KEATING FIVE IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK

[berni_mccoy]

The MSM has been saying it is an attack in response to McCain's personal attacks on Obama, and they are allowing repukes to call the Keating 5 a character/personal attack.

The only thing is, Keating 5 is more about McCain's policy decisions and judgment than it is about his character.

I've seen enough people here say Keating 5 is a personal attack to make me want to maket this post. Let's be clear: it's not.

It's totally relevant to the current economic mess and it's totally relevant to the types of decisions McCain would make as president.

[EffieBlack]

1. More with the fake "balanced" reporting:

McCain says "Ayres." Obama says "Keating." Now they're even . . .

The Swiftboaters say that John Kerry murdered innocent children. John Kerry says he didn't. Now you have both sides of the story . . .

and so on and so on.

[dkf]

2. Obama camp doing good job of explaining on internet, bad job in MSM.

They are letting MSM get away with claiming this is an irrelevant smear. MSM needs to be educated. Sometimes I marvel how stupid MSM is.

[Toucano]

3. I think maybe it is, actually.

Because he was exonerated, the only point of bringing up the scandal is to question his judgment. That's kind of personal, I think.

That doesn't mean I think it is inappropriate to bring it up. If they want to say "character matters", we have to show McCain's poor character.

To me, his biggest lapse of judgment was endorsing Bush in 2004. I mean, how can he tell us who should lead now when he said Bush should lead in 2004? If he's such a maverick, why didn't he endorse Kerry who was a better man for the job?

[old mark]

4. The idea of McCain speaking against Obama's "character"

pisses me off. McCain is a spoiled little shit who never grew up. He has never in his life faced up to his own shortcomings,always blaming others and searching for a way out of trouble using his family influence.

mark

[Toucano]

5. Don't worry. It won't stick.

The more people see Obama, the more they like and trust him.

[berni_mccoy]

7. You have to ask the question: Who Exonerated McCain?

Trent Lott and Jesse Helms.

[Toucano]

10. Good point.

And on further reflection, his exoneration isn't relevant.

They are not saying Obama is guilty of any criminal action.

McCain is trying to say that Obama can't be trusted because he had a meeting in the home of a bad person and went to some meetings that the bad person also attended.

But McCain had a full blown, long-lasting FRIENDSHIP with a bad person. They spent a vast amount of PERSONAL time together. At no point did McCain clue in that Keating was a bad person? Keating was a close personal friend of McCain.

Ayers is barely an acquaintance of Obama.

Exoneration of criminal wrong doing doesn't matter because our theme is "guilt by association". Who had the stronger association with the bad person? The analogy is apt.

I still think it is basically a personal attack, however, because it isn't an attack on an idea or a policy, but on an aspect of the person's life or character.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

6. Rec - Ann Curry just equated it w/ the Ayers smear of Obama - typical MSM crap. nt

[Overseas]

8. I agree it is a policy attack -- McLiar promoted Deregulation then

and did so over and over again in his career, even though he is denying it now.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

9. kick - McSame is a self serving individual & Keating proves it. nt

[FrenchieCat]

11. I wrote this letter yesterday, and sent it to all in the media that I know......

Dear,
Today, the Corporate media showed its true colors. William Ayers, an infamous individual from the Vietnam era, dating back 40 years ago, who had tenuous links, at best, to Barack Obama, is allowed to be discussed at length....as though whatever Ayers did 40 years ago should reflect directly on Barack Obama.

To make things worse, the issue had been brought up before, and per documentation by media accounts during the primaries, those links had already been put to bed as being no there, there. However, today, that linking of Ayers via guilt by association was revived and discussed at length on just about every network news show....with footage shown over and over again of Palin running her mouth to a gathered lynch Mob who were shouting their hate filled reactions such as "Kill Him"!

Meanwhile, a financial scandal from the early 90s, a mere 17 years ago, when John McCain was 58 and a Senator, in where he was DIRECTLY involved in ethics questions is raised only as an accessory to the Ayers story. McCain, who was publicly rebuked by the senate for demonstrating "Bad judgment" in that banking scandal (really the last scandal prior to this one) labeled the biggest bail out in American History until now, is brushed aside and labeled old. It's only purpose, as used by the media, was to imply that Barack Obama was doing some smearing of his own....but the scandal itself was not explained at all...besides a quick, he was cleared (which didn't really work out that way). The scandal of course is directly relevant to current events that have been happening with the Investment Banking failures.

The plain truth is that these two issues were not at all similar, and oddly enough, the one that got the brunt of attention was the recycled non financial guilt by flimsy association aimed at Barack Obama.

I believe that the "Domestic Terrorist" association linked to Obama is then linked to his middle name, the muslim myth and the fact of his race. Altogether they make quite a combustive cocktail for the part of America's population that need to be impressed upon.

And mind you, this does not include the fact that the Audit of Barack Obama's fundraising as raised by the RNC was also covered, although nothing was said of the fact that it is the McCain campaign that has had this problem in the past, and that problem has not yet been resolved.

So when someone tells me that the media is not Biased toward McCain, they are going to have to explain themselves better.

Respectfully,