A Response to Armed Liberal on Ayers
My friend Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger says that I (together with some other conservatives) am going “bonkers – just bonkers” over the William Ayers issue. As evidence of my “bonkers” mentality, he links to this post of mine, in which I document ways that the Los Angeles Times omitted evidence that Obama and his campaign have given misleading answers about his relationship with Ayers.
Marc’s argument is that the Ayers issue is not a winning argument for McCain, so we Republican bloggers should leave it alone. I agree with aspects of his argument and disagree with others.
On one hand, I certainly agree with this portion of Marc’s title: “‘The Ayers Argument’ Isn’t An Election-Winner.” I don’t think anyone believes that it is. It’s not McCain’s best argument, and I wish that he would take my advice and hit Obama on Fannie and Freddie every day between now and the election.
But if McCain’s campaign is going to make the Ayers argument, and the media is going to distort the relevant facts, I’m going to point that out. Perhaps that makes me more of a media critic than an amateur campaign strategist, but I can live with that. I think that’s where I can add value.
Amateur campaign strategists are a dime a dozen. Why should anyone really care what I think McCain should do?
By contrast, we media critics, when our arguments are based on documented facts, can add value. We show how the media is distorting the entire electoral process by giving a skewed, distorted, and often just plain false version of the events of the day.
Of course, media criticism means you’re limited to what you read. And if McCain is talking about Ayers, and the L.A. Times is therefore talking about Ayers, then I’m going to end up talking about Ayers. It doesn’t mean I think it’s the best argument McCain can make.
Marc’s advice seems to be that I should ignore media distortions on topics like Ayers that aren’t winning arguments. I couldn’t disagree more.
First, I think that if the media weren’t distorting the facts on Ayers, it could be a decent argument — not the best argument, and not the one McCain should be spending so much time and so many resources on. But a decent argument.
Second, even on losing arguments, I can’t silently sit by and watch the media distort the facts. I’m just not wired that way — and I don’t want to be.
If that makes me “bonkers” in Marc’s eyes, I’ll have to live with that.
P.S. I find a lot of Marc’s post baffling. I know he understands that Ayers wasn’t some random ’60s radical shouting angry slogans about the war. I know this because a) he’s smart and informed, and b) we’ve explicitly talked about it. Yet his post seems to operate on the assumption that Ayers wasn’t anything more than a loudmouthed radical.
Marc prominently displays a picture of himself as a young angry protestor. He says that
branding someone as a “crazy 60’s radical” isn’t itself a very powerful political message. Because lots of people were, and lots of people know them and know they were, and we’re all pretty harmless these days (in fact, we were pretty harmless back then, as well).
That’s not to suggest that Ayers is harmless – he may or may not be (there’s a lot of evidence pointing both ways – on one hand, there’s his Chavez speech, on the other I consider “Hyde Park revolutionaries” to be kind of a narcissistic waste of time as a class, having been one myself). But as a branding exercise, it’s pointless, because it’s not going to have a whole lot of impact on people’s perceptions of Obama.”
Ayers, as Marc knows, was a terrorist. He participated in bombings, and although he’s coy about which specific bombings he helped carry out, his group’s bombs killed people, and his group wanted to kill even more. Ayers wasn’t prosecuted, not because he was proven innocent, but because evidence was suppressed due to governmental wrongdoing (illegal wiretaps and such). Ayers and his wife still talk as though they hate America and are proud of what they did; Ayers famously said in September 2001 that he wished he had done more — and this was during a period of time when Barack Obama was serving with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund.
Obama is not a terrorist. He is not a traitor. It appears likely that he will elected President — and if he is, then to use Marc’s phrase, he will be my President.
But I don’t respect Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, and I don’t respect his dishonesty about the extent of their relationship — and if the media has decided to give him a pass, that doesn’t mean I’m going to. And if people have already made up their minds because the media has not asked the tough questions and reported the awkward truths, I’m not going to simply roll over and let a skewed version of the truth be palmed off on people.
At least, not without a fight.
Fantastic post, Patteric, and the precise reason many of us read your blog regularly. If you (and others, such as Newsbusters, etc) didn’t point out this blatantly false facts from the LAT/MSM, no one would and people would assume they’re the truth. Obama may win (likely). He may not have a close relationship with Ayers (unlikely). But if we relied on facts (even for “non election winning” stories) from the MSM, we’d be in a terrible state of non-reality.
Cankle (8aa31a) — 10/11/2008 @ 10:56 amIf McCain had kicked off his political career in Timothy McVeigh’s living room, or had been a part of a board with Eric Rudolph, his career would be over.
Not just his Presidential aspirations, but his Senate seat itself would be under intense fire.
Al (b624ac) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:03 amPatterico:
Because it’s what a great number of his supporters _want_ him to do.
Look, Ayers, by itself is not the magic bullet. But Ayers, Wright, Rezko and ACORN all point to questionable associations with persons of fringe ideology or criminal behavior. Why does he have _so many_ of these associations? Why did he associate with these people? Why did he receive, at the very least, endorsements from the New Party?
And, if he disassociates himself from these people, why? What about them made him decide to disassociate? Why choose to disassociate now? Why didn’t he know their background?
These aren’t like the random people who yell out “Arab” or some other stupid thing at a campaign rally. These are people who led Obama to Christianity, people who helped launch his political career, people involved in business transactions. In other words, people Obama had a relationship with.
So, no, Ayers is not a winner for McCain. But the repeated questionable associations show, at least, poor judgement, if not alignment with radical ideology.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:08 amI respect Marc, but he’s convinced himself to vote for Obama against his better judgment and now I think he’s at war with himself.
He knows that his argument is unconvincing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:09 amCW – He will throw all of them under the back of the bus with Rev. Wright and his Grandmother. And they all understand it, and know he does not mean it. Political expediency is the single overriding factor in his decisions. Couple that with a media that has a mouthful of Baracky and some running down their chin, and it is easy to see why this tactic works for him.
The media should be fucking clobbering him about his decade long relationship with ACORN. Sadly, No.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:11 amIf your friend Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger wants Obama to win as I assume he does. And his “…argument is that the Ayers issue is not a winning argument for McCain, so we Republican bloggers should leave it alone.” Why wouldn’t he at least stay silent on the issue and let McCain self destruct?
Andy B (298ed5) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:13 amTotally agree on how he’ll respond and you hit on a good point: Obama’s more interested in the political gain by association rather than adopting the ideology of those he associates with. Make no mistake, he’s hard left. But I’m not sure he’s as radical as his associations.
