Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (89883)	10/13/2008 5:00:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542293

Karen: Let me attempt a translation. Steve: Well we now have Lane3, John, and Bill Kristol arguing that McCain needs to change the tone of his campaign and to do so he needs to talk about Wright and not Ayers? I did no such thing. I simple translated, just as I said in a very simple five word sentence, which you must have read since you used it as a segue. You didn't seem to understand John's explanation, I thought I did, so I offered John's explanation in words I hoped would communicate it better. I argued nothing. I get cranky when people put words in my mouth.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (89883)	10/13/2008 7:58:34 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542293

Well we now have Lane3, John, and Bill Kristol arguing that McCain needs to change the tone of his campaign and to do so he needs to talk about Wright and not Ayers? Can't speak for Karen or Bill, but you've got me all wrong. I don't know how you get from my comments to the notion that I think that McCain "needs" to talk about Wright. I'm simply arguing that it's more plausible for McCain to do so than to hammer at the Ayers bit. Obama had a long association with Wright. If the Reps think that Wright is a bad guy, then that's the case they could build. Ayers is a silly argument since there is no long term association. I don't agree that Wright is a bad guy. Hopefully, he can begin some serious rehabilitation of his image after the election. He definitely can't do it now or he drags Obama back down. I continue to fail to understand why this is such a hard distinction to understand.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (89883)	10/13/2008 8:07:20 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542293

To be fair, I also see a difference between Wright and Ayers. I still don't see either as particularly relevant to the campaign, mind you. However, Wright does seem to have gone off on a fairly unjustifiable tangent. I don't know how much choice people in the US have over your preacher - personally I could care less, but then I'm less religious than the average pebble - but I can see how people already inclined to take religion seriously could have major concerns if your habitual priest is way out there on an extremist limb. And someone preaching an excuse for terrorism, after 9/11, has gone way beyond any Xtian requirement for understanding: and however carefully I read the quotes provided I can't say he isn't excusing their actions. I'd agree with Obama's stance: criticism and disavowal is exactly what is merited, and no more, as it's simply not his own view or anything he could have espoused. But I can see how it would be understandable as the basis of an attack ad targeted at people whose religious/nationalist beliefs are their most important tenets. And if that's truly 25% of the US electorate then it explains a lot, including Wright's significance and that is was actually very decent of McCain to rule him off-limits.