Whose Associations Are More Unsavory: Obama's or McCain's?

[Brainster]

Somebody posted a while back the question of why Republicans are treated as idiots. This post exemplifies the reason: Complete lack of critical thought, or lack of value placed upon critical thought. Even the barest minimum of analysis shows why "guilt-by-association" is properly considered to be a fallacy:

1) Strange how the criminal justice system does not ever charge a person for actions committed by friends or family. They may try a person for intentionally providing aid that was used to commit a crime, but not for being friends with a criminal, or for acting in a civil manner toward a criminal. The bottom line is that one is not accountable for actions (or alternately negligence) one did not commit.

The decision as to whether to put someone in jail amounts to taking away considerable rights. The decision as to whether to put someone in the Oval Office amounts to granting considerable rights and powers. Naturally the standard is going to be different for the two.

2) It displays an appalling naivete to claim that no friendships occur between individuals of differing ethics, religions, political party affiliations, etc. I for one, despite being a militant atheist and “liberal” to the point of Socialism, nevertheless have one longtime friend whose beliefs may be placed within the purlieu of the religious right. Since such friendships do exist, one cannot claim that any two individuals...who happen to be friends...are similarly responsible for advocating a particular position.

Strawman. Nobody's claiming Obama should be castigated for having Republican friends, or religious friends, or whatever.

3) Claims that friendship implies omniscience with respect to another's viewpoints are likewise extremely puerile. The human mind commonly elicits an emotional response when faced with disagreement. Because of this, it is frequently taboo in society to discuss potentially controversial subjects. Likewise, the vast majority of us who maintain friendships with those of strongly differing opinions do not always choose to debate, press, or elaborately detail those differences for the sake of avoiding strife. Without which, the full extent of another's beliefs cannot be known.

Which is why we look to associations for hints. You think your daughter's new boyfriend seems like a nice kid, and then you find out his best friend's in prison for murder, you can't help starting to worry a bit. And Ayers and Wright do not exactly go around concealing their beliefs, as you may have noticed.

4) Beliefs are not static. One has only to show conversion statistics regarding religion or party affiliation to demonstrate this. The entire existence of rhetoric (in its classic definition as writing meant to persuade) assumes this. The entire existence of political campaigning presupposes this.

Ayers has held the same beliefs now for nearly 50 years. Obama's may have changed; as I have pointed out in other threads, I suspect he dabbled with extreme leftism/radicalism, but quickly learned that it was an intellectual and career dead end. But as you point out in #3, we can never really know.

5) Friendships are not static. A person who was a close and personal friend for over a decade who then moves out of contact for a year and a half is then what? Still a close, personal friend. How well are they known during this absence? Similarly if an individual becomes preoccupied with a given task, relationship, or cause such that they have very little time to devote toward other friends or relationships then it is not reasonable to expect expansive knowledge of these others during that period.

If there were evidence that Wright or Ayers had made some sort of sea-change to arrive where they are now, you'd have an argument. But there has been no road-to-Damascus moment here.

To claim that guilt-by-association is valid, that one individual is necessarily responsible for and aware of the beliefs of another, is to deny these truths, and to spit upon the fundamental nature of skeptical inquiry.

On a side note, still eagerly awaiting description of how McCain went out of his way to court the political endorsement of John Hagee, a man who has publicly advocated genocide (something not even the worst offenders of the weather underground did).

Okay, sorry I thought you were being serious with your post. Good one!

 

[Dragoonster]

Who. Freaking. Cares.

I get that to the general populace it's important, but good god. This has nothing to do with a candidates ability to be President. This just seems like an exposition of political woo, with the flimsy excuse that it's ascribed to by the general populace, thus matters. Forgive me if I ignore it all (and have little clue who "reverend Wright" or "hillary under sniper fire" is; I've ignored that crap as well.

 

[corplinx]

McCain went out of his way to court the political endorsement of John Hagee

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=11364

"It's nonsense, it's nonsense, it's nonsense," McCain said. "It's nonsense. I don't have anything additional to say about that. It's nonsense."