RE: the media. The degree of my contempt for them cannot be adequately described.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:22 amI agree with Andy B that Danziger is only thinking of our best interests when he advises conservative bloggers to leave the Ayers issue alone. He’s a giver that way.
That fact that liberal bloggers find it necessary to distort facts about the relationship between Ayers and Obama in making their cases give me no confidence in the strength of their argument. I thought one of Obama’s early campaign slogan’s was “Jugement to lead.” What the left is suggesting we do at this point is take our eyes off the character and judgement issues and focus elsewhere. Shocka!!!!
Obama’s attempts to airbrush his past are cracking, exposing him as a liar and fraud, going directly to his character and judgement. It’s absolutely no surprise that the left wants people to focus in another direction.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:26 amGreat post, Patterico. I personally appreciate your continual examination and disection of these issues. You do the heavy lifting for us. And I also wish McCain would hit Fannie & Freddie, which is far more current and devastating to more people. He appears a day late and a dollar short by focusing on the Ayers…
Because lots of people were, and lots of people know them and know they were, and we’re all pretty harmless these days (in fact, we were pretty harmless back then, as well)
Its this rationalization that gives Danzinger away.
Yes, lots of people were a bit wonky during the heated days of protest – but only a very few actually felt justified in the destruction of federal property via bombs. Its one thing to protest, whether marching, hunger strike, sit-ins, etc. But setting off bombs on American soil reveals an entirely different mindset and I seriously question the judgment of one who doesn’t see the distinction.
I think the vast majority of reasonably clear thinking adults would agree that pretty harmless people don’t set off bombs with the intent to destroy and potentially harm others.
The difference that Danzinger also ignores is, that while others may have been harmless and outgrown their anger, what evidence does he have that Ayers’ has? No regret, no denouncement, no public apology. There is nothing concrete to base his opinion on. Therefore, he is rationalizing in order to maintain his own narrative. Which makes me question the soundness of Danzinger’s basics skills of discernment.
I would not be at all surprised if he came out and said, ‘Yes Ayers’ bombed the Pentagon, Capitol Bldg, etc – but really, he didn’t mean it’.
Dana (658c17) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:27 amI wonder if Marc would be so blase about Ayers if the shoe were on the other foot. What if McCain had equivocated about a long, friendly, political alliance with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber who was now “professor”. A professor involved in changing public schools to match the ideology that abortion doctors and nurses should be killed.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:27 amGreat post, Patterico. Thank you for saying some things that had to be said much better than I could.
David Blue (319338) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:53 amThere are a couple of issues in play. First is the absolute and undeniable point that Dana and Darleen describe: most of the MSM buys that “conservatives” are bad and “progressives” are good. They insult and denigrate and exaggerate the Right every bit as much as their political foes do about them. Right now, I would argue “more,” in fact.
But it’s different if you lean Left. You are a “good guy.” Because you are “good,” your motives are kind and not nasty. But if you aren’t “good,” well, your motives are….
The other issue is the role that cynicism plays in modern politics. Again, it has a partisan twist that is purely hypocritical. Someone Republican playing up to the conservative wing to get votes is “pandering.”
But if it is a person you like, it is “just politics.” Sort of like how Obama morphed from “Pull the troops out immediately” when battling Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and now has a much more…ah…nuanced view.
“Just politics,” right? Understandable, to get the votes of the middle that he needs. Pay no attention to voting records. There are always folks who will claim that Obama, despite his voting record, will “do the right thing.” This is because his heart is pure, and not evil.
This infects everyone right now. I read solid conservative types who have a bad collision between good intentions and apparent telepathy—since they seem to “know” that Obama is this and is that. And get either vague or angry when pesky things like votes or previous statements are brought up.
And the playing field isn’t level on this subject.
Look at Joe Biden. When he says nutty and incorrect nonsense, it is him “..just being Joe…” No big deal. The MSM doesn’t even cover it. But when Sarah Palin says things that the Left doesn’t like, look at the response, ranging from anchors to folks carrying disgusting signs.
Again, it is the issue of partisanship gone wild. Helen Smith (of Dr. Helen fame) wrote a great post on this recently. It’s worth everyone’s time, especially as tempers go all ballistic this time of year:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-how-do-you-deal-with-a-palin-hater/
She linked to an essay that is well worth everyone’s time.
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
The funny part is that the author of that essay doesn’t see that he is showing evidence of the pathology that he is simultaneously decrying.
But as it stands, the differential is frustrating beyond belief.
I’m with Patterico. Wrong is wrong.
Personally, I’m guessing that the Rezko business will slop over onto Obama big time. But no worries. It’s “just politics” and “everyone does it.” Meanwhile, Sarah Palin gets pilloried for getting a child-tasering cop fired.
That’s different, don’t you see?
Nothing new. Remember Travelgate?
Hope and Change. I actually, I hope I’ll have some spare change left after the new taxes in the offing.
Eric Blair (e60b98) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:58 amAyres is part of Obama’s left wing legitimacy. Remember he was called “only half black” early in the campaign. He came from the south side of Chicago, an area which has been ruined by left wing radicalism and the paternalistic attitude of the left toward blacks. I grew up there and know the history.
Many Democrats see nothing wrong with Ayres because they think he was right. Obama may be one of them but can’t quite say THAT out loud.
McCain has been trapped by the financial crisis because it has stirred all this inchoate anger toward Bush and the previous administration. He has one chance and that is to get it focused on the people who caused this. A risk is that focusing on CRA and affordable housing allows the accusation of racism to be made again. We’ve already seen it.
What he can do is talk about Ayres (Obama has dared him to say it to his face) and let Obama make the connection. McCain can link Ayres, Obama and radical education theories. He may never get the chance but, as I see it, that is the opening he has to look for.
Obama’s radical friends are the link to the financial crisis. Obama may not give him an opening but he has this 30 minute TV speech coming up. What the hell is he going to say ? A half hour of vague platitudes ? Maybe that will open the door.
McCain needs some luck now. He has been lucky before. Maybe it will come to his aid one more time. Eisenhower fired “unlucky” generals. Time for some luck.
Remember, the last three weeks are all about undecideds. They are not well informed and not partisan. If they can see the link between the left wing Democrats and the financial crisis, his job will be much easier.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/11/2008 @ 11:59 amI’ve been thinking along Marc’s lines for some time now. Even if you want to get out that Obama is a leftist extremist (which he is), this is NOT the way to do it. Most people glaze over on these scare ads anyway.
