I wrote earlier of the worthless arguments being made in defense of Obama's crumbling campaign. But, apparently not satisfied with one set of specious arguments, the Obama defenders have come out with another round.

One has been around for a while, but is seeing new life. this is the attempt to paint Falwell, Robertson, or any other Republican favoring minister as being equivalent to Reverend Wright, and then trying to associate them with McCain, or, strangely, with Bush¹.

Now, first of all, there is nothing these men did that in any way compares to Reverend Wright. Being strongly opposed to homosexuality for instance is actually a valid reading of the Bible, one can argue whether or not it is a proper understanding, but it seems the proper role of a minister to provide his interpretation of the Bible. Wright, on the other hand, seemed more interested in denouncing white, racist America and telling his parishioners how the white man was out to get them. To compare quote attributed to Falwell² denouncing homosexuals to years of anti-American racist rhetoric is too much of a stretch.

Secondly, I think there is a huge difference between Obama and McCain (or Bush) and their relation to these various pastors. Obama was a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years, named his book after a Wright sermon, and called Wright his mentor. McCain knows these men, has spoken to them at times, has maybe been endorsed, and that's it. None of them are his pastor, none are his mentor, and he has not named any books after sermons written by any of them.

That they fail to understand these basic distinctions tells you a lot about the desperation Obama defenders feel. That they choose such weak arguments makes me think even they are beginning to realize how badly Obama will do in the general election

But the revival of the minister argument is not the only misstep, they are now trying to defend Obama against both his close ties to domestic terrorist Billy Ayers and his endorsement by Hamas by claiming McCain has the endorsement of "the world's leading torturer", President Bush. Or, if that does not work, they are reviving the claims that Bush, Rumsfeld and others were "friends" with Saddam³.

Where to begin?

First, calling Bush the world's leading terrorist is a bit of a stretch. Waterboarding may be unpleasant, and given the very broad interpretation given to the rules of warfare, it may even be illegal. But to compare that to terrorists who actually saw off limbs, or behead people is simply irresponsible. Even if someone thinks Bush's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is inhumane, it in no way comes close to what prisoners experience regularly in, for example, North Korea, and to give Bush such a tittle is simply to trivialize their suffering.

Second, even if Bush were really such an evil man, his endorsement of McCain does not mean much. McCain is a member of his party, such endorsements are pro forma. On the other hand, Hamas' endorsement of Obama has a bit more meaning⁴. It says that a terrorist group thinks their lives will be improved by electing Obama. That does mean something. And Obama's friendship with Ayers means even more. I know that sixties radicals have been "reformed", and we are supposed to forget all their crimes because "the war in Vietnam drove them crazy", or some similar excuse, but Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who should be in jail for attempted murder. That he is a close friend and supporter of Obama says even more about the man.

In short, Bush's endorsement of a fellow party member⁵ means very little when compared to Obama's close personal friendship with a domestic terrorist and his endorsement by a terrorist group opposed to the interest of the United States.

Let us now move on to the Saddam argument. Ignoring the fact that Saddam was involved with the president's father, not the president, that Rumsfeld is no longer Secretary of Defense, and that McCain had nothing to do with any of this, it is still a silly argument. Support for Saddam was based upon political considerations, not some sort of personal relationship. To compare politically motivated military support given to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, at the height of the cold war, to Obama's friendship with Ayers is just absurd. It doesn't even make sense.

Well that is it for the current crop of silly arguments. I am sure I will be revisiting this topic again, as I doubt the Obamaniacs will give up trying to make him sound less incompetent, so I expect even more flimsy efforts to defend him.

Hopefully the next lot will be more amusing.

--------------------------------------------------

1. Some Democrats seem to believe they will be running against Bush in 2008. Not only is Bush not running, but the nominee, McCain, has not been exactly close with Bush. So I am at a bit of a loss why these Democrats think tarring Bush will somehow manage to sully the name of a man who has more often been a thorn in Bush's side than a close ally.
 
2. I have tried to find the source of the quote attributed to Falwell. "So-called gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." And while I have found countless people quoting it, I have been unable to find a primary source, not any eye witness, not even someone who spoke to an eyewitness. It appears the quote pleases those who dislike Falwell, so it gets reproduced endlessly, but the citations seem to be from secondary source to secondary source, with nary a primary source in sight. (See my earlier take on this here and my first view in the comments here.)

3. Again, it appears that the Democrats believe they are running against Bush.

4. It is sad that I must explain this. had Hitler endorsed a candidate in 1944, or Jefferson Davis in 1864, it would have been the death knell for that campaign. If your enemies are in favor of a candidate, it is a bad sign.

5. I do not dismiss this as pro forma simply because of the party affiliation. Bush and McCain have never been particularly close, and Bush did not endorse him until it became clear he was the nominee of the party. All of which indicates that Bush is not exactly thrille with McCain, but will endorse him out of party loyalty.