Obama’s Moral Equivocation FAILURE

I’m talking about Obama’s latest demented moral equivocation which took place at the Tuesday night Democrat debate. This time it was his Senate pal, Tom Coburn, not his grandmother, who was tossed under the bus.

I touched on this briefly in my Radicals, Terrorists and Tyrants post:

Obama characterized his relationship with Ayers as the same thing as being friendly with fellow Senator, Tom Coburn who favors *GASP* the death penalty for abortionists who perform abortions (except in rare cases to save the life of the mother). An extreme position to be sure, but does it make him a terrorist? Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists, no if, ands, or buts. Does Tom Coburn support Obama? Donate to his campaigns?

Can you imagine how awkward it’s going to be the next time Obama bumps into his friend, Coburn on the Senate floor? *Cringe!*

Byron York is lowing the boom on Bambi:

Would you rather be associated with a ’60s radical who plotted to bomb the Pentagon and to this day believes, as he said a few years ago, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” or would you rather be associated with — slight pause, please — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)?

That was the rather bizarre scenario raised by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia.

Yesss. That’s what I meant to say. He goes on:

But wouldn’t Coburn be more comparable to Ayers if he, Coburn, had bombed abortion clinics in the past — and then said that he not only did not regret bombing the clinics but wished that he had done more? And then, after bombing abortion clinics and refusing to express regret, he held a political event in his home for Barack Obama, which Obama attended?

And if all that had happened, would Obama say it wasn’t a problem because Coburn had bombed those clinics a long time ago, when Obama was just 8 years old?

Do you believe that would endear Obama to voters in the Democratic primaries?

Hmmmm…huh!…hmmmmm…let me think about that one.

But-but-but Obama said the American people were smarter than to think otherwise:

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow — 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.

Obviously my ass. Obama’s many known associations with pinkos, commies, radicals and terrorists actually reflect something quite disturbing about him…that their ideas do in fact reflect his views.

But note how he tries to intimidate ‘the American people’ into brushing past all that. We’re supposed to be smarter than that. If we question any of his troublesome associations, or endorsements, we’re knuckle dragging troglodytes who don’t appreciate arugula.

“Isn’t that guilt by association?” Alan Colmes will simper.

Let’s play a little mind game:

How many awful associations does a lib have to have before a fellow lib sees a problem? And how many awful associations does a conservative have to have before the same lib sees a problem?

Compare and contrast answers.

More:

Tom Maguire says Obama needs to recalibrate his sense of Moral Equivalence.

Drew at AOSHQ believes Obama owes Coburn an apology.

Michelle Malkin – Barack Obama’s Pro-Lifer-As-Terrorist Analogy

UPDATE:

Conservative Belle shows you what the high road looks like: Tom Coburn responds.