What people are looking for is someone who 1) they can trust; 2) is honest; and 3) seems to have a clue about what to do. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Squared.
Now, McCain should win this argument, should he ever make it. Oh, he’s tried in those debates but he comes off as a guy who’s having trouble remembering all his talking points. He needs to have a consistent set of ads clearliy offering the following choice:
A) Left-wing Congress with centrist president who can work with the ceneter of both parties, or
B) Left-wing Congress with hard left president, who will abandon his moderate pretense the moment he’s in office. Welfare reform: Undone. Military: cut in half. Taxes: every cut since Reagan undone. Trade: closed. Stock market: even lower. Freedom: redefined.
Pounding on Ayers is not only stupid, it’s ineffective. Call him on his long history of exclusively left positions and friends. See if he can name someone besides Tom Cobern on the Right who returns his calls, then get Tom Cobern out to call him a Commie.
Give the center a choice between center and Left, and make it in a way that is as clear as can be. Ayers is only a part of it, and an obscure one.
Use primary colors.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:15 pmOk, I’m willing to buy that he’s not a terrorist. But how does anyone know he isn’t a traitor? He worked with one, Bill Ayers, to further his anti-American cause.
What kind of man works with an unrepentant, declared enemy of the United States, who collaborated with the North Vietnamese during a time of war to conduct a domestic terror campaign, on his continuing project to foment a rebellion against the US? Because that’s what Barack Obama agreed to do when he signed on for the CAC; he agreed to help fund Ayers subversive activities.
Obama has run as an enigma. Why should anyone who wants to see McCain win, or more likely doesn’t want to see Obama win, make a case for Obama that Obama hasn’t make. And likely can’t make.
His latest obfuscation to deflect interest into Ayers is that Amb. Annenberg provided the funds disbursed by the CAC, and Obama points out that Annenberg was a Reagan appointee.
Does anyone besides me find it odd that Obama knows Annenberg’s background but claims not to know Ayers’?
Ayers was a celebrity radical in Chicago.
How many hundreds of articles or interviews about or with Ayers did Obama have to studiously avoid, and how much digging did he have to do on Ayers, to come up with that preposterous combination of assertions?
Steve (6a404c) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:19 pmPeople are missing the point – Why won’t Obama tell the public the truth about his past! The media certainly hasn’t.
Ayers is just another example among many. ACORN, Rezko, Wright, etc., etc. Do the American people want a President they can’t trust? Why is Obama afraid to reveal his past?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:27 pmObviously I meant to ask how much digging Obama had to do on Annenberg.
Just to belabor the point, if what Obama tells us in words in his book (that he chose his friends carefully, the politically active black students, the marxist professors, etc., so he wouldn’t be a “sellout”); and through his actions by marrying a woman who believes to this day America is racist and meanly; joining a politically active black church led by a politically active black minister that believes America’s racism, militarism, and capitalism makes it evil; and working to advance the cause of unrepentant terrorist who believes the exact same things as his preacher doesn’t represent Obama’s worldview, then what does?
Steve (6a404c) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:29 pmWow, you sound sort of like a reasonable human being.
Armed Liberal’s post is an accurate reflection of how non-movement conservatives feel about your (and your brothers’-in arms) recent obsession. But he didn’t write a very well-written post.
Ayers, as Marc knows, was a terrorist. He participated in bombings, and although he’s coy about which specific bombings he helped carry out, his group’s bombs killed people, and his group wanted to kill even more.
Nevertheless, large segments of the populace wash this stuff away under the general horizon of 60’s radicalism, as you just witnessed. You want a list of reasons why Bill Ayers can’t substitute for Osama Bin Laden? You can dismiss them as excuses, but America has taken them into account, even if you haven’t. Allow us to unbaffle you. In the 60’s,
#1 Hundreds of thousands of hippies were committing civil disobedience, dropping out of institutions, behaving in general disorder, many committing property damage, violating the law. Also, black people were rioting. America’s political consciousness has basically forgiven all these people, despite all manner of criminal acts probably committed in there somewhere.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of right-wingers & good old boys, the KKK & their informal partners were committing physical violence against black folks, hippies and liberals.. arson, bombings, etc. Again, American political culture has basically forgiven these people. You can’t get up on stage and say you’re proud of beating up hippies as a politician, but you can be a politician who has friends that will say it, and get by. It was a domestically violent time.
#2. Similarly, American troops were killing between .5 and 1 million Vietnamese at the time. Folks intuitively understand the manner in which violence excuses violence, whether they approve, absolve, condemn or detest the Weathermen.
#3. Meanwhile, like this guy, in Slate talking about his time hanging out with Bill Ayers in the 90’s mentions – in 1995 nobody born after 1960 or so knew who the heck Bill Ayers was. You don’t disprove that by finding old newspaper articles. There have been a lot of news articles written about John Boehner, and nobody knows who he is either. You can’t easily create genuine anger in America about a guy who hasn’t done anything more than give an interview in 40 years, about someone genuinely obscure until this campaign and who was never much of a boogeyman, due to #1-2, as well as,
#4. There’s a lot of uncertainty about what B. Ayers actually did. Meanwhile, regardless of the fact that the Weather Underground killed at least one person while he was around, and may have had plans for more, the thousand or so nonlethal bombs they set off, fairly or not, lead people to think of them as “radicals”. We associate “terrorists” with people who maximize civilian casualties. “Radicals” do scary things other than maximize civilian casualties. (Sure, under modern legal definitions, they’re terrorists, but we’re talking about human psychology.)
These are all the reasons why the polls say leads down to the bottom line, reinforced by polls
glasnost (a6ffe0) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:29 pmtelling us this: More independents are turned off by Sarah Palin than Bill Ayers. Probably not because she’s a worse person in people’s eyes, but b/c she’s the VP, while Bill Ayers’ current role in B.O’s world is nonexistent.
Obama is indeed a traiter to American Ideals, undermining these and replacing them with those he has associated all his life is his aim, it is the overarching goal of his life, beyond finding a place of importance for himself.
One might argue his support of a Marxist, anti-American thug in Kenya would be enough to render his patriotism questionable. Or his attempts to cause delay in settlements in Iraq until after the presidential elections.
