think associations are fair game, regardless, but particularly if  
they offered benefit to the candidate and were not absolutely  
necessary (e.g. they were ordered to go talk to this guy, etc.). So,  
when Sen. Obama befriends Chicago political machine guy Tony Rezko and  
benefits both politically and personally (e.g. a great land deal),  
that speaks something important about wisdom/judgment. (Especially to  
those of us who live in a neighboring state and hear a lot about  
Illinois politics and how corrupt it is -- the former Republican  
governor is in prison and the current Democratic one seems like he is  
trying as hard as he can to insure his own place there in the coming  
years.)

	Now, we see this even more with Rev. Wright. Obama for both personal  
reasons and political benefit found it helpful to work with Wright and  
attend his church. Obama did not apologize, but has made various  
excuses. The basic ending point is that he never heard the words we've  
heard on YouTube, but he won't deny he heard similar things to "God  
Damn America" -- check when he is asked, he is very careful in how he  
responds. Again, this indicates something -- probably lack of wisdom.  
If he had left five years ago, I'd be less troubled than the fact that  
he only denounced Wright when Wright very publicly started repeating  
much the same rhetoric earlier this year to the D.C. Press Club. The  
fact that the older stuff was on tapes at Trinity UCC didn't bother  
him, it only bothered him when it hurt him politically.

	The same could be said of Ayres. Of Khalidi, I suspect. All  
politically convenient and acceptable within certain leftist realms  
(outside of the centrist place he likes to claim as his).

	If he'd just say, "I was wrong, I use to be a bit extreme, but I've  
come to my senses," I think this would have been a total non-starter  
issue. It's that he hasn't that causes problems.

	I've already dealt with Keating above, and I think, shown how  
different that situation is.

	Perhaps almost more disturbing to me is that Obama promised to take  
public financing, and surely would have lambasted the Republican for  
failing to (had he), but chose to opt out of the system when he found  
out he could do better breaking his word. Again, everything for Obama  
is highly pragmatic and concerned with what brings him political  
power. That's true of most politicians to some extent, I think it is  
more visible with Sen. Obama.

	A word on negative campaigning, "Rove-style politics," etc.  
Personally, I think this has been a relatively clean campaign.  
Campaigns are going to run negative ads. That's OK. It's the way  
American politics work, and frankly, no "all positive" candidate is  
going to win, sadly. However, I only see it as a problem if it is  
utter mud and not a true, reasonable question. If the McCain campaign  
had tried to stoke racism -- that would be a problem. The only folks  
bringing up racism, though, have been the Obama folks (including Obama  
himself, who kept suggesting McCain was going to bring in racism -- if  
you suggest the other guy is going to do something long enough, people  
assume he *has* done that thing, which of course McCain has not).

	Thoughts?

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window- 
panes,
Editor, OfB.biz   | The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the  
window-panes
tbutler at ofb.biz   | Licked  its  tongue  into the  corners  of  the   
evening,
timothybutler.us  | Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains."
                                                                 --  
T.S. Eliot