The New York Times continues to act as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign:
Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama's name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond's key points, or the documents that back it up. (I've made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.
The Times also ignores the fact that I've published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See "Obama's Challenge.") Maybe that's because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.
Yup. Wouldn't fit the narrative.
[Mid afternoon update]
Instapundit has a roundup of links discussing this.
OK. I've read all the links on this topic. All of them from WSJ, NYT, NRO. etc.
There is nothing there! All I see is dire warnings and links that eventually link back to themselves.
Kurtz would like the Annenberg challenge to sound like a Madrassa. Hey Stanley, it just won't work, cause it simply ain't the case, doggone it.
What an absolute non-issue. Hope springs eternal I guess.
Meanwhile post debate tracking polls are clearly demonstrating that Palin frightens regular Americans far more than Bill Ayers.
How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair?
If Kurtz has to ask a question like this, he's almost admitting that he makes a weak case. In order be fair, you don't have to give equal space to all sides, as if objective truth did not exist. Journalism does not need affirmative action for different political ideologies. No, fairness is when your side gets the space that it deserves, which could be very little space if you're out on a limb.
For instance, the Times has another article today entitled "New Jersey Grands Rights to Build a Wind Farm About 20 Miles Offshore". This article does not give equal space to NIMBY opponents of wind power, in fact it doesn't mention them at all. The Times didn't think that that article needed to print their complaints in order to be a fair article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/nyregion/04wind.html
Either Kurtz is right about Obama and Ayers or he isn't. If he's right, then his version should have dominated the Timse article. If he's not right, then his side should mainly be mentioned as part of the context of the story, which is the way that the Times presented it. Either way, whining about unequal treatment is the wrong complaint. A good newspaper should not sit on the fence between right and wrong.
Rand, you can't have your cake and eat it. Yesterday you were complaining that the MSM weren't even talking about this. The Ayers story was the frigging front page and the headline raised the question of Obama and Terrorists.
So you're unhappy the story didn't say what you believe are the facts? This sounds like all the other "facts" you've been hauling out on a regular basis since the late 90s.
Yesterday you were complaining that the MSM weren't even talking about this.
Yeah, really, there's that too. A guy like Kurtz gets his say in the Wall Street Journal, which is a 120-year-old newspaper; and in the National Review, which is a 50-year-old magazine; and on Fox News, which is one of three major cable news channels. On top of all that, he complains that the "mainstream media" doesn't give him enough time.
It's a good example of the general principle that half of whining is hypocrisy. Kurtz and a thousand people like him broadcast a message of media bias through the mainstream media. He doesn't just want the media to present his side. He wants the media to present his side every time, and the other side only sometimes.
Yesterday you were complaining that the MSM weren't even talking about this. The Ayers story was the frigging front page and the headline raised the question of Obama and Terrorists.
So you're unhappy the story didn't say what you believe are the facts?
It's completely illogical to think that these two positions are in any way inconsistent. But then, we have to consider the source.
I can be both unhappy that the Times has been ignoring the story, and that when they finally feel compelled to cover it, they run it on a Saturday, and whitewash it.
So you're unhappy the story didn't say what you believe are the facts?
Kurtz is unhappy, and you're unhappy, but I'm not unhappy. I believe in letting people decide for themselves what to watch or read, instead of looking over their shoulders and complaining that they get bias. After all, it has never been easier to change the channel.
I don't complain that the food at McDonald's is bad either. Their food is really bad, but I just eat elsewhere, problem solved.
Once upon a time, my philosophy of the news was called libertarianism.
Once upon a time, my philosophy of the news was called libertarianism.
This has nothing to do with libertarianism. It's quite stupid to imagine that it does.
I brought this up earlier but anyone else notice how the links Kurtz use eventually bounce back to his own article?
Here see Kurtz...which links to ...no here see...no, no here, here, see what Kurtz says. Quite an entertaining wheel of karmic kurtzies.