McCain then apologized for Hagee's comments.

"I reject that categorically and I would point out there's a lot of people who have endorsed me," he said. "They support my views. That does not mean that I support -- would I consider repudiating his endorsement? I certainly condemn those parts of his remarks."

And when he was made aware of the outrageous things he said, he called it all nonsense and it went away except on blogs. Notice he didnt justify it by saying that its a product of the era Hagee was from and talk about how we need a new understanding of religion politics. He just called it nonsense and made it clear the endorsement was unilateral. I think Mr. Obama could learn from that.

 

[Corsair 115]

Doc - you ougtta BE an American politician with that horrid little post. Reach into your black bag and take something. Then take another. Call us in the morning.

Uh what exactly was horrid about his post? I didn't see anything bad in it other than him agreeing with something I put forth, namely that American politics are worse than Canadian politics (an assertion which I claim is entirely legitimate).

Do not read more into the assessment of the state of American politics than what's really there.

We are much more alike, as people, then we are different. And yet, from what I have seen, our politics are fairly different, IMO.

My theory on the reason why is because the United States is practically in a state of perpetual elections. You've got the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for election every two years, and the Presidency and Vice-Presidency every four years with campaigns that last close to a year. Add to that the state governments and local governments being elected on a regular basis. That's a lot of elections going on, and consequently, a lot of political campaigning. The two-party system probably adds to it as well.

That much political campaigning would drive me nuts. A six-week federal election is more than enough for me.

 

[Shadowdweller]

The decision as to whether to put someone in jail amounts to taking away considerable rights. The decision as to whether to put someone in the Oval Office amounts to granting considerable rights and powers. Naturally the standard is going to be different for the two.

The rules and standards of logic apply equally to an argument regardless of whether it's a matter of which toothpick is most effective or whether the stakes are life and death.

Strawman. Nobody's claiming Obama should be castigated for having Republican friends, or religious friends, or whatever.

Incorrect, that's precisely how guilt-by-association works, and is working. Person A is guilty of belief A, therefore Person B, a friend of Person A, is ethically responsible for that belief. Jeremiah Wright believes that AIDS was artificially created by the government, therefore Obama must also support or accept that viewpoint.

Which is why we look to associations for hints. You think your daughter's new boyfriend seems like a nice kid, and then you find out his best friend's in prison for murder, you can't help starting to worry a bit. And Ayers and Wright do not exactly go around concealing their beliefs, as you may have noticed.

Non-sequitur. If associations cannot provide meaningful information about an individual, then looking to them for "hints" does not become valid. Tangentially, worrying about or being suspicious of your daughter's new boyfriend in your above example is not the same thing as passing judgement on, finding fault with, or criticizing said new boyfriend based on that association.

If there were evidence that Wright or Ayers had made some sort of sea-change to arrive where they are now, you'd have an argument. But there has been no road-to-Damascus moment here.

Like say, in the case of Ayers, becoming estranged from the rest of the group during the 70s?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Or in the case of Wright, numerous testimonials from members of the Trinity UCC that such nutcase ideas were not the norm? Or that, in contrast to accusations of "America-hating" statements the fact that he had previously volunteered to risk his life for American interests during the Vietnam war?

Do not pretend that you've bothered to do any research on the matter.

Okay, sorry I thought you were being serious with your post. Good one!

The act of seeking political endorsement from an individual who is well known to work toward such reprehensible goals is not merely associating, beings friends with, or being friendly toward that individual. It is an act which validates those goals.

Regardless of the above, this -is- a thread whose intent is (or was as per the OP) to point out the larger ramifications of using the "guilt-by-association" idiocy. That I am eager to see how individuals like yourself try to rationalize that sort of argument when it is applied equally is not the same thing as personally considering it a valid form of argument.

And when he was made aware of the outrageous things he said, he called it all nonsense and it went away except on blogs.

You mean like this? (Hint: Check the date said clip was added)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7piGy0u43c

He just called it nonsense and made it clear the endorsement was unilateral. I think Mr. Obama could learn from that.

