Another pastor disaster for Obama

[/dev/null]

My faith in Obama is Unbreakable.

 

Judging by these 2 pastors I'd say Obama is Praying With Anger

 

Now top that M Night Shamalanalalalamalanguy reference

[GG]

Judging by these 2 pastors I'd say Obama is Praying With Anger

 

Now top that M Night Shamalanalalalanalanguy reference

 

This campaign has been brought to you by American Express.

[Chilly]

He's been associated with him since 2000. And Pfleger was featured on Obama's website until they erased him this week.

 

Would you be critical of the association with him, regardless of the teary-eyed incident?

[erynthered]

Judging by these 2 pastors I'd say Obama is Praying With Anger

 

Now top that M Night Shamalanalalalamalanguy reference

 

 

Well, I guess when "The Happening" happens November 4th, we'll know then wont we.

 

 

 

 

(erynthered + 1 )

[PastaJoe]

Would you be critical of the association with him, regardless of the teary-eyed incident?

 

He is a strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan and has been described as a "spiritual adviser" to Obama. He also publicly threatened the life of a Chicago businessman and, according to one report, "is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards."

 

In his Trinity United oration, Pfleger asserted that white people have a moral obligation to surrender their assets, which, he suggested, properly belong to blacks.

 

Perhaps if the media had done their job and properly vetted Obama and his connections before the election got this far, we would have learned about these shady characters before people voted and might have had a different outcome.

[/dev/null]

Well, I guess when "The Happening" happens November 4th, we'll know then wont we.

 

 

 

 

(erynthered + 1 )

 

Depending on the Signs we might have a pretty good idea even before The Happening

/dev/null++

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

He is a strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan and has been described as a "spiritual adviser" to Obama. He also publicly threatened the life of a Chicago businessman and, according to one report, "is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards."

 

In his Trinity United oration, Pfleger asserted that white people have a moral obligation to surrender their assets, which, he suggested, properly belong to blacks.

 

Perhaps if the media had done their job and properly vetted Obama and his connections before the election got this far, we would have learned about these shady characters before people voted and might have had a different outcome.

I sometimes wonder how many people would make statements like this before Guilt By Association became so ingrained in the political process. We really have to get back to the issues or at least ask the candidates if they agree in any way with what hairballs like Pfleger or Hagee. Who cares what this idiot says or does?

 

I saw a really interesting video clip of Newt Gingrich talking to Hannity and Colmes about Obama. Newt congratulates Hannity for his foresight with respect to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, but then tells him in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans focus on those things, and not how their party will change America, they will lose big in November.

 

It's the media's job to make sure the candidate is vetted? Obama wouldn't be the leading candidate if we knew about Reverend Wright and Pfleger way back? Hmmm, I have trouble with that...

[Chilly]

I sometimes wonder how many people would make statements like this before Guilt By Association became so ingrained in the political process. We really have to get back to the issues or at least ask the candidates if they agree in any way with what hairballs like Pfleger or Hagee. Who cares what this idiot says or does?

 

I saw a really interesting video clip of Newt Gingrich talking to Hannity and Colmes about Obama. Newt congratulates Hannity for his foresight with respect to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, but then tells him in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans focus on those things, and not how their party will change America, they will lose big in November.

 

It's the media's job to make sure the candidate is vetted? Obama wouldn't be the leading candidate if we knew about Reverend Wright and Pfleger way back? Hmmm, I have trouble with that...

 

This idea that "Guilt By Association" is somehow wrong is something proposed by the Obama camp as a distraction (just like everything anti-Obama is a distraction). He's trying to set the terms of the game.

 

A reflection of yourself and the way that you think can be seen through multiple things, including the decision to make someone your spiritual advisor (such as Wright or Pfleger), or to continue to be someone's friend after they claimed that they didn't kill enough people (Ayers). Is Obama guilty of being a terrorist or killing people? Of course not.

 

However, the question that the Obama camp and supporters are ignoring by calling these "distractions" is this: Is Obama showing questionable judgment by continuing to be friends with a terrorist, or allowing someone who is a bit crazy to shape his worldview?