Deep suspicions and eventual self-referencing. Quite a joke, really.
OK now, move on to Rezko, it appears he is talking. I'm sure he is going to implicate Obama in something . Let's put Dr. Kurtz on the case. And someone, a regular on this blog no less, is on the case of Michelle and whitey , tracking down that long hoped for tape . Someone else needs to investigate whether Barack is in fact, really this time, no kidding a black man with black friends who has actually once gotten angry once : Yikes!!
An epidemic of the shakes and jitters is breaking out. Time to free Sarah Palin !!
It has everything to do with libertarianism. You keep complaining about other people's sources of news. It's not enough for you to simply discuss what you think is the truth or what you think is a good source of news. No, it has to also be a war on what other people read. Worse, instead of blaming them for their choices, you blame the big bad corporation for selling the wrong product. Your take is as un-libertarian as a temperance picket of a liquor store.
Your take is as un-libertarian as a temperance picket of a liquor store.
There is nothing unlibertarian about picketing a store, you moron. What would be unlibertarian would be to demand a law against what the store sells. Or a law to enjoin the New York Times.
No, it's libertarian to allow the picket, not to be in it. Picketing stores is usually about minding other people's business instead of your own. Picketers rarely mind government harassment of the store even when they don't explicitly call for it.
Case in point: When an AP reporter was held in jail for 18 months without charges filed, then let go with no explanation, the anti-media-bias crowd treated him as the enemy. Now, maybe he is the enemy and maybe he isn't, but keeping someone in prison without charge is about as libertarian as Fidel Castro.
So, let's make sure that we understand the view from the bizarro world of malignant hemorrhoids. If I exercise my right of free speech to criticize the New York Times, I'm being "unlibertarian"?
It's a good thing that we have malignant hemorrhoids around to tell us what is and isn't libertarian.
If I exercise my right of free speech to criticize the New York Times, I'm being "unlibertarian"?
Your right to free speech certainly is libertarian, but what you have to say isn't. You could equally well use your right to free speech to praise Fidel Castro, and that wouldn't be libertarian either.
Jim, I think it is a mistake to argue that some other newsource can pick up the slack. The New York Times is the best newspaper in the country, and it should allow its readers to be well-informed on all the important issues. If a story is important enough to run on the front page of the New York Times, it should be covered such depth that the reader shouldn't have to turn to other news sources for the rest of the story.
Since some of the alleged connections between Obama and Ayers weren't covered, either the NYT erred, or the connections were investigated, and there was nothing to them. Unlike Rand, I think highly of the NYT, so I think the latter is more likely, but I can't rule out an error in judgement on the part of the NYT. Perhaps the public editor will comment eventually. In the meantime, NYT readers can write in to complain.
I think overall, Rand and McCain supporters should be pleased. The battle now is for undecided voters, and in that battle, any story that connects Obama to a former terrorist and runs on the front page is a victory, regardless of the nuances in how the story was written.
You could equally well use your right to free speech to praise Fidel Castro
Apparently, in the mind of the malignant hemorrhoid, praising Fidel Castro is in the same class as criticizing the New York Times.
Wow, has there ever been a comment thread on this blog where everyone responding was a liberal?
Apparently, in the mind of the malignant hemorrhoid, praising Fidel Castro is in the same class as criticizing the New York Times.
But you're not just criticizing the New York Times, you're branding it the enemy. It's the difference between a wine critic who pans a wine label, and an activist who campaigns against liquor stores for selling "mainstream wine". That's where you cross the line from advice to paternalism. Indeed, American fans of Fidel Castro have exactly the same mentality. Exactly when you say that the mainstream media is "in the tank for Obama", they say that the mainstream media is biased against Castro. Just like you, they are mightily unhappy about the news that I read and the food that I eat, and not what they read and they eat.
The New York Times is the best newspaper in the country, and it should allow its readers to be well-informed on all the important issues.
