…really meet Bill Ayers? I think that the speculation that it was Columbia is entirely reasonable, and that he doesn’t want us to know that, not just because of the Weathermen connection, but because it would put the lie to the claim of “just a guy in my neighborhood.” And that may be one of the reasons (and perhaps a big one) why he won’t let us see his transcripts.
And I remain in awe at the continued incuriosity of the media about this. But if the honeymoon is really over, maybe we’ll start to hear more about it. I won’t hold my breath, though.
The key concept being “if the honeymoon is really over”; such revelations would be significant not in themselves, but as a game-theoretic indicator that leakers no longer fear vengeance from the Administration. The associated falsifiable prediction would be a rash of disclosures starting about this time in 2012 re: college transcripts, (false) claims of foreign birth to qualify for student aid, etc. Fallback prediction would be that in the event of re-election, we’ll have to wait until after the 2014 midterms to get the juicy stuff.
When did Obama claim that Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood”?
During the campaign (spring of ’08), when Hillary accused him of hanging out with radicals like Ayers. Weren’t you paying attention?
Jim, Obama made that claim during his campaign (the part of his campaign prior to the election). The following link from Hot Air includes a video segment from Anderson Cooper that provides the specific quote:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/07/cnn-obamas-lying-about-william-ayers/
Here yo go, Jim. You have to scroll about half-way down:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=2
The other probability of them meeting is in the fact that these folks run in the same pack, through dozens of radical organizations, over and over, well known from town to town. All that changes is who’s on which board, who is the chair, who is the treasurer. Hell, look at the Messiahs Cabinet and his advisers. It’s straight out of Who’s Who in Radical America, from 1965 to 2005!!
If Obama and Ayers were in the same town, for more than a week, they met! The term fellow travelers isn’t just a saying, it’s their life style and philosophy.
And how could Barry know the crazy parents, but not their crazier son?
During the campaign (spring of ‘08), when Hillary accused him of hanging out with radicals like Ayers. Weren’t you paying attention?
In one of the debates (linked to by Bilwick1, above) he said “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” All of that is true, right?
If he ever did say that Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood” I’d be interested in the cite. Thanks.
Jim, your sophistry notwithstanding, if he didn’t use the word “just,” it is certainly implied. And we don’t know that it’s true that “there was no exchange of ideas on a regular basis.” Even it if is, the statement is only “true” as far as it goes. What’s unsaid is what the rest of the relationship is (for instance, he doesn’t mention the Annenberg Challenge). It is an obvious attempt to downplay the relationship. Bluntly, I think he was lying. One of the reasons I’d like to see the transcripts…
Mrs. Clinton also mentions that “Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.”
I haven’t looked into that history – the Annenberg history was damning enough. Annenberg was for all practical purposes a government contractor; it funded educational programs in select Chicago schools, some developed by outside organizations, some by Annenberg itself. The Annenberg programs were drafted by Bill Ayers.
Imagine this scenario. A guy founds an organization that bombs abortion clinics. He’s tried, gets off on a technicality, goes to college, gets a teaching degree. Do you think that any righty college such as Liberty University or Hillsboro would give him a job? Do you think lefties would be screaming at volumes exceeding those of Angus Young’s Gibson SG if some outfit hired him to compose educational programs? Do you think that any politician who worked with him at that outfit would get past a presidential primary?
“Just” is the word that does all the work in the phrase you put in quotes, and he didn’t say it. It was John McCain who misquoted Obama that way, and now you’re repeating the falsehood. And you’re accusing Obama of lying?
Imagine this scenario. A guy founds an organization that bombs abortion clinics. He’s tried, gets off on a technicality, goes to college, gets a teaching degree. Do you think that any righty college such as Liberty University or Hillsboro would give him a job?
You don’t have to imagine such a thing — G. Gordon Liddy is praised by many on the right (McCain calls him “old friend,” and and has said he’s “proud” of Liddy), despite having planned acts of violent political terrorism.
You can remove the word “just” from the quote, and it changes nothing significant, except to you (who are irrelevant). Obama was lying by omission about his relationship with Ayers.
No, it doesn’t. As an adverb, you can omit it and the truth value of the statement is unchanged.
For example: the statement, “Jim just made that up,” has exactly the same truth value as, “Jim made that up.” Whereas the statement, “Jim does not understand standard English” has the opposite truth value as, “Jim does understand standard English.”
You can remove the word “just” from the quote, and it changes nothing significant
If that was the case, you wouldn’t have added it.
As an adverb, you can omit it and the truth value of the statement is unchanged.
So the truth values of these two statements are identical?
Neil Armstrong is a retired professor.
Neil Armstrong is just a retired professor.
That statement is true. That statement is just true.
Uh, could we compare apples to apples, Jim? Ayers was employed to build students’ minds, as a college professor and as a government contractor writing curricula. Liddy did not get those kinds of gigs.
The “terrorism” allegation stems from a quote from his book Will, in which he remarks to E. Howard Hunt that “we need to get rid of this [Jack] Anderson guy.” Is there only one possible context for the remark? Without Liddy’s (or Hunt’s) side of the story, or any other info about the conservation, the jury is out.
Oh, and don’t ignore my original query, Jim. I asked how the Left would react to a specific set of circumstances, and you changed the subject.
Hey Jim! What’s the definition of “is”? I can’t believe an Obamaphile like you isn’t able to quote every stump speech and news conference by heart. Don’t you think if you run on transparency, you should be transparent? That’s rhetorical. I know your answer.