 

Obama and his camp would obviously like nothing more than to have his words speak louder than his actions, and so far for a large amount of people, it has worked. We'll see if it continues to do so.

[Kelly the Dog]

This idea that "Guilt By Association" is somehow wrong is something proposed by the Obama camp as a distraction (just like everything anti-Obama is a distraction). He's trying to set the terms of the game.

 

A reflection of yourself and the way that you think can be seen through multiple things, including the decision to make someone your spiritual advisor (such as Wright or Pfleger), or to continue to be someone's friend after they claimed that they didn't kill enough people (Ayers). Is Obama guilty of being a terrorist or killing people? Of course not.

 

However, the question that the Obama camp and supporters are ignoring by calling these "distractions" is this: Is Obama showing questionable judgment by continuing to be friends with a terrorist, or allowing someone who is a bit crazy to shape his worldview?

 

Obama and his camp would obviously like nothing more than to have his words speak louder than his actions, and so far for a large amount of people, it has worked. We'll see if it continues to do so.

The problem is when people get high and mighty after cherry picking what a person says. I have said some outrageous things in my life. A lot of them. And yet they may be less than 1% of what I say and stand for, but most of them are the complete opposite of what I usually say and stand for.

 

In no way, zero, would I think my friends have any responsibility whatsoever for everything I say, nor should it reflect badly upon them because they chose to hang around me.

 

Even 99% of what Reverend Wright actually says is very acceptable if not gospel to even his and Obama's harshest critics. Most if it is about God and your faith and helping the poor and your neighbor. And yet they completely utterly disregard the 99% and just associate the inflammatory 1% to someone that to my knowledge has never even come close to saying or standing for any of that. In fact, everything points to just the opposite.

 

If anyone here actually believes that Barack Obama stands for what Pfleger said that was so inflammatory last Sunday, that person is a !@#$in' **** in my opinion. And if you're playing the guilt by association game, that's what you're doing.

 

All this talk about who you associate with is total and utter garbage. Every single person -- you and me and Barack and McCain alike -- associates with, talks with, shares views with, gets advice from, listens to, sits down in church with and gets endorsements from both good and bad people, racists and goddamners, thieves and liars, saints and scumbags.

[Sketch Soland]

The problem is when people get high and mighty after cherry picking what a person says. I have said some outrageous things in my life. A lot of them. And yet they may be less than 1% of what I say and stand for, but most of them are the complete opposite of what I usually say and stand for.

 

In no way, zero, would I think my friends have any responsibility whatsoever for everything I say, nor should it reflect badly upon them because they chose to hang around me.

 

Even 99% of what Reverend Wright actually says is very acceptable if not gospel to even his and Obama's harshest critics. Most if it is about God and your faith and helping the poor and your neighbor. And yet they completely utterly disregard the 99% and just associate the inflammatory 1% to someone that to my knowledge has never even come close to saying or standing for any of that. In fact, everything points to just the opposite.

 

If anyone here actually believes that Barack Obama stands for what Pfleger said that was so inflammatory last Sunday, that person is a !@#$in' **** in my opinion. And if you're playing the guilt by association game, that's what you're doing.

 

All this talk about who you associate with is total and utter garbage. Every single person -- you and me and Barack and McCain alike -- associates with, talks with, shares views with, gets advice from, listens to, sits down in church with and gets endorsements from both good and bad people, racists and goddamners, thieves and liars, saints and scumbags.

 

I'm with ya Kelly. Lucid words.

 

Most PPPers will ignore this sentiment, however.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm with ya Kelly. Lucid words.

 

Most PPPers will ignore this sentiment, however.

It's really kind of aggravating, and I don't think people take any time to think about what they're actually doing when they do it.

 

I have a business partner. We get along great for the most part. We share a lot of similar interests, both inside the business and out of it. For the most part I really like him. For the most part, I think he is a great guy. He's extremely generous, smart, fun and funny, well-read, loyal to a fault, would do anything for me and has. And asks very little in return. Most people that know him like him a lot. I don't know anyone that doesn't like him. That's 90% of him as a person.

 

10% is, he just doesn't listen, especially when he disagrees with you, and he treats his wife like sh--. I hate those two things about him. I listen (I think I listen very well), I treat women great, including his wife. His wife loves him even though he treats her like sh--. Most women I know that know him like him and probably don't know he treats his wife like sh--.

 

But no one in the world should think that I don't listen, or that I would treat my wife or any woman like sh-- because of him. No one should think I am lesser of a person for hanging out with this guy, that everyone loves, that is a great guy 90% of the time, but has these two glaring flaws. He's not my best friend. I don't model myself after him. His listening issues and the way he treats his wife, if anything, have made me want to listen more and treat women better.

 

But I do listen to him and take advice from him, just not about listening or women.

[blzrul]

I used to work for a guy who was a rabid wingnut. I mean BAD. He would even put Rush Limbaugh newsletters in my mailbox. Yet, we had many other things in common and as long as we didn't get personal on the politics, we were fine. I'd go places with him and he'd start on gun laws and all that stuff...I just let him go. If people wanted to judge me based on my friendship with him, so what. I didn't disagree with him in front of people but respected his right to be himself and say what he thought. He knew how I felt and would sometimes temper his words, but if he didn't, so what. Yet I took orders from the man and we were even friends - still are. What that says about me is that there is room for all kinds of folks in my life, even those you'd think are polar opposites. I can usually find something good in someone to appreciate, which allows me to overlook the negative.

 

Note I said "usually". There are some folks in whom I have yet to find a shred of decency...hard though I try. You know who you are. :-)

 

So Obama knows people with little minds and big mouths. He's not responsible for them.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

I used to work for a guy who was a rabid wingnut. I mean BAD. He would even put Rush Limbaugh newsletters in my mailbox. Yet, we had many other things in common and as long as we didn't get personal on the politics, we were fine. I'd go places with him and he'd start on gun laws and all that stuff...I just let him go. If people wanted to judge me based on my friendship with him, so what. I didn't disagree with him in front of people but respected his right to be himself and say what he thought. He knew how I felt and would sometimes temper his words, but if he didn't, so what. Yet I took orders from the man and we were even friends - still are. What that says about me is that there is room for all kinds of folks in my life, even those you'd think are polar opposites. I can usually find something good in someone to appreciate, which allows me to overlook the negative.

 

Note I said "usually". There are some folks in whom I have yet to find a shred of decency...hard though I try. You know who you are. :-)

 

So Obama knows people with little minds and big mouths. He's not responsible for them.

in the same context, reminds me of my ex father-in-law. Same kinda right-wing political views. We could talk for hours on a whole range of subjects, but I knew never to question his politics or bring up subjects that would set him off. Because it was futile and a waste of energy.

 

Whenever people talk about how did Obama sit through 20 years of Reverend Wright, I always think about this man. You knew better than to question his views even though you were vehemently opposed to them. That doesn't mean you disown him or that he influenced you in any way on those subjects.

[Chilly]

The problem is when people get high and mighty after cherry picking what a person says. I have said some outrageous things in my life. A lot of them. And yet they may be less than 1% of what I say and stand for, but most of them are the complete opposite of what I usually say and stand for.

 

In no way, zero, would I think my friends have any responsibility whatsoever for everything I say, nor should it reflect badly upon them because they chose to hang around me.

 

Even 99% of what Reverend Wright actually says is very acceptable if not gospel to even his and Obama's harshest critics. Most if it is about God and your faith and helping the poor and your neighbor. And yet they completely utterly disregard the 99% and just associate the inflammatory 1% to someone that to my knowledge has never even come close to saying or standing for any of that. In fact, everything points to just the opposite.

 

The big problem with the Wright situation is Obama's about-face: "I can't disown him...", then a couple weeks later, he does just that. O RLY

 

If anyone here actually believes that Barack Obama stands for what Pfleger said that was so inflammatory last Sunday, that person is a !@#$in' **** in my opinion. And if you're playing the guilt by association game, that's what you're doing.

 

Which is irrelevant to my point. I think it is important to take a look at Michael Pfleger and ask yourself if he is showing good judgment by choosing him to be his spiritual leader and one of the primary shapers of his life and ideas (it is of no surprise the effect that religion has on a person).

 

Does he choose to use good judgment in who he associates himself with? This question is a reflection of the way he thinks, and his values.

 

I don't know much about Pfleger to know, so I'm not saying either way. What I am arguing though is that each one of these situations needs to be taken on a case by case basis and examined to see if there is a red flag there.

 

Dismissing all of these such instances as a "game", a "distraction", and other such terms is rejecting an opportunity to find out information about Obama.

 

All this talk about who you associate with is total and utter garbage. Every single person -- you and me and Barack and McCain alike -- associates with, talks with, shares views with, gets advice from, listens to, sits down in church with and gets endorsements from both good and bad people, racists and goddamners, thieves and liars, saints and scumbags.

 

Every single person also chooses when to end relationships and show judgment in doing so.

 

Dismissing these relationships, without closely examining them, causes you to lose out on an opportunity to peek inside of someone. Obama's labeling of these issues as distractions, and dismissing people examining the relationships is wrong.

 

If Barack Obama really wanted to change politics and campaigning for the better, he would have done this in the debate:

 

1.) Understood why people would be interested in his relationship with someone from the Weather Underground

2.) Fully explained his relationship with Mr. Ayers

3.) Allowed people to judge for themselves whether it was a moment of bad judgment to be associated with him, and not just dismiss it as a distraction.

 

In contrast, we receive this response from him:

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have...

(APPLAUSE)

... to beat back these distractions.

And I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a

follow-up on this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your

relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the

Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the

Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.

And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying,

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." An early

organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house

and your campaign has said you are "friendly."

Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to

Democrats why it won't be a problem?

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English

in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official

endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a

regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody

who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old,

somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most

conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his

campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death

penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I

certainly don't agree with those, either.

So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how

flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed

to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not

going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it

obviously isn't.

 

Notice how he doesn't take the time to discuss the meeting in Ayers' home about the resignation of Alice Palmer, or his relationship on the board. Instead of saying "Yes, I worked with him on a board, and he was involved in some political events with me in Chicago, but it was strictly a business relationship", he dismisses the examination of his relationship with him as a distraction. He somewhat does what I want in "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a

regular basis,", but this isn't to the depth necessary to let someone judge for themselves his relationship with Ayers. His act to try to set the rules of the game and to dismiss this as a distraction reeks of old-style politics, pointing out the hypocrisy between his messages and his actions.

 

Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States choosing to be friends with someone like Bill Ayers? You bet. Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States knowing Bill Ayers due to a business deal and a political event? Not unless there was some reason Ayers would expect kickbacks. Same with the pastors: Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain choosing to have John Hagee as their own personal spiritual guide? Without a doubt it shows a lack of judgment. Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain receiving an endorsement or knowing (due to politics or what have you) John Hagee? No.

 

That difference is a very significant one. Dismissing it without really talking about what they did together is contributing to "silly season".

[SD Jarhead]

I used to have this friend who was a Klan member. He was great to his family and his kids. In fact he was a soccer coach and boyscout pack leader. He was even nice to blacks and mexicans most of the time. He was very smart and well spoken.

 

I liked 90% of him, but there was that 10% Klan thing I just had to overlook because of all of his other outstanding personality traits.

 

C'mon people. If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be going crazy like a bunch of rabid dogs. I think Blue Fire is on the mark in his post. While the pundits are overreacting to this, if Obama was such a stand-up guy and an agent of 'change', than why did it take so long for him to cut bait with Wright.

 

If you fail to admit that the people a person associates with do not help to define them I think you're being less than honest.

 

It reminds me of an old saying-If you live in the sewer, you're going to smell like schit.

[SD Jarhead]

I used to work for a guy who was a rabid wingnut. I mean BAD. He would even put Rush Limbaugh newsletters in my mailbox. Yet, we had many other things in common and as long as we didn't get personal on the politics, we were fine. I'd go places with him and he'd start on gun laws and all that stuff...I just let him go. If people wanted to judge me based on my friendship with him, so what. I didn't disagree with him in front of people but respected his right to be himself and say what he thought. He knew how I felt and would sometimes temper his words, but if he didn't, so what. Yet I took orders from the man and we were even friends - still are. What that says about me is that there is room for all kinds of folks in my life, even those you'd think are polar opposites. I can usually find something good in someone to appreciate, which allows me to overlook the negative.