That's true, Bob, but at this point there have been plenty of warnings about how terrible the New York Times is. Not to mention denigration of its motives. I have no quarrel with media criticism if it actually sounds like fair advice, and not like someone picketing for his own agenda.
They're not liberals.
But you're not just criticizing the New York Times, you're branding it the enemy.
More excrement from the malignant hemorrhoid.
I can be both unhappy that the Times has been ignoring the story, and that when they finally feel compelled to cover it, they run it on a Saturday, and whitewash it.
And I can continue to think of you as a hypocrite, so nothing changes.
You've been complaining the press haven't covered this. I just Googled Obama Ayers and the first hits show this in the Washington Post in Feb, Fox News in August, etc...
It's been covered. Rev Wright was covered.
Live with the reality that people didn't care about it as much as you do. Your blood pressure will be better for it.
BTW - the facts are really "light" in this.
Rand, I just noticed that you have a (re)naming inconsistency. When a typical Mondale/Dukakis type Democrat calls himself a liberal, you say he isn't a liberal (because, as I understand it, you're referring to classic liberals, in favor of liberty and perhaps libertarianism). But when such people sing songs in unison and advocate certain diets and look upward and to the left in a certain dramatic way, you call them liberal fascists. Wouldn't you rather call them some other kind of fascist?
By the way, I recently visited Sean Hannity's website, and I was amused by the photo of Sean used to promote the site. Have a look: http://www.hannity.com/
I knew he was a fascist!
I understand that the McCain campaign desperately needs to change the course of the campaign as the Obama campaign is sewing up the battleground states. But this line of attack seems more likely to backfire, than work. It goes against McCain's pledges about running a clean campaign. It's a hard connection to make as Obama was a child during the Vietnam era when Ayers and the Weathermen were active. And it just invites attacks from the Obama campaign (or their surrogates) about Palin speaking for and endorsing the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) as recently as March of this year:
http://revver.com/video/1149249/sarah-palin-alaska-first-separatist-address/
Palin attended the AIP's 2000 convention and spoke to the 2006 and 2008 conventions -- the same AIP that has threatened violence in the past and has links to overseas separatist and terrorist groups today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column
I have no love lost for Obama, but I'd take a President endorsed by a former Vietnam-era terrorist over a Vice-President who attends, speaks at, and endorses modern terrorist organizations today.
And I can continue to think of you as a hypocrite, so nothing changes.
And I can and will continue to be indifferent (as will most of my readers will) to what irrational people think.
It's a hard connection to make as Obama was a child during the Vietnam era when Ayers and the Weathermen were active.
WTF difference does it make how old Obama was when an unrepentant terrorist with whom he has no problems closely associating, was committing his acts of terrorism?
If Charles Manson had gotten off on a technicality, and wished that he'd murdered more people as recently as seven years ago, you'd have no problem with me being best buds with him?
The operative line on Ayers seems to be unrepentant terrorist. That's good enough to tar everyone he touches forty years after the fact. Well maybe Kurtz should take it up with the University of Chicago where he is a Distinguished Professor.
Is there any proof that Obama supports the political views of Bill Ayers?
There is none. Let's repeat, even with all the frantic NRO digging: None.
What a bunch of absolute BS.
Now, moving on in the same vein, is there any proof that Sarah Palin supports the Alaska Independence Party which actively advocates separatism?
Yes. Not only has she addressed the AIP conventions but her husband was for many years an active member of that party. A party that hates the American flag. A party that wants to secede from the Union.
I think Todd Palin needs some exposure. I bet he's going to get it. I'm waiting for Rand's piece on the traitorous Palins. They need to be held to at least half the standard applied to non-white Americans.
The MSM needs to go there. Really. It should be fun.
I understand that the McCain campaign desperately needs to change the course of the campaign as the Obama campaign is sewing up the battleground states. But this line of attack seems more likely to backfire, than work.