I don’t think examining his relationship with Ayers and his dishonesty about that, is useless. Even if it IS useless, his aims, double dealing, and radical notions should be known. Let the electors choose him with their eyes open. If he’s what they want in spite of all of that, they will get the government they deserve.
SarahW (a6e80b) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:32 pmHonesty is not important to them, daleyrocks. Ideology trumps honesty every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:33 pmshoot, “traiter” = “traitor”
SarahW (a6e80b) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:34 pmI’m equally, proudly, bonkers. He’s a twisted dollop of evil scum.
Ayers in a 2004 phone interview:
Regardless of how this election turns out, my opinion of the Chicago elites who blithely rub elbows with this man will be forever diminished.
Beldar (bbafd3) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:34 pmDon’t you dare lump us KKK in with the Republicans. We were Dems. Wallace. Bull Conner. All of ’em. Dems.
Grand Kleagle Byrd (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:34 pmBut I don’t respect Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, and I don’t respect his dishonesty about the extent of their relationship
This brings up another worthwhile point. The folks really going ape about this connection seem to believe that it suggests that B. Ayers & Obama have a secret plan together, or a shared goal of… well, you never hear what specific actions it would involve, but it seems to relate to converting people into… what? Suicide bombers? “Radical” leftists? Homosexuals? But duh, of course B.O. wants to convert people into being politically liberal, like every leading Democrat in the world. This “B.O.’s secret agenda, as revealed by B. Ayers” isn’t going anywhere because no one can explain what that secret agenda actually is.
So here’s a great follow-up question, Pat. Do you think B.O. has a secret “radical leftist” agenda that is revealed by his ties to B. Ayers? If so, what is it?
And that’s why no one cares about the dishonesty – because non-movement-conservatives understand why Obama, to whatever extent a third party might empirically demonstrate he’s being dishonest about his association with Ayers, is doing so – because it’s embarrassing, and because his opponents and the press will ride him on it, and because honest defenses, like
“the guy’s obviously been accepted by his community and is considered to play a positive role in it, and I didn’t feel like making a moral point about something in the past at the expense of doing good works in the present” – are way too nuanced and lacking in sensationalism to make headway amidsts the media baloney.
Second, even on losing arguments, I can’t silently sit by and watch the media distort the facts. I’m just not wired that way — and I don’t want to be.
Yeah, very noble. You’re giving the media heck for only mentioning a board meeting, when there was also a fundraiser! Meanwhile, your conservative friends are making dishonest, absurd arguments like this:
#1 Ayers made a speech for Hugo Chavez recently
#2 The Annenberg foundation gave out some X thousand grants to community groups, of which some two or three sound a little fringy – not fringy like violent, but fringy like using liberal buzzwords and being politically active
#3 Therefore, the Annenberg challenge was either a secret plan or hijacked for a secret plan by Barack Obama and William Ayers to turn Chicago schoolkids into leftist revolutionaries.
You get upset only about media inaccuracies that favor people you don’t like. That’s why your credibility isn’t all that high.
So all you really have left with is, “Obama is a bad person for not starting an anti-Ayers campaign against W. Ayers when he met him in the boardroom”. But again,
Real people often tolerate other real people, even when they hear stories about bad things they did a few decades ago. Sometimes they even, like B.O. seems to have done, make a conscious decision that even if a guy who did bad stuff a few decades ago, they’re not only going to tolerate him, but going to completely not hold it against him. Many people can relate to the general impression of Obama not making a stink out of a guy who was crazy in the sixties, and the fact that he actually set off some bombs only moves, well… only about a third of independents to care more even somewhat.
So two out of three political independents basically endorse not leading a quixotic fight against a middle-aged English professor who was a violent felon thirty years ago. They have bigger fish to fry.
glasnost (a6ffe0) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:38 pmFairly or not?!?! You must be kidding.
Nope. Only to people like you.
No, there really isn’t. You folks that apologize away his actions like to obfuscate the facts, but they are pretty well known.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:39 pmThank you for showing us the depth of your dishonesty.
#1 and #2 are pretty much true, no? #3 was made up by you.
Would you associate, knowingly, will Bill Ayers? Yes or no. Simple question.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:42 pmwith, not will.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:43 pmDana 11:27am – The difference that Danzinger also ignores is, that while others may have been harmless and outgrown their anger, what evidence does he have that Ayers’ has? No regret, no denouncement, no public apology. There is nothing concrete to base his opinion on. Therefore, he is rationalizing in order to maintain his own narrative.
Excellent point, Dana.
The fact that this election is even close speaks volumes about the need for the left to continuously lie in order to get their candidate into office. I will partially agree with Danzinger, however, in that if McCain were to announce to the public that electing him would guarantee the prosecution of those individuals, both private and government, who abandoned their responsibilities and helped to cause this financial meltdown, McCain would overtake Obama in a heartbeat.
It is McCain’s inability to forcefully come out against the system that he is such a part of that is destroying his electoral chances. The reason for Palin striking the fear into the hearts of so many is her bi-partisan record of action against corruption. Corruption so deep that it is in danger of replacing our democratic system with one of a pre-determined outcome.
That being said, Bill Ayers is a huge problem for Obama. Obama’s lies and distortions regarding his involvement with Ayers and his brand of socialism, the media’s blatant obfuscation of any investigation into Obama, ACORN’s racist attempts to register the dead, Obama’s Chicago machine origins and the many other damning associations should all combine into one absolutely unelectable candidate.
Patterico – My 2 cents is that referring to a victory of the Obama sham as “my President” is an insult to the idea of democracy, because if he can’t win without the dead voting, the media lying, his associations hidden and his records concealed, one has to wonder who it is that is really electing him.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 12:43 pmPlease don’t repond to Glasshead’s posts – nothing but flotsam in the great cesspool of his head.
Dmac (cc81d9) — 10/11/2008 @ 1:12 pmAyers speech here http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/world-education-forum/ gives a shout out to Bolivar at the start, gives support to a system of education that is politiccally indocdrinate, ends with a shout out to Chavez… a tinpot dictator with oil.
Chavez’ greatness spans from political indoctrination of youth to marxist economics that has taken vast oil wealth and squandered it.
Obama’s association with Ayers calls into question Obama’s beliefs on education and economics.
Does Obama believe that shit Ayers peddles? Certainly Obama has proven that he has listened to Ayers pitches and allocated funds to Ayers’ projects with reterns on investment that only Chavez and Ayers’ ilk could love.
