There’s so much I could say about this L.A. Times article, with its vivid portrayal of McCain and his followers as angry nutcases, and its references to McCain’s audiences as “angry” and “surly.” I may do a more complete dissection tomorrow, but let me make one observation:
But in an interview with Fox News, Palin cited Ayers as reason to question Obama’s “judgment.”
Palin told Fox’s Sean Hannity, in a transcript provided by the network: “And — not only those terrorist activities that Bill Ayers was involved in, but the questions need to be asked, I believe, when did Barack Obama know of these activities? We’ve heard so many confliction stories and flip-flop answers about when he knew the guy, did he realize that he knocked off his political career in the guy’s living room?”
A recent article about Ayers in the New York Times said the two men were not close.
[UPDATE: The transcript is completely inaccurate, and the slugs at the L.A. Times should have watched the damn segment. See UPDATE below.]
Yes, and a recent CNN segment on the issue, a CNN reporter said that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”
I wonder why the New York Times article was mentioned, but this segment (and the facts it discloses) wasn’t. In fact, citing the New York Times article is all the L.A. Times says about Palin’s accusations.
Oh — and in the New York Times article itself, we learned that Obama’s camp had previously been less than truthful about when Obama met Ayers. I’ll turn over the mike to Andrew McCarthy:
You might think the Times would be more curious. After all, the Democrats’ presidential nominee has already lied to the Gray Lady about the origins of his relationship with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Back in May, in a cheery profile of Obama’s early Chicago days, the Times claimed (emphasis is mine):
Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.
Now look, anyone who gave five seconds of thought to that passage smelled a rat. Ayers and Dohrn are passionate radical activists who lived as fugitives for a decade. There’s no way they held a political coming-out party for someone who was unknown to them. Obviously, they already knew him well enough by then to feel very comfortable. They might have been sympathetic to a relative stranger, but sponsoring such a gathering in one’s living room is a strong endorsement.
And now, even the Times now knows it’s been had. In this past weekend’s transparent whitewashing of the Obama/Ayers tie, the paper claimed that the pair first met earlier in 1995, “at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper[.]” That storyline is preposterous too, but it is also a marked revision of the paper’s prior account (which, naturally, reporter Scott Shane fails to mention).
Why the change? The tacit concession was forced by Stanley Kurtz and Steve Diamond — whom the Times chooses not to acknowledge but who hover over Shane’s sunny narrative like a dark cloud.
Funny how none of this comes up in the L.A. Times story.
P.S. Regarding the quote by Palin in the Hannity interview: it’s interesting to note that the L.A. Times apparently doesn’t think it’s necessary to actually watch the show to see if the transcript is accurate. Does anyone have the video to see if it is?
UPDATE: Peter Nicholas, the reporter, obviously included the transcript of Palin’s remarks in order to mock Palin’s wording — which, as it reads in the transcript, sounds garbled and inarticulate. But the transcript is inaccurate, as Nicholas would have learned if he had bothered to watch the segment itself (click on Part 3; thanks to DRJ for the link). Here is what Palin actually said; I’ll cross out the incorrect words that the L.A. Times reported and include the real wording so you can compare the two:
And — not only those
terroristatrocious activities that Bill Ayers was involved in, but the questions need to be asked, I believe, when did Barack Obama know of thesehis activities? We’ve heard so many conflictionconflicting stories and flip-flopflip-flopped answers about when he knew the guy, did he realize that he knocked offkicked off his political career in the guy’s living room, first it was yes and then it was no . . .
(The “first it was yes and then it was no” phrase was also omitted by the paper.)
The transcript made Palin sound ridiculous, talking “confliction stories” and Obama “knocking off” a political career at Ayers’s house. And the paper quoted the transcript purely to make Palin sound stupid, when her actual words sound just fine.
Unbelievable. I’ll be writing the Readers’ Representative about this.
What do you want to bet she defends it by saying that they quoted the transcript accurately, regardless of what she actually said?
UPDATE x2: Here is my letter.