No, it won't backfire, they'll get some mileage out of it. Just not nearly enough mileage unless there is some big October surprise. The fundamental problem is that Obama has a coherent message and McCain doesn't. And that's partly because circumstances don't really leave any coherent message for McCain to offer: The economy is crazy and Bush's record looks really bad. McCain has tried to solve his problem with a string of Hail Mary passes and that too has taken a toll.
WTF difference does it make how old Obama was when an unrepentant terrorist with whom he has no problems closely associating with was committing his acts of terrorism?
The bottom line is that the argument is guilt by association. So what if Obama shook hands with Ayers. Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein, in fact he struck a deal with Hussein in a year that Hussein used poison gas. But that does not mean that Rumsfeld is guilty of Hussein's crimes.
http://www.karljones.com/images/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg
Jim, Daveon, Mike keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Kurtz made his case in several articles that make it clear Ayers and the Uno had a closer relationship than advertised. The NYT was willing to published a rumor based on an anonymous source about McCain having an affair but can't bring themselves to look closely at Ayers and Obama or Rezko and Obama. Dayey's the mayor of Chicago and a Dem. He's going to say something bad about Obama or anyone connected to him? I think not. He's going to try and get the Uno elected. I'm sure there will be plenty of voter fraud in Chicago if anyone wants to look. Ayers should be behind bars for the rest of his life. He's never been repentant and he is teaching Socialism and reactionary activism as hard as he can. The NYT says it's no big deal. The NYT is a bunch of NY leftists writing for NY leftists. This is the paper of Walter Duranty. They are so in the tank, they can't see the surface. 20 years with the good Rev. 10 years with Ayers. 10 years with Rezko and the Times thinks none of it matters. If you think he won't ruin the economy with regulation, massive taxes and far-left appointees, you're nucking futs.
The irony in this is the harder the NYT pulls for the Uno, the faster they hasten their own demise. Their business model isn't working so well, to say the least. If the Uno is in charge, the business climate will just get worse and so will their balance sheet. I can't wait.
Oh and Mike no, the links don't go back to Kurt's article. One goes to a different Kurtz piece, one.
Jim, Daveon, Mike keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
I won't promise that Obama will win no matter what. The more important point has always been that Obama is the better candidate and not whether or not he's ahead. But at this point I'm wondering where your certitude comes from that Obama is going to lose. Will it be a steady slide as the voters "realize" that Obama is bad? Will it be a slashing attack by Sarah Barracuda? Will McCain clobber Obama in the two remaining debates? Or is there a massive Bradley effect that makes the poll numbers a grand illusion?
Because with what has happened to the credit markets, it looks like about half of the GOP has fled the church and no longer stands for anything. And the other half is preaching to the choir. (Of course in safe districts they can get re-elected that way.) Again, I'm not saying that McCain can't win. The question is, how does he get from here to there in 30 days.
Kurtz must have struck close to home because the Obamabots Mike and Jim are in full spin mode.
Ayers the Annenberg fiasco education mentor, Rezko the home and campaign financier and 20 years with the hate America nutty pastor are extremely relevant because with Obama's thin resume and habit of voting 'present' to avoid having a record, we have whom he chooses to associate with as our data. Not a good track record.
"The NYT was willing to published a rumor based on an anonymous source about McCain having an affair but can't bring themselves to look closely at Ayers and Obama"
I can't speak for the New York Times, but plenty of other MSM members have been looking into the Ayers-Obama connection since Hillary Clinton's campaign brought it up earlier this year. For example, here's one of many WaPo entries on the topic:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
All they've found is that Obama served on the eight-member board of a non-profit, grant organization for three years (1999-2002) when Ayers was also on the board and a $200 contribution from Ayers to one of Obama's Illinois campaigns.
If this line of attack was a dead-end for the Clinton political machine, I don't know what makse Palin or the McCain campaign think it be useful now.
"WTF difference"
Please, you don't need to swear at me. I didn't resort to coarse language in my post.
"does it make how old Obama was when an unrepentant terrorist with whom he has no problems closely associating, was committing his acts of terrorism?"
It makes a huge difference. The Weathermen were last active in the early 1970s -- they're 30+ year-old history. Contrast that with the AIP, a separatist group with links to terrorist organization that is active TODAY.
The national security threat posed by Obama serving on the board of a non-profit with one, aging, has-been terrorist is far outweighed by Palin repeatedly attending, speaking before, and endorsing over several years a separatist GROUP whose leaders threaten violence TODAY.
I'm certainly no fan of Obama's policies, but I'll take the former over the latter, any day. The McCain campaign is digging an even deeper hole by going down this path. Enough with the crazy Hail Mary plays.
All the modern GOP has is hysterics, innuendo, and race baiting, exemplified by McCains recent stunts and Palin's gibberish today.
So the intense focus on someone who is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago and what he did 40 years ago and on a deep well of suppositional inference is only natural.
I'm not sure the Party that has led us into what may likely be the next depression can squeak by on their usual modus operandi. I guess we will find out.
Oh, the leftist moron denialism in this thread is delicious!
For those convinced Obama shall crash and burn over th next 30 days, I encourage you to put some money behind those sentiments.
Intrade offers a great opportunity for anyone persuaded Barack Obama won't win in November.
Race baiting? Like this? "I know that I don’t look like the other Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city."
BDS and PDS are pretty hysterical.
There is no statute of limitations on murder for a reason. Ayers is the same murderous radical now as he was then.
You should look at history rather than the media. The GOP is the party of Lincoln. Ike sent in the Guard to integrate schools in spite of a DEMOCRAT governor. Johnson's Civil Rights Act passed only because Republicans offset southern DEMOCRATS.
Rand,
I just saw an article called "McCain's Kremlin Ties" which looks like it could provide a counterpoint to complaints about the people Obama associates with. In particular, look where the article claims that McCain spent his 70th birthday:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081020/ames_berman (look at the fifth paragraph.)
I'm not trying to be inflamatory or appear to be spamming, etc. I'm commenting on this because I thought you'd find it interesting - if for no other reason, as something to push back against should the story go mainstream. I kind of think it won't go mainstream, and that raises the question of why not, given who is the tank for who, and so forth.
The GOP is the party of Lincoln.
No, Bill, the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Now it's the party of Reagan, who opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
There is no statute of limitations on murder for a reason.
I agree that Ayers was a terrorist and the main point is that Ayers' criminal past does not make Obama guilty of anything. But your hyperbole (like Rand's comparison to Charles Manson) is wrong, because Ayers never committed murder.
It does show at best, remarkably poor judgement on the part of Obama (much as his 20 year association with his pastor did). At worst, it indicates that Obama has hidden some of his beliefs from the public. There's certainly a good chance here of an October surprise, I'd say.
I also wonder how many of the posters in this thread will vanish after election day?
Ayers never committed murder.
Only because he was incompetent. He certainly attempted it. And he still thinks that he didn't "do enough" (or at least he thought that as recently as 2001).
You may think it's no big deal to hang with unrepentant Maoist domestic terrorists who hate the country, and it won't affect your vote, but many others, who have previously been unaware of the association, will (appropriately) be very troubled by it.
I also wonder how many of the posters in this thread will vanish after election day?
I think I know what you are saying, but my first thought was: After Obama wins, He will give His followers the power of invisibility.
Rand, I think it would help your cause if you stated the facts carefully. (Well, since I don't want to sound like a "concern troll", let me say it differently: I got curious about whether Ayers intended murder, since I had read that he only wanted to blow up inanimate propery and scare people, which in my opinion is evil and dangerous.) After reading the links below, I don't think he "certainly" attempted murder, although he certainly did a lot of contemptible things. Using only conservative sources, and taking the stance that Ayers is a contemptible self-important braggart (as well as a criminal who got off on a technicality), I can't convince myself he intended murder, so much as he intended to blow up proptery and talk big. He also had murderous colleagues, and that's very bad too. What is certainly true is so bad that there is no need to make it sound any worse. I started here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk2ZTRmZDIwNWEzOWE2MDNhMTQ0ZWYwYmRiNWZmNDM=
and
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/08/ayers-murderous-intent.html
Bob, I have no idea how you can read Andy McCarthy's post and think that Bill Ayers didn't want to kill people with his bombs.
I started with the assumption that Ayers is a liar (of the braggart variety). If we disregard whatever he says, and just look at his actions, we're left with the illegal possession of dangerous weapons and the reckless and dangerous destruction of private and government property. As we've discussed before, I look with suspicion on people who have gun and grenade collections, but you and your readers have suggested that (legal) weapon collection isn't all that bad, and might even be necessary for pushing back against a repressive government. Hmmmmmmm.
I started with the assumption that Ayers is a liar (of the braggart variety).
And why would you do that, other than to irrationally convince yourself that he's not as bad as you fear he is? What reason do you have to believe, despite all the evidence, that he had no murderous intent, other than wishful thinking?
I see sonny Jim won't let the facts get in the way of his talking points. A higher percentage of Dems opposed them than Republicans; Civil Rights Act 25% vs 6%. In 2006, the opposition was for elimination of federal oversight and bilingual ballots, hardly radical positions.
Bob and sonny Jim take note. Words mean things as in the law.
Ayers was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Everyone knows this, he admits it. His girlfriend blew herself up. He knew they were making bombs, that makes him guilty of murder as well. Alleged intent has NOTHING to do with it.
Rand, if we assume politicians are liars, surely it is ok to assume terrorists are liars too! You don't have to question my motives -- I think Obama (and Mayor Daley, and Northwestern, University of Illinois, and University of Chicago, etc) all made a mistake by ever associating with him. I don't think Obama has any defense here.
(But this isn't a good reason to vote for McCain, given McCain is guilty of the same kind of mistakes -- see the link I provided above for starters, and on Meet The Press just now, Paul Begala just linked McCain to a bunch of right wing anti-semitic hate-mongers. Republican Mike Murphy quickly said "forget all that, this election will be decided on pocketbook issues", and I think he's right, unless there is a terrorist attack, and it is decided on national security issues.)
He certainly attempted it.
Since you have been eager before to write crimes into people's rap sheets that they were never charged with, it's no surprise that you would try that with someone like Ayers who actually did face criminal charges. Ayers was never charged with attempted murder.
But, even better than that, by scratching up a debate over what Ayers did or didn't do, you can try to write Ayers onto the Democratic ballot instead of Obama. The ticket is Obama-Biden, not Ayers-Wright.
But it won't work. Unlike Ayers, Michael Yon actually did kill a man and was charged with murder, and he's clearly unrepentant. He has a lot of associations all over your side of the blogosphere, but that does not mean that this blogger or that blogger is unsuited to be president just because he associates with Michael Yon.
In this thread you are attempting a perfect example of guilt by association. It's a fun way to preach to the choir, but it won't accomplish anything else.
An amazing collection of useful idiots. Rand, how do you do it? Just in case any of you missed it... The NYT piece was a defensive ploy because the Ayers information was getting out. They couldn't remain silent, but they could be the voice of Obama.
Ken, with your interest in Russia, you would really enjoy the "Kremlin links" story, linked above. No snark - you really would enjoy it.
Jim, you really are reaching. Yon's charges were dismissed because he was defending himself. Your moral equivalency is disgusting. I think it speaks volumes about who you are as a person and what lines you are willing to cross if you are going to defend Bill Ayers by besmirching a veteran. I wouldn’t p*ss on you if you were on fire.
Rand, if we assume politicians are liars, surely it is ok to assume terrorists are liars too!
We (or at least I) don't assume politicians are liars. Your position makes no sense. If you are assuming that Ayers is lying because he's a terrorist, then does that mean that you disbelieve everything he says (or believe the opposite)? For example, when he says he wishes he'd done more, do you think he's lying about that as well? When he says that Barack would be a great president, should we assume that he really believes that he'd be lousy? If he told you it was sunny outside, would you grab your umbrella?
If not, then how do you pick and choose which things he's lying about and which he's being truthful about? It appears to me that you choose to disbelieve him on those issues where you find it politically inconvenient to believe him.
What?
No, no, I'm disregarding everything he says. Everything. I certainly don't automatically believe the opposite of what he says! As you point out, that way leads to craziness. I don't choose to believe him or disbelieve him - I'm just ignoring what comes out of his mouth.
Initially , I believed him when he said he didn't want to kill anyone. But then I read your links. Hmmm, he sure sounded like a murderer. Then I read the New York Times article, paying particular attention to Rabbi Wolf's comment about how Ayer's was offended when the Rabbi called him toothless. I thought that said something about Ayer's ego. Then I read the Andy McCarthy I cited above, which included a sentence which started "Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions...", and that's when I threw up my hands and said "feh, I'm not going to believe anything Ayers says - the guy is a liar, and an egotist, and, of course, a terrorist."
And I'm hardly taking a politically helpful position - as I said, I think Obama made a mistake, and I think he has no defense.
you'd have no problem with me being best buds with him?
If he'd never murdered again, got a job in a university and you both happened to serve on a local committee I wouldn't really care that you'd met him.
I'd probably want to know what he was like now out of morbid curiosity.
The charge that won't stick is that this data suggests that Obama and Ayers are somehow "pals" and there is no evidence, at least currently presented, for that.
he NYT piece was a defensive ploy because the Ayers information was getting out.
Nonsense. Just Google for it! The Ayers stuff has been public domain on a range of news sites since the start of the year. The problem is there isn't anything in it which could stick to Obama.
Just like the Wright stuff wasn't hard enough to stick.
I'm just wondering when the Keating 5 ads are going to run?
Senator taking money from a person making money out of a failing Savings and Loan? That sound familiar?
He repented though, so that's ok is it?
Should he and John Glenn been allowed to stay in government?
The charge that won't stick is that this data suggests that Obama and Ayers are somehow "pals" and there is no evidence, at least currently presented, for that.
There is abundant evidence of it, but the Times chooses to ignore and minimize it.
FYI: here's the Paul Begala counter-charge on Meet The Press:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/A_shot_across_the_bows.html
Ben Smith explains why such charges work better against Obama.
Yon's charges were dismissed because he was defending himself.
Actually, Yon's charges were dismissed because a grand jury thought he might have been defending himself. The police saw it differently. In his own autobiography, it doesn't particularly read like self-defense. Yon isn't necessarily any more innocent of murder than OJ Simpson is. And so what that Yon is a veteran. Timothy McVeigh was also a veteran.
And besides Yon there is also Walt Anderson, who was not only charged with tax fraud but also pleaded guilty. His fraud was unpatriotic too, because he tried to evade taxes by claiming that he wasn't an American. But that does not mean that Anderson's criminal guilt and disloyalty rub off on everyone who associates with him.
If the Far Right wants to play the Guilt by Association game
it will prove to be very uncomfortable when every
Republican who has associated with Gordon Liddy starts
getting smeared.
Gordon Liddy planned the assassination of the Columnist Jack Anderson,
planned to burn the Brookings Institution and lead the break in
at the Watergate. Gordon Liddy also called for the murder of
Federal Agents.
Certainly, one should be very concerned about Noted Republicans
associations with such an unrepentant terrorist.
McCain also associates with Kissinger who is wanted on murder
charges in Europe.
Jack Lee, yes, let's play the guilt by association game. What's Gordon Liddy got to do with this election? Are you saying that McCain worked for several years for this guy (the analogy to Bill Ayers)? How about Kissinger who actually does have associations with a presidential candidate? Has he been convicted of any crimes?
I had briefly looked at that link when I first saw you post it Bob, but I looked at it again. It has some good information that I intend to look into a bit deeper when I get the time. So thanks.
It always amazes me how some can find equivalence in things that are so little alike. Alan Colms does it so often on H&C that I just find it funny.
Tricky thinking is not critical thinking. To think critically you have to know how much weight to give to things. I see a real lack of ability to do that in some of the reasoning that gets out there.
The fact that is undeniable (not unarguable, just undeniable) is that Obama is hiding aspects of his past and the media is helping him.
McCain is real, a real idiot, but never-the-less real. How republicans could end up with McCain is something that absolutely has to be fixed in the future.
But what ever accidental disaster awaits us in a McCain administration, is nothing, not even close, to the disaster that Obama has planned for us.
Now I've got one idiot kid in my house that planned to vote for Obama. I turned him around. He doesn't understand the issues, but he got the message that Obama would be the seventies all over again, but worse. He wasn't born then, so I had to explain what it was like. Obama is promising to do what already didn't work. We don't need to go through it again.
But there are too many young people that don't know any better. On top of that you've got a party in conclusion with the media to win at any cost. So the people that have the most responsibility to get the message out are keeping it from us. How can we survive that?
Children are being indoctrinated by political parties. It's obscene.
I think it's a miracle that McCain chose Palin and hope she can drag his stupid butt over the line. I'm also encouraged that she doesn't seem to have the defeatist attitude of McCain.
It's funny, but it seems McCain thinks of himself as a Reaganite (he isn't) so he chose Palin (who is.)
God help us.
collusion... oops
daveon, your nonsense is making my point. Nobody said the NYT is the first time the story got out. What I said is that it's defensive cover.
It's like the trick of releasing information after the news cycle of Friday and claiming it's old news on Monday.
It's a ploy to protect their guy. The proof is in the article itself by what it says and what it doesn't say.
SS, thanks for admitting what you're candidate will do to this country (you assume he wins.) So how many times do you intend to vote with ACORN? Perhaps you can share a jail cell with your messiah.
What I said is that it's defensive cover.
Fine, have it that way. The facts are the story has been Public Domain for 9 months and not a shred of evidence that can really stand scrutiny has appeared. Zip. Nada.
Obama has never endorsed what Ayers did. Ayers and Obama don't appear to have met much. End of story. It's a bust.
Wright is a better bet, although best not to keep Palin shouting that Obama should have walked out of a sermon he wasn't actually at. That stuff is getting tired from her too.
How about the stuff that her favourite African preacher said on tape about the greedy Israelites just before he protected her against witches eh? Or didn't that happen?
Did she also address a Secessionist movement? Tell me that ain't so?
Fortunately, for all of us, these stories and others are unlikely to make much of a splash because of the very very real news this cycle that McCain is failing to address.
If he doesn't start sounding and acting like a leading on the economy, he's toast. Finished. Done. Stick a fork in the campaign time. We'll see how he does tomorrow night.
So Yon's charges were dismissed because a grand jury said self-defense. Ayers admits to trying to violently overthrow the elected government of our country. As I said, if you can't see the difference, you have no business even voting. How does someone get to the point you are at? Who influenced you to think like this? Do you admire Che too? Where do you draw the line?
Obama and Ayers were business partners for years. Ayers allowed Obama to use his home to kick off his state Senate run. How can you honestly make a statement like this:
Obama has never endorsed what Ayers did. Ayers and Obama don't appear to have met much. End of story. It's a bust.
Has Obama ever denounced Ayers?
Obama and Ayers were business partners for years. Ayers allowed Obama to use his home to kick off his state Senate run.
They were not business partners - they served on the board of a non-profit.
As I read the data available, a third party organised a kick off launch for Obama and that happened to be in Ayers house.
But keep spinning, do, please.
As I read the data available, a third party organised a kick off launch for Obama and that happened to be in Ayers house.
The data available, as reported by that notorious right-wing news service, CNN, is that the campaign kickoff was planned by Obama, Ayers and Dohrn. They essentially call Obama a liar.