Obama seems a little malleable when it comes to giving other peoples money away for dubious return.
Perhaps Obama’s attitude towards money is illustrated here, and it is interesting to me that Obama spent most of his life living off public resources and grant money. Obama seems to never have been involved in any sort of enterprise that created wealth. He spent wealth.
Obama’s autobiographical accounts of his life provided a windfall him and seem to be his only exposure to wealth building…. a process that in his case more closely resembles winning the lottery than it does the small business owner who in year 8 of nose to the grindstone, blood sweat and tears; where the employees often have greater net income, finally turns the corner to financial success.
Ayers is important to me because Obama ate at the same political trough with him
SteveG (71dc6f) — 10/11/2008 @ 1:16 pmPerception of the masses aside – SteveG makes a great point.
Ayers and Obama is about the economy, stupid.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 1:35 pmglasnost,
You left out one part of the link in the chain between Ayers’ speech re Chavez and his work on education — namely, what Ayers said in his speech about education:
This is the fellow with whom Obama was working to dole out grants for oddball educational programs, requring teachers to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation.”
Patterico (cc3b34) — 10/11/2008 @ 1:38 pmI wish someone had the actual data on racial breakdown of these loans. We’re just assuming it’s mostly black. Maybe that’s overblown, just like the old stats on welfare recipients.
As to Danziger’s argument that these old radicals are harmless, I beg to differ. These old radicals have indoctrinated an entire generation of Americans to the leftist point of view, through their teaching in universities and now down to elementary levels, as well as their domination of media and the arts.
Think about it: in 1972 McGovern (anti-war, pro US) got 27% of the vote. Obama (anti-war, anti-US) will get at least 49%. No one voting for him cares about his associations; OTOH I fear they think it’s cool!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 10/11/2008 @ 1:46 pmFor those who think Ayers was just another confused 60’s idealist, here’s part of an article from WorldNetDaily. It was written a few years ago by a current Obama supporter. She doesn’t want this incident to impact Obama, but I think it demonstrates that Ayers is a different order of beast, and I doubt he could conceal his true nature from anyone in close association with him for an extended period:
“when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn’t go until I slept with his roommate and his brother. At this point Bill and I had slept together just once. I was sexually inexperienced, having had only one serious boyfriend with whom I had recently broken up.
At first I thought Ayers was joking. I got up; and went to the door. He moved quickly to block me at the doorway. He locked the door and put the chain on it. I went to the couch and sat down and told him that I had no intention of having sex with his roommate and his brother or him. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn’t sleep with his married roommate because he was black — that I was a bigot. I had gone to school with black kids and had them as friends all my life. I couldn’t believe he was saying that to me
I felt trapped. I had to get out of the situation I was in and because he was so effective a guilt-tripper, I also felt I had to prove to him that I wasn’t a bigot. I got up from the couch and walked over to the black roommate’s bed and put myself on it and he fucked me. I went totally out of my body. I floated beside myself on the outside and above the bed looking at this black stranger fuck me angrily while I hated myself.
After that I had to go lie down on Bill Ayer’s bed for his brother to screw me. Rick Ayers was a decent person, unlike his brother, and couldn’t go through with it He started and stopped and let me go. I also thought I had to let Bill screw me but at that point he unbolted the door and I left.”
rest is at:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9E8CD8A7-E90B-4311-8AA9-AEFD014A14B2
fat tony (f86b83) — 10/11/2008 @ 2:33 pmFrom the Fat Tony link:
One of the victims was Diana Oughton, his girlfriend at the time. I had known her: a kind soul who had worked at the Fresh Air Camp for troubled kids before she got mixed up with ever so persuasive Bill and the other Weatherman terrorists. When I found out she had been blown up, I thought how like him to send his girlfriend to make the bomb rather than do it himself.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 2:41 pmApogee, obviously he has been rehabilitated by putting fresh fruit on Michelle Obama’s childrens’ table.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 2:43 pmSPQR – Did Ayers deliver the fruit, or did he have ‘someone else’ do that for him?
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 2:54 pmI don’t know Apogee, but he wishes he could do more.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 2:57 pmThis is why Obama so easily said he would meet with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinajhad in his first year. It is also why he says things like meeting the US President shouldn’t be considered a prize.
Barack Obama believes that the US should hold itself as equal to other countries.
This is why, in the first debate, Obama said that he would make sure the rest of the world gained respect for us by seeing we are willing to spend money on education.
It really is his mindset. I know it is.
MayBee (c0df75) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:02 pmSPQR – That much fruit could kill someone. Accidentally, of course.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:05 pmUnder any other circumstances, I would be fairly confident that Obama was going to win this election, with the polls being where the are.
However, looking at the frothing, raging mob that is the Republican base at this point, I’m actually wondering if he’s going to make it to the election alive.
In working themselves up to convince the swing voters to pick McCain, the Republicans have pretty much managed to convince themselves (not the swing voters, but themselves) that Obama is pretty much a communist terrorist, and they’re peeing their pants with fear at the idea of him being president.
Even if he does win the election at this point, somebody’s going to at least try to kill him, just because the Republicans have basically convinced their less-educated base that America will come to an end if he’s elected president.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:09 pmglasnost’s lame attempt at spin illustrate just how damaging he and other trolls know the association with Ayers will be to Obama.
The shared plan that Obama and Ayers worked on had very specific goals. Ayers has never been shy about expressing those goals.
Ayers went into teaching to destroy “capitalist” education, which basically means the evil corporations control minds by controlling the curriculum. He wants to be the one controlling the curriculum to break the bond between capitalism and young minds so he and his like minded friends can exercise control. In order to bring about the “radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist” revolution he speaks of every chance he gets. The same one he once attempted to ignite with his bombs.
In Obama’s eyes, and glasnost’s, there is nothing wrong with that. But they both know that won’t be the case with most Americans.
That’s why they have to spin this as if Ayers’ is some obscure subversive whose objectionable activities were limited to 40 years ago, and Obama wasn’t aware of any of this.
Which is a complete and utter falsehood.
They both know the damning thing is that in Obama’s worldview, collaborating with Bill Ayers to indoctrinate children into revolutionary marxists is a worthwhile goal.
Steve (6a404c) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:11 pmMayBee might just be the most racist of all of you racists.
Talking point du jour.
Assassination porn again from the Left.
They never seemed to mind when it was their own spewing their noxious bile at President Bush for the last 8 years.
But remember folks, we just want to kill, jail, torture and oppress brown people. Assassinating Baracky is to be expected, according to Phil.
JD (f7900a) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:16 pmLet loose the papier mache heads for Phil!!!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:17 pmPhil proves my point about distraction. No mention of the post – just lies and distortions.
The left attempts to disguise something that it knows is absolutely unpalatable to the majority of Americans, and that is socialism.
Obama has, and is currently attempting to distance himself from his history of affiliation with extremist socialists. This is not in dispute.
The fact that you are a socialist renders your argument moot.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:19 pmIf there were nothing that might possibly present a conundrum or raise a doubt, one would not need to distance himself from any affiliations or relationships with anyone.
And because actions always speak louder than words it matters not a whit what Liberal Avenger and/or the MSM tell us. What is Obama’s behavior telling us?
If one is without concern or fear, one would welcome transparency, nee would DEMAND it of oneself and then, provide it.
Dana (658c17) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:26 pmThe various posts by glasnost are the perfect illustration of how vast numbers of our citizenry have lost the concept of Right, and Wrong!
This is the true destruction of the American Dream!
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:37 pmThe left attempts to disguise something that it knows is absolutely unpalatable to the majority of Americans, and that is socialism.
Yeah, then why is it that Republicans never call Ayers a “socialist” and always call him a “domestic terrorist”?
There’s certainly a valid conversation to be had about Obama’s socialist leanings. But that’s not how the Ayers connection is being pitched, because that would bore the swing voters to tears.
The swing voters, and a lot of people, want a socialist right now, to come in and clean up the financial mess. Heck, we’re going to be relying on China for a lot of help getting back on our feet.
In the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh world, this isn’t a socialism v. capitalism argument — it’s an Arab terrorist versus a white mom-and-apple-pie christian. That’s the choice they’re being given.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:41 pmPhil is living a fantasy of hatred. The ultimate projection. It is Obama who has associated with terrorists, Phil tries to project that onto baseless, ludicrous assassination conspiracies featuring Republicans.
The usual dishonesty of Democrats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:41 pmThe fact that you are a socialist renders your argument moot.
And by the way, shut your pie-hole. The Republicans’ pathetic current policy is socialism for rich people and Iraq, capitalism for the ordinary American. That’s what’s reluctantly driven me to Obama — because I had to pick what kind of socialism I wanted, not because I prefer socialism over a truly free society.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:44 pmHey, Patterico:
When Phil writes:
At what point should the Secret Service drop by Phil’s place to discuss Senator Obama’s safety?
Notice the “less educated” business, too.
Yet another comparative sociology major in between jobs, I’m thinking. Of course, just like other trolls, we will shortly hear about the world spanning economic empire that this troll has created. Sigh.
Just another troll. Insults are to be expected. But this assassination business is getting very close to beyond the pale. Just my opinion.
It’s interesting that the off-Broadway play about assassinating GW Bush was artistic freedom, though.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:46 pmphil needs to be reminded (again) that it is those of the Left, all things being equal, that use assassination as a tool of political discourse.
“… a current Obama supporter…”
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:50 pmHow in Hell! can this person support someone so close to Bill Ayers, after what Ayers did to her?
There is just something mis-wired in the brains of such people.
It is Obama who has associated with terrorists, Phil tries to project that onto baseless, ludicrous assassination conspiracies featuring Republicans.
No the dishonesty is is the way Republicans are treating the association. You can’t have a rational discussion about Ayers with republicans because they’ve already decided that he should be shot.
Never mind the fact that Ayers was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for schools, and Obama might have thought that getting money to schools was a good thing — Obama must have hung around him because he liked the fact that Ayers
used to blow stuff up.
As for the assassination conspiracies, we’ll see. You don’t know the future any more that I do. The recklessness of Republicans in encouraging this sort of stuff, consequences be damned (not McCain personally — he’s actually having to calm his crowds down as they call Obama an Arab terrorist) is yet another reason that I’ve given up on this party.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:50 pm“Even if he does win the election at this point, somebody’s going to at least try to kill him, just because the Republicans have basically convinced their less-educated base that America will come to an end if he’s elected president.”
Are you even remotely aware of what a pompous, obnoxious, ass you are?
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:53 pmit is those of the Left, all things being equal, that use assassination as a tool of political discourse.
Hey, I have no interest in defending the Left. They’ve done this mudslinging crap too, plenty of times. They have plenty of nutjobs out there.
But democrats are supposed to be the nutjobs demanding change. You expect them to have some screaming radicals in their midst.
When Republicans become the loud, alarmist party screaming for change and social welfare, the choice becomes pretty ugly — like I said, socialism for the rich versus socialism for the poor.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:54 pmAre you even remotely aware of what a pompous, obnoxious, ass you are?
Yes. That’s one thing I love about discussions with you folks — it keeps me humble because I always have ten different people telling me how wrong and crazy I am all at once. I certainly know I’ll never have anyone just agreeing with me to kiss my ass, or because I’m affirming their core political beliefs with my ranting.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:57 pmI wonder if those on the Left, the Obama supporters could answer a couple of questions for me. I’m not trying to be snarky or disingenuous, but honestly want to know.
How is it that, in today’s world, there is basically no paper trail on Obama? Here’s a guy who authored not one, but two, autobiographies by the time he was, what, 35 ? years old, yet there is not one single other piece of writing in existence…not a thesis, magazine article, op-ed, legal pleading or even a “letter to the editor”. How is that possible?
How is it possible that Obama can deny release of his transcripts fro college and Harvard Law? I don’t even hire someone at entry level without them releasing their transcripts. This guy wants us to hire him to the highest executive position in the world, but we don’t need to look at his transcripts.
Can anyone remember any other candidate that refused to do so?
rls (14b9d3) — 10/11/2008 @ 3:58 pmAre you saying McCain’s trying to “calm down” the loonies is just a political stunt, SPQR?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:00 pmHe’s both. I’ve called him both. I’m a Republican. Therefore, your comment is incorrect.
I’ve been attempting to have that conversation to discover if those who “poo-poo” the connection are bothered by Obama’s socialist leanings.
Are you bothered by Obama’s socialist leanings?
I disagree. This is evident in the vast number of congresspersons who said how many of their constituents were against the bailout.
Your “analysis” is poor.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:01 pmThe swing voters, and a lot of people, want a socialist right now, to come in and clean up the financial mess.
I certainly don’t agree with this. If that was the case, then why go to such lengths to hide the fact that you are a “Socialist”? An openly avowed Socialist, running on a socialistic agenda would be lucky to garner 3% of the vote, maybe 15% if he/she were the candidate of one of the two major parties.
Hiding the agenda is necessary to win the election.
rls (14b9d3) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:05 pmAre you bothered by Obama’s socialist leanings?
Absolutely. I’m bothered by a lot of stuff about the Democratic ticket. When Obama picked Biden, he nearly lost me for good.
But McCain and Palin, and especially the Republican party as a whole, keep pushing me back to Obama as the lesser of two evils.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:06 pmJust a troll or ignorant? You decide.
Phil writes:
But then I remember (after about five seconds of googling instead of writing partisan rants:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2385758&page=1
I’m sure, if I waded through the usual Leftist sites, I could find lots of applause for that award-winning play a couple of years ago.
Not to mention all the fun protestors holding up vile signs on this subject. Which brings me back to the whole issue of Phillian Projection Syndrome (PPS). Feel free to come up with a better (and more amusing) acronym.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:06 pm“Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.”
Right. This is what we call “rhetoric”. I’m still waiting for Bill Ayers’ secret plan. Is it something like:
#1. Become a professor at the University of Chicago.
#2. Educate my students with radical leftism!
#3. REVOLUTION!
It’s possible that B. Ayers is dumb enough to actually have a working mental concept like this, but I doubt it. Either way, it’s transparently absurd.
More to the point, in order to make this “Barack Obama and Bill Ayers’ secret plan”, you need some evidence that they either co-opted the entire Annenberg challenge, run by the conservative Annenberg, or else that they were working as some kind of faction. That’s what Stan Kurtz was hoping to find, and he came up with a double handful of zero.
The left attempts to disguise something that it knows is absolutely unpalatable to the majority of Americans, and that is socialism.
meanwhile, republicans voted to allow a Republican treasury secretary the authority to nationalize the financial system. This statement has never been more hilariously ironic than now.
Would you associate, knowingly, will Bill Ayers? Yes or no. Simple question.
Maybe. Depends on whether he came off, in person, as a wack job. Not good at hating and ostracizing people who act friendly and nonthreatening in person, armed merely with info on their background. And frankly, fail to see the point of the whole exercise. I’d probably be uncomfortable, though.
glasnost (a6ffe0) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:06 pmWhen I read:
My first reaction was how that person handled all the birds nesting at the end of his long wooden nose.
He should just call himself a “Concerned Religious Long Term Republican” from Axelrod’s Astroturf Brigade.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:09 pmI disagree. This is evident in the vast number of congresspersons who said how many of their constituents were against the bailout.
Actually, the opposition to the bailout was definitely the proudest moment of the Republican congress in 2008. For a short time I actually thought McCain was going to kill the bailout, which would have gone a long way toward winning me over.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:09 pmDepends on whether he came off, in person, as a wack job. Not good at hating and ostracizing people who act friendly and nonthreatening in person, armed merely with info on their background.
shorter glas: as long as OJ Simpson came off as friendly and charming and non-threatening to me, hey, who am I to judge?
Darleen (187edc) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:10 pmEric Blair, please read post 55 in response to your post 62
Phil (3b1633) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:11 pmI wonder what some of our more Liberal friends would think about my CongressMember, who voted NAY both times on the bailout bill: Female, Democrat, Hispanic, representing East L.A. and environs?
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:20 pmGreat post Patterico. But why don’t you show the same devotion to truth (as you always do) in Sarah Palin’s Troopergate scandal and get out the truth. For example, this. Are you not concerned that Sarah Palin is not as truthful as she needs to be about this? Like you said “I’m not going to simply roll over and let a skewed version of the truth be palmed off on people.”
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:28 pmGive us the facts about what really happened. Partisanship aside. I am confident you will because I have read some of your critisms of Palin in the past. For which you came under fire by some folks here. By the same token, dig into Palin as you do Obama on Ayers.
“My friend Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger says that I (together with some other conservatives) am going “bonkers – just bonkers” over the William Ayers issue.”
I don’t like traitors, and I don’t like wannabe presidents who willingly associate with traitors.
If people have a problem with that…tough.
Dave Surls (9503f1) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:29 pmOh, no, I meant what I wrote. This was my favorite quote from your post:
Hmmm. I guess you haven’t been following the Obama campaign, watched “The View” recently, read some recent editorials on Sarah Palin, and so on.
Although it is clear to me that Obama does indeed have some ties to radicals.
Please. Stop the trollery.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:32 pmI see glasnost is still making up stuff.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 4:49 pmComment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 4:49 pm
You have to wonder how he writes this stuff down in that dark place he keeps his head?
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 5:52 pmAnother Drew, literacy? You are being generous today.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2008 @ 5:54 pmI love Armed Liberal to death, but if he’s voting for Obama he might as well change his handle to Unarmed Ex-Liberal right away. As to the Ayers associatin, of course it’s a big deal that he worked so closely with a retired terrorist, but equally important to emphasize the crap Ayers continues to adocate to this day. In that respect it’s actually worse than if McCain had launched his career at Rudolph or McVeigh’s house. At least Rudolph and McVeigh “only” advocated unacceptable methods toward an otherwise acceptable end. Ayers practiced the same unacceptable methods toward an equally unacceptable end, which he still advocates to this day.
Xrlq (d815f7) — 10/11/2008 @ 6:06 pmGood point. Ayers wasn’t having his girlfriend plant bombs just to end the Vietnam war, about which war reasonable people can disagree, but to bring down the government itself.
fat tony (f86b83) — 10/11/2008 @ 6:15 pmgirfriend(s)
fat tony (f86b83) — 10/11/2008 @ 6:16 pmComment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:54 pm
Hey, didn’t you know, I’m a Giver.
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 6:17 pmTo some I give love.
To others, just a ration of ….!
A look at the Obama Campaign from that noted Right-Wing Whacko, Michael Barrone, author of the American Almanac of Politics, and other works:
Another Drew (2a4150) — 10/11/2008 @ 6:26 pmhttp://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/10/11/the_coming_obama_thugocracy
Keep following your star, Patrick. I often disagree with your media criticism, but I know you add value.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 10/11/2008 @ 10:00 pmObama’s not a leftist extremist? Here are the principles of the NEW PARTY CHICAGO (the political party of ACORN) which Obama sought for its endorsement and of which he was a member for the 1996 IL State Senate race-without the additional votes he received from NEW PARTY voters, he would have lost that race, and so owed them big-time:
‘To promote a rebirth of freedom, equality and prosperity, we dedicate ourselves to the following:
* Full public financing of elections, universal voter registration, proportional representation, free party competition.