How terribly unfortunate then that the public record makes it quite clear that the Hagee endorsement was NOT unilateral.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/magazine/23wwln-q4-t.html?ref=magazine

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48397/

 

[Brainster]

Steve Chapman channels Chipmunk Stew's original post in this thread.

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers—in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk show host, Liddy spent more than four years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And when he was made aware of the outrageous things he said, he called it all nonsense and it went away except on blogs.

How fortunate for him. I wish that that had worked for Obama.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I missed this one.

And you're griping because I gave proper attribution to the story?

No.

I have to wonder why.

You invented my actions: why can't you invent my motives too?

Despite the liberal cocoon you may find yourself in, where everybody tut-tuts whenever Rove is mentioned and curses him for his evil genius in getting Bush elected, there are outlying provinces and hinterlands where the man's name is not a watchword for diabolical plotting. Your confirmation bias is showing, and so, perhaps, was mine when I gave the attribution.

As for your ravings about my supposed "liberal cocoon" and "confirmation bias", I see no reason for this insulting garbage.

The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, Karl Rove is tainted. If this story has to stand or fail on the word of Karl Rove alone, then I dare say that there are some people in "outlying provinces and hinterlands" that might believe it. And those people whom you have in mind when you speak of "outlying provinces and hinterlands" also believe in Young Earth Creationism, a return to the Gold Standard, that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that all Democrats are Communists, so you might as well have saved your breath. They'll vote Republican anyway.

 

[Puppycow]

Steve Chapman channels Chipmunk Stew's original post in this thread.

I just ran across that. Even hosted a fundraiser for McCain.

I wonder if Chippy's ever going to fill us in on who Richard Quinn is or just leave us hanging? The one in wikipedia seems to be a Scottish jockey.

 

[Puppycow]

Found it

Yet one of his long-time "senior political consultants" is Richard Quinn, long-time head of the racist Southern Partisan Quarterly Review. That's a far closer tie than what Obama has to Ayers.
. . .
In 2000, People For American Way called on McCain to fire Quinn, listing his disparaging of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist," his promotion of David Duke ("What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke?") and his selling of t-shirts praising Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

McCain wouldn't fire him. He rejected the guilt-by-association charge, defending the man and disavowing the publication. From the Associated Press ("Bush, McCain Dogged on Racial Issues," 2/18/00, available on Nexis):

McCain, meanwhile, refused to fire campaign adviser Richard Quinn as requested by the private group People for the American Way. Quinn edits the magazine Southern Partisan, which has published racially charged articles.

"This is a fine man who worked for Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond and other fine people. This is an outfit I almost never agreed with and so this is another case where we have disagreement," McCain said.

McCain said he did not consider Quinn a racist and had never read anything written by him.

And McCain still works with Quinn. The Washington Post this month described Quinn as the "longtime adviser [who] directed the senator to a crucial victory in the Palmetto State." Politico reported (link via Daily Kos' Hesiod) that McCain paid Quinn's firms $184,000. An article reposted on McCain's website describes Quinn as "a senior political consultant to the McCain campaign."

IMHO, this guy is 100 times worse than Ayers, if any of that is true.

 

[daredelvis]

Found it



IMHO, this guy is 100 times worse than Ayers, if any of that is true.

But, McCain wears a lapel pin, and that is all that matters.

Daredelvis

 

[chipmunk stew]

Bump, for recent relevance:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4122118#post4122118

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't know this thread existed and started this one.

From the AP story about McCain's connection to Iran-Contra and the U.S. Council for World Freedom:

In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.
The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.
The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.

And then there are all his people who worked as lobbyists or PR men for dictators and murderers around the world.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua.

Ever heard of the Cold War? Are you aware of Cuban troops in Angola as surrogates for the Soviets? That is the political background for Nicaragua, in the Cold War, that you wish to poo poo away.

Trying to topple leftist and Sov Sympathetic governments was a bipartisan habit, or had you forgotten the Democrats and the Bay of Pigs, LBJ and Viet Nam, or for that matter Reagan and Grenada. (Does that last one even fit?)

DR