I posted previously on The Columbian’s “no distinguishable impact” endorsement of Senator Barak Obama. They claimed that their opinion was “offered more to stimulate conversation than to change minds.” See The Columbian Endorses Obama for why their claim is specious.
I suspect their real motive was to provide cover for the audacious reasons The Columbian has for endorsing Obama.
They are quick to give a disclaimer that they “are wary of a few past relationships [Obama’s] had with controversial figures. McCain carries that same baggage to a lesser degree.”
Yet The Columbian provides no examples of these relationships for either candidate. They simply throw out a generalization with no corresponding evidence.
What do the following have in common besides having relationships with Senator Obama: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga.
The answer: Each has, in word and/or deed, expressed hatred for America. Some are explicit anti-Semites.
Are we to believe that Senator McCain has had relationships with haters of America? Really?
The Obama camp says that these were just happenstances of history, coincidences of bumping into these individuals while going about his life.
How is it, then, that Obama continually bumped into those who haters of America? How is it that McCain, 25 years older, has not happened upon anti-American individuals time after time? Could it be because Obama runs in those circles and McCain does not?
It speaks volumes that the only way The Columbian can make their endorsement seem credible is to smear Obama’s opposition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment