« Josh Marshall pushes McCain anger narrative | Main | McCain: Obama made me go negative! »

October 05, 2008

Comments

The RNC is also petitioning the FEC to audit contributions to Obama's campaign to look for money from foreign nationals, as well as excessive individual contributions.

Either she didn't actually read the article herself, confirming once and for all that she is not very bright. Or she DID read it, and decided to launch the attack anyway, confirming that she doesn't think WE are very bright.
McCain's campaign is going down a very risky path now, considering his past of "palling around with" Keating, and her past with the Alaska Independence Party.

The McCain/Palin ticket is more interested in getting elected than in fixing real problems. They go into character assassinations when the real discussion should be about fixing the economy. Country first? Gimme a break.

Brendan asks how voters will react to "a vicious campaign claiming that a black presidential candidate is 'not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America.'"

IMHO they will react less negatively than their if the candidate were white. If Sarah Palin had launched her political career at Timothy McVeigh's house and worked for political aims with McVeigh's organization, I don't think she would be defended as Obama has been.

Many in the media give Obama a pass because of his race. They help Obama by downplaying just how radical Ayres is and by downplaying the closeness of the relationship.

The AP went farther. They said that mentioning the relationship was racist, even though Ayres is white. Sadly, Brendan seems to agree with them. For some people, any criticism of black man is racist.

(Unless he's conservative, like Clarence Thomas, in which case no criticism can be too extreme.)

David, I'll grant that claiming racism might be overdone in this campaign, and in this era. But, like the old adage about paranoia, just because racism is not always present doesn't mean it's not EVER present. I get your point, and I also think that playing the racism card too often weakens the argument when it actually is at work.
However, it's entirely possible (even probable, after this much scrutiny) that the relationship between Obama and Ayers is exactly as described in the NYT, and nothing more...as much as you apparently wish it were otherwise.

Re: the update. She backed herself into a corner on this one. But, then she found the out: place the decision at McCain's feet on whether or not to keep raising the Reverend Wright issue. She washes her hands of it, so McCain can choose to bring it up (and risk the pushback regarding her own pastor in Alaska), or he can leave it alone, and she can't be blamed by the base for not pushing it harder.
To me, the only difference between what Wright said ("God damn America") and what HER pastor said ("Kerry voters are going to hell") is in the numbers. Her pastor would only damn about half of America, so I guess he is more righteous.

David - I think many of your statements are questionable.

If Sarah Palin had launched her political career at Timothy McVeigh's house and worked for political aims with McVeigh's organization, I don't think she would be defended as Obama has been.

Timothy McVeigh committed a horrible crime, was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and executed.

Before we consider how a theoretical relationship between McVeigh and Gov Palin would be judged - at what point in time would Gov Palin have been associating with him, launching a political career from his house? What were these "political aims" that Gov Palin worked on with McVeigh and with what organization?

Your (fabricated) set of events isn't very useful as I don't see that it matches the actual set of events. It seems more a way to distort the real events.

Using imagined events and speculating on how people would respond doesn't demonstrate that someone else is actually getting unjustly favorable treatment in the real world.

Many in the media give Obama a pass because of his race.

Please provide some evidence.

They help Obama by downplaying just how radical Ayres is and by downplaying the closeness of the relationship.

Are there facts that are being hidden?

The AP went farther. They said that mentioning the relationship was racist, even though Ayres is white. Sadly, Brendan seems to agree with them.

I don't see that Brendan ever said that "mentioning the relationship was racist". I read that he says that the relationship was being distorted or misrepresented.

Brendan-

You wrote:

"Sarah Palin accused Obama Saturday of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country" (Ayres) despite the lack of evidence connecting Obama and Ayres in any significant way.

What's especially striking about the know-nothing nature of these attacks is the fact that both Palin and a GOP flack cited a New York Times article debunking the Obama-Ayres hype as if it proved their case."

So just because the NYT article doesn't provide "evidence connecting Obama and Ayres in any significant way", such evidence doesn't exist?

I suggest you look at some alternative sources before dismissing evidence as non-existent or “know-nothing”. (Is it possible the NYT is just reinforcing your own biases - something you've found almost maddening in other pundits?)