 

Note I said "usually". There are some folks in whom I have yet to find a shred of decency...hard though I try. You know who you are. :-)

 

So Obama knows people with little minds and big mouths. He's not responsible for them.

 

Oh the humanity! You poor soul...

 

So you mean you actually lowered yourself enough to associate with a wingnut? Wow! I don't know how you slept at night. I mean all that scary talk about gun laws and stuff...my goodness child!

[DC Tom]

In his Trinity United oration, Pfleger asserted that white people have a moral obligation to surrender their assets, which, he suggested, properly belong to blacks.

 

Of course, when Hillary Clinton advocates the exact same thing, it's called "taxes".

 

Good God, man, you're a friggin' parody of a hypocrite!

[Kelly the Dog]

The big problem with the Wright situation is Obama's about-face: "I can't disown him...", then a couple weeks later, he does just that. O RLY

 

 

 

Which is irrelevant to my point. I think it is important to take a look at Michael Pfleger and ask yourself if he is showing good judgment by choosing him to be his spiritual leader and one of the primary shapers of his life and ideas (it is of no surprise the effect that religion has on a person).

 

Does he choose to use good judgment in who he associates himself with? This question is a reflection of the way he thinks, and his values.

 

I don't know much about Pfleger to know, so I'm not saying either way. What I am arguing though is that each one of these situations needs to be taken on a case by case basis and examined to see if there is a red flag there.

 

Dismissing all of these such instances as a "game", a "distraction", and other such terms is rejecting an opportunity to find out information about Obama.

 

 

 

Every single person also chooses when to end relationships and show judgment in doing so.

 

Dismissing these relationships, without closely examining them, causes you to lose out on an opportunity to peek inside of someone. Obama's labeling of these issues as distractions, and dismissing people examining the relationships is wrong.

 

If Barack Obama really wanted to change politics and campaigning for the better, he would have done this in the debate:

 

1.) Understood why people would be interested in his relationship with someone from the Weather Underground

2.) Fully explained his relationship with Mr. Ayers

3.) Allowed people to judge for themselves whether it was a moment of bad judgment to be associated with him, and not just dismiss it as a distraction.

 

In contrast, we receive this response from him:

 

 

 

Notice how he doesn't take the time to discuss the meeting in Ayers' home about the resignation of Alice Palmer, or his relationship on the board. Instead of saying "Yes, I worked with him on a board, and he was involved in some political events with me in Chicago, but it was strictly a business relationship", he dismisses the examination of his relationship with him as a distraction. He somewhat does what I want in "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a

regular basis,", but this isn't to the depth necessary to let someone judge for themselves his relationship with Ayers. His act to try to set the rules of the game and to dismiss this as a distraction reeks of old-style politics, pointing out the hypocrisy between his messages and his actions.

 

Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States choosing to be friends with someone like Bill Ayers? You bet. Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States knowing Bill Ayers due to a business deal and a political event? Not unless there was some reason Ayers would expect kickbacks. Same with the pastors: Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain choosing to have John Hagee as their own personal spiritual guide? Without a doubt it shows a lack of judgment. Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain receiving an endorsement or knowing (due to politics or what have you) John Hagee? No.

 

That difference is a very significant one. Dismissing it without really talking about what they did together is contributing to "silly season".

I would bet any amount of money I could get my hands on that if Barack Obama sat down and wrote a list of the 100 closest people in my life it would not include Micheal Pfleger. From all I have been reading he has known the guy peripherally for 20 years. The AP wrote "While Pfleger is not nearly as close to Obama as Wright had been, he has donated to the candidate's state Senate and presidential campaigns and sat on a Catholics for Obama committee until a few weeks ago. When Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, he helped land more than $200,000 in state grants for outreach programs run by Pfleger's church."

 

I'm sorry, but that association makes me think no less and no more of Obama. Should I go find a pastor in Chicago he knows with a sterling reputation and commend Obama for knowing him because that shows sterling judgment on Obama's part, and all of the great things this pastor does somehow reflects on Barack?

 

The Reverend Wright issue is a completely different story. To me, that is newsworthy. It was fine to look deep into that relationship, because it was a deep relationship. I was satisfied with how Obama portrayed it. It made sense to me. I understand how his critics could doubt it, that's fair. I think a lot of his critics lied about what Obama said, but that is fine, too, that happens in politics, the twisting of people's words. It did bother me that very few people actually took the time to watch what Reverend Wright actually said in that blasphemous sermon but that is me. It was a story and a juicy one. Frankly, I don't think that a pastor's "political" views are the same as his religious views, and I don't think that because Wright said those outrageous inflammatory things that Obama needs to disown him.

 

Later on, a month or more later, when it became apparent that Wright was not his pastor any more, and was just causing trouble for his campaign, it was a thing he had to do. Disown him. I don't fault him for that, I fault Wright. Could Obama have done it earlier? Sure. Could he have left the church as a political statement earlier? Sure. Those are fairly little decisions out of thousands he is making on this campaign.

 

But frankly, I don't think doing or not doing either of those things, sooner or later, has anything to do with whether or not he would make a good President. Sometimes you are going to have to make hard decisions on people you know. That is no doubt true. But this was politicized for him not by him. He doesn't get political advice from Wright he gets spiritual advice. I'm sure he takes a lot to heart and the things he doesn't believe as strongly he gives less weight to.

 

Of course the company you keep says something about you. All politicians have some shady characters in their closets. That Weatherman thing is just stupid.

 

This is just my opinion but I happen to think you are a very good poster here. For you to bring that particular thing up makes me think less of you, because it reeks of sensationalist gotcha politics. Like I said earlier, if you really thought of what you are saying, you're making the accusation that Barack Obama is sympathetic to terrorists that bomb Americans, and somehow supports it.

 

I have people that I have worked with over the years that I am "friendly" with that have done some terrible things in their life. I'm sorry, but it has 0.00000% to do with me, and says nothing about me other than we have worked together on some projects.

[Kelly the Dog]

I used to have this friend who was a Klan member. He was great to his family and his kids. In fact he was a soccer coach and boyscout pack leader. He was even nice to blacks and mexicans most of the time. He was very smart and well spoken.

 

I liked 90% of him, but there was that 10% Klan thing I just had to overlook because of all of his other outstanding personality traits.

 

C'mon people. If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be going crazy like a bunch of rabid dogs. I think Blue Fire is on the mark in his post. While the pundits are overreacting to this, if Obama was such a stand-up guy and an agent of 'change', than why did it take so long for him to cut bait with Wright.

 

If you fail to admit that the people a person associates with do not help to define them I think you're being less than honest.

 

It reminds me of an old saying-If you live in the sewer, you're going to smell like schit.

True story: When I was typing that post you referenced, I actually started to type a line that said something to the effect of "Obviously, that's not the same thing as if a friend of yours shot and killed someone and 90% of the time they were a great guy". But then I erased it and thought to myself, no one is going to be that disingenuous to make that leap.

Apparently I was wrong.

[SD Jarhead]

My ridiculous example did not mention killing anyone, just that the 'friend' was a member of a racist organization. What's the difference between the Klan and Wright/Pfleugers racist views?

 

"But frankly, I don't think doing or not doing either of those things, sooner or later, has anything to do with whether or not he would make a good President. Sometimes you are going to have to make hard decisions on people you know. That is no doubt true. But this was politicized for him not by him. He doesn't get political advice from Wright he gets spiritual advice. I'm sure he takes a lot to heart and the things he doesn't believe as strongly he gives less weight to."

 

Isn't that the problem with Bush? I genuinely think GW is an honorable man, but one who surrounded himself with schitty advisors and consequently made (very) schitty decisions. How is this NOT relevant? A President CAN'T know it all and has to select a staff that ultimately he trusts to provide him with astute policy choices. If who you associate with is not indicitive of who'll be your advisors I don't know what is...