I'm getting tired of all of this "guilt by association" business

[Proud Liberal Dem]

The latest example, of course, being Blago's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat. There are some people here who are arguing against his appointment and even Obama and Reid are arguing against ANY appointment by Blago despite the fact that, AFAIK, Burris has not been accused of anything unethical or illegal in regards to his appointment and that the only reason that has been mentioned so far as to why he should not be seated is because Blago's scandal/legal problems will inevitably "taint" him and, presumably, anybody BLAGO appoints to fill this seat.

One of the most despicable hallmarks of the recent Presidential campaign is how McCain/Palin (and previously Clinton- not to mention the army of pundits and commentators) kept trying to "taint" Obama by parading around a seemingly neverending cast of colorful and controversial characters whom Obama had had some kind of contact and/or association with over the years no matter how tangential or substantive it actually was or how it affected his decisions and actions (if at all). We all know, most famously, how prominent Bill Ayers, the former Weather Underground member, became as a result of the McCain/Palin campaign's constant flogging of Obama's association with him (which turned out to not be any more or less significant than his association with several other individuals, some of whom were Republicans).

IMHO we need to get out of this McCarthy-like business of trying to ruin people's reputations and careers simply based on associations they may currently have or may have had in the past, particularly when there are no specific allegations of illegal and/or unethical CONDUCT by the targeted individual. Otherwise, we may as well all simply turn ourselves in for the crimes and sins of our friends, family members, and/or current or past associates and/or render ourselves suspect by virtue of simply having been associated with them in some way. If any one of us were seriously investigated for all of our past "associations" then I suspect that others may find some problems with any number of people we might have once known, been friends with, or are related to. It's frankly a wonder that ANYBODY can get elected nowadays with the kind of scrutiny that currently exists and the level to which this kind of activity now routinely occurs.

Obama's association with Bill Ayers, to use a current example, does not matter to me because, although Ayers certainly acted illegally while a member of the Weather Underground in the 1960's, Obama himself never participated in the Weather Underground's (illegal) activities, never endorsed the group (denounced their activities in fact), and his only major connection with Ayers involved coordinating present-day community efforts on education reform, hardly a subversive let alone improper or illegal activity. If they had been conspiring to engage in violent and/or revolutionary activities then or now, then I would've been a lot more concerned about his "association" with Ayers.
I also don't really care if his former Pastor (Wright) or his wife previously said some shocking or controversial things about how they feel about how this country has previously treated (and in some cases still does treat) its African-American citizens but Obama is not out there fomenting a "race war" and/or plotting to oppress whites as a result of his marriage to Michelle and/or his attendance at Wright's church for several years.
Likewise, I don't really care that Blago is appointing somebody to Obama's vacant Senate seat. As I understand it, it is his legal responsibility to do so (for as long as he remains governor) and AFAIK Burris has not himself been accused of any improper activity in regards to his appointment so I believe he should be duly seated per the dictates of Illinois law and the US Senate. The fact that Blago was the one who appointed him should NOT "taint" him nor make him ineligible for the position.

The bottom line is (to me anyway): What matters (or at least what should matter IMHO) is our own character and, more importantly, the kind of conduct we demonstrate in our personal and professional lives, NOT whom we know or might have known in the past or whether they may have done something shocking, controversial, unethical, illegal, etc. I know that there is the whole axiom of "if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas", which may be true to a certain extent and it is certainly wise to pick and choose whom you associate more carefully, however, again, I believe that it is our own conduct that should ultimately be considered above all things.

:rant:

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. What's worse is that it's guilt by association to somebody that was given

the Scarlett Letter by some half ass prosecutor & a willing, gullible do-gooder press. They can jump up & down all they want, but they can't do a god damn thing about it. They wouldn't do anything about bush & his god damn war so they figure they'll make amends with this shit.