A perfect example of people hearing only what they want to hear...

I think sometimes people should think before they type things. I am constantly amused by the absurdity of people who only hear what they want to hear. What I am saying is this: when you have something to say, consider all the facts. Supporters of Barack Obama more than supporters of any other candidate in the history of Presidential elections seem so willing to jump on anything without question.

Before I get into it, a buddy of mine had a usual one sided blog post on the internet today. I also love the cuteness of his language, as he calls the McCain campaign the "McSame" campaign. Clever. I hope he stayed up all night thinking about that. Anyway, here is the post, which I will riff on in a moment:

The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know.

Now let's have a look at the man that McCain picked to be his presidential transition chief. The person charged with planning the McCain administration, William Timmons, lobbied for Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the international community off his back.

http://www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595. html

Okay, so let's take a moment to think about what we are reading here. Now, the article states that William Timmons, the Transition Chief of Mr. McCain has worked closely with two lobbyists who helped "ease sanctions against Saddam Hussein's political regime."

Okay, so this is unfortunate, and clearly not something that is favorable. I will be just as critical of John McCain as I will be of Barry Obama.

So, that being said - let's look at this article. This article appears in a completely partisan "news" source - you won't find a single article that ever says Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or any of the lot has done anything negative. So first problem - if you are going to cite a news source, please cite one that is not of questionable character or does not have a partisan bias. Flaw #1.

Now, the association of William Timmons to Saddam Husssein is as I mentioned, not desirable. Should McCain maybe consider someone else for the job as a result? Sure. There is not conclusive evidence to support that Timmons is guilty of anything, but it certainly couldn't hurt McCain to get another Transition Chief. I can admit to that.

Now, let's take another moment to think of the man's job - he is the Transition Chief for John McCain. That is his only job. He is not a foreign policy advisor, he is not an economic advisor, he will be the Transition Chief.

More importantly, the bulletin post I copied links McCain indirectly to Saddam. So, here's the problem - did McCain's Transition Chief possibly work with lobbyists who had a connection to Saddam? Yes. Did John McCain? No. So it is tied to William Timmons, not John McCain.

Now, let's look at the way the first sentence of the bulletin post is phrased, and I quote: "The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know."

Now, McCain was never my top choice for the ticket. In fact, he was not even the man I voted for in the primary. He does things that I agree with, but does and says some other things that I disagree with - he is certainly not my ideal politician. However, should John McCain question Barack Obama's associations? Absolutely. The problem with the bulletin post is that Barack Obama is directly linked to people such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Directly linked. Yet, somehow these associations are dismissed by people like my friend posting the bulletin. He is not at all critical of his own party - meaning he will do or agree with anything they place on the table. That is not keeping an open mind, that is not being objective, it's absurd. It's absurd to think any particular party will do things that you 100 percent agree with. It's perfectly okay to disagree with your party from time to time.

So let's look at some of these outstanding people - Bill Ayers. The founder and member of the Weather Underground group - who is responsible for bombing the following: The New York City Police Headquarters, The United States Capitol Building, and The Pentagon. This is a man who has served on committees with Barack Obama (The Woods Fund of Chicago) and if you notice - Obama's associations with Ayers have changed over the years. He has gone from just a guy who lived in the neighborhood of Senator Obama to a guy who has served on committees of, etc etc. Why does this keep changing? Is this a person I want a politician directly linked to? A person who shows no remorse and says he did not do enough damage years ago? No. Absolutely not.

Then there's Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Barry Obama "spiritual advisor" for 20 years. The man who is on camera saying things such as "...not god bless America, God damn America." The man who has plenty of off color remarks from the very halls of the church that Barack Obama has sat.

And that's not even getting into Obama using Saul Alinksy's theories from Rules for Radicals into his every day use, his marxist and socialist overtones, his ties to Tony Rezko, and his relationships with Fannie and Freddie constituents.

So my advice to my buddy is this: question John McCain. Question him to your heart's content. He is a man, and moreover he is a politician. Chances are, there are things you can pin on him that you will not agree with. But, if you are going to do that, you had better question Barack Obama and his associations. Because I promise you in the end, you will find them far more demeaning than anything you have found on John McCain. If you are going to make such a link to McCain but then dismiss any of Barck Obama's questionable associations, you are in the wrong.

-The Rocker-