* The establishment, defense, and facilitation of worker, consumer, shareholder, and taxpayer rights to democratic self-organization.
* The creation of a sustainable economy based on the responsible and reverent use of our earth’s resources-taking no more than we need, replacing and reusing all that we can.
* A society in which we all take seriously our responsibilities as parents, workers and citizens.
* The democratization of our banking and financial system-including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions.
* A Bill of Rights for America’s Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity, providing equal education for all students, and achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety.
* Community-control and equitable funding of our schools, within which we seek true excellence in public education along with equal opportunity to achieve it.
* Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal “social wage” to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.
* A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay.
*Rebuilding our cities and metropolitan regions-the cornerstones of a high-wage and ecologically sustainable economy-through community-led programs of comprehensive, democratic, high-wage, and low-waste economic development.
* A community in which residents, neighborhood organizations, businesses, police and local officials work cooperatively as equal partners to provide a safe and secure environment in which to live and work and study.
* A reduction of national military spending to that necessary to the defense of the United States and an end to unilateral military interventions.
* Trade among nations consistent with mutual improvement in living standards, reduced cross-national inequalities, and sustainable development.
* In all aspects of our economy and social life, an absolute bar to discrimination based on race, gender, age, country of origin, and sexual orientation, and absolute security in reproductive rights, fundamental liberties, and privacy.
These are our principles. It will take time and experience to work out the details of sound policies and procedures based upon them, but there is no better time to start than the present. We believe that if we enunciate our principles clearly and firmly, with honesty and no double talk, the New Party will set a new standard for political behavior, and be worthy of the people of these United States.”
eaglewingz08 (98291e) — 10/12/2008 @ 7:41 amMaybe he should ask for pointers from Bush, who has somehow managed to survive despite 8 years of mob hatred.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 10/12/2008 @ 9:02 amBut if McCain’s campaign is going to make the Ayers argument, and the media is going to distort the relevant facts, I’m going to point that out.
Excellent. That’s why we read this blog.
And McCain’s campaign has some fine ammunition about Ayers they’re not using. Lord knows why – death wish? Facts as follows:
Ayers-Obama wasn’t just a casual relationship. It’s amazing that Steve Diamond – a very
capable and articulate man of the left – has made the efforts that he has in
demonstrating that Bill Ayers – who he considers a dangerously authoritarian
leader of an undemocratic radical movement – went to such lengths to install
Obama as Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Which then
distributed $150,000,000 consisting of Annenberg’s original grant (secured
by Ayers) plus about 100 million more of matching funds, for essentially
political organizing – at the expense of the school kids whom Annenberg
intended to benefit. The CAC’s final report was explicit that the children’s education did NOT benefit, and an independent report stated likewise. 150 mil used to be big bucks, before the Democrats enabled Fannie and Freddie to jeopardize far bigger sums.
That diversion of $150,000,000 is the sum of Obama’s executive experience to date (other than his ‘running a campaign’ claim). If we had a functioning media in this country, it would have been brightly illuminated ever since he announced his intentions to run for President. As Patterico knows, we have media which functions as a black hole when public opinion may be bulldozed in their preferred direction. It does so now re Obama’s functions at the CAC. John McCain must take on the grossly neglected burden of showing the public what occurrred on Obama’s only executive watch, if he has any concerns for full disclosure of the facts.
Insufficiently Sensitive (8f6a35) — 10/12/2008 @ 10:11 amIs this the “frothing, raging mob” you were referring to?
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/12/2008 @ 10:21 amPhil,
It’s hard to view Republicans as a “frothing, raging mob” after so many years of liberals venting their Bush Derangement Syndrome, not to mention the early stages of McCain Derangement Syndrome:
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/12/2008 @ 10:32 amDRJ, that was one of those “non-violent” Molotov cocktails.
Obviously, “Jean! Jean!” is code for “I support racial discrimination.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/12/2008 @ 10:56 amPalomino!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/12/2008 @ 11:55 amThe problem with Obama is not just Ayers, its:
Rev Wright
Mrs. Obama
Rev Pfleger
mentor “Frank”
his Dad, the Commie
ACORN
The New Party
All of which together lets us triangulate into exactly who Obama is. And we have to use his associations because Obama has no accomplishments. A man is known by the company he keeps; Just one anti-American would be trivial, but Obama has a whole platoon.
Fred (94b502) — 10/12/2008 @ 2:17 pmFred, don’t forget “asdf,” “POIT” and “Qwert Lkjh.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/12/2008 @ 2:22 pmYes. That’s one thing I love about discussions with you folks — it keeps me humble because I always have ten different people telling me how wrong and crazy I am all at once. I certainly know I’ll never have anyone just agreeing with me to kiss my ass, or because I’m affirming their core political beliefs with my ranting.
Comment by Phil
Whereas, if I post on Mother Jones or Washington Monthly, my comments are quickly deleted. You come here and benefit from the tolerance of conservatives only to use it to post nonsense.
Reasonable points can be debated. But you choose to slime Republican voters with false accusations. Many of those people are angry because they see their life savings gone through the machinations of Democrats who manipulated Fannie-Freddie and whose allies in ACORN have been suing banks to force them to loan money to people who won’t repay the loans. Then they see Chris Dodd and Barney Frank all set to take over even more power over their lives.
The schemers and crooks are going to be in charge of an Obama administration. Many of the people who are voting for him are doing so because they assume he is lying about his policies. If he is not, and that is what many of us are worried about, we could see another Depression.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/12/2008 @ 2:45 pmOh, yeah! I forgot Rezko!
Fred (94b502) — 10/12/2008 @ 3:46 pmayers, Rezko, Chavez, CRA, Dohrn: how much more do we need to know about U-Know-Who before one of us who understands this unique threat will step up and take the Direct Action that is so clearly necessary?
nofanofAyers (dee863) — 10/12/2008 @ 4:26 pmFor those who need it spelled out Google “Mannlicher Carcano”
After all, what good is the 2nd Amendment if we no longer have a “free state” whose security is necessary to defend?
nofanofAyers (12815c) — 10/12/2008 @ 5:04 pm