You don't have to agree with all or even most of Stanley Kurtz' conclusions to see that there appears to be much more to the Obama / Ayers relationship than that he is only, as Senator Obama put it, "just a guy in my neighborhood".

Here's some links dealing particularly with Ayers and Obama apparently working closely on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-are-we-now-update-on-ayersobama.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0MjY3NzMyODgxZGM2ZjUwNTE1MmEzOGRiZmFkNWE=

It is a disgrace only journalists on the right have apparently bothered to investigate this, while everyone else just accepts Obama’s trite explanation about his neighborhood, and he was only 8 when Ayers did bad things. Talk about a “know-nothing” attitude.

Also, you complain that Palin uses the NYT to bring up this story, and draws conclusions different from the article. This in itself is scandalous or at least “know-nothing”? I find it hard to believe you've never drawn a different conclusion from the facts of an article than that drawn by the writer.

(BTW, what is an editorial comment such "the two men do not appear to have been close" doing in the NYT news story anyway? Can't the reporter lay out the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions?)

It is disappointing to see a bright guy such as yourself stumble over or outright ignore things like this, when you’ve admirably called both ideological sides to account in your past writing.

Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, an organzation that used terrorist bombings and murder to further their ends. Ayers was convicted of crimes. He was never charged as being involved in the murders, although I have read that there was some evidence of his involvement.

Ayers never repudiated what he and this group did. As recently as 2001, Chicago Magazine reported ...violence, death, and white-hot rhetoric—is his past and Ayers insists he has no regrets.

Howard Craft, from you posts you are obviously an intelligent person who pays attention to the news. Yet, you seem not to have known all the bad things about Ayers. I would attribute your lack of full knowledge to a media that has soft-pedaled its criticism of Ayers.

MartyB, just to clarify, are you arguing that anyone involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the Annenberg Institute or the University of Illinois/Chicago are guilty of "palling around with terrorists"?

I assume you're not actually disputing the fact that Barack Obama was 8 years old in 1969.

Jinchi, 1969 is the year the Weather Underground was founded, but so what? Are you claiming that Obama was unaware of their murder and mayhem because he was 8 years old when they were founded? I think not.

Barack Obama was a 24-year-old community organizer in Chicago at the time of the Weathermen’s last attacks, He was 29 when many of the last remnants of the Underground in the offshoot May 19th Communist Organization were sentenced to prison in 1990. And, he was 35 when Chicago Magazine recounted their deeds, including Ayers's affirmation of the use of terrorism.

They help Obama by downplaying just how radical Ayres is and by downplaying the closeness of the relationship.

I'm still waiting to see what's being downplayed. What's not being said?

Jinchi, 1969 is the year the Weather Underground was founded, but so what? Are you claiming that Obama was unaware of their murder and mayhem because he was 8 years old when they were founded?

Who is claiming Obama was ignorant?

In terms of your timeline, Ayers went into hiding when Obama was eight years old (but almost 9) and turned himself in to the FBI ten years later, in 1980.

As with your "Timothy McVeigh" story - at what point in time would Obama have been associating with him, launching a political career from his house? What were these "political aims" that Obama worked on with Ayers and with what organization?

Aren't those the facts that matter?

As to what Ayers actually said or believes about his own past, I don't see that the record on that is clear at all. He has condemned violence against innocent people. You don't convince me he is a radical today because of what you believe he thinks about the past.

But I'm not here to defend Ayers past. I'm not here to tell you that Ayers isn't responsible for what other people' actions or what other people did (in the 1980's) long after he disassociated himself.

I just want to know what it has to do with Obama.

Uh, yeah, Brendan, you predicted it. Right after everybody else. Even though McC's been caught doing it all along...

Howard Craft, you ask, "Who is claiming Obama was ignorant?" The answer is: The Obama Campaign

Barack Obama's top political adviser said today Obama "didn't know the history" of unrepentant bomber William Ayers' activities in the violent Weather Underground movement when the candidate attended a political event at Ayers' home in 1995.

This excuse sounds as likely as Obama's claim that he was unfamiliar with the sermons at a church he and his family had been attending for 20 years.

Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were famous radical terrorists during the years when they were fugitives fleeing various felony charges. It made national news when they turned themselves in and were tried. It was 2000 when he told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough" Granted this interview took place after Obama used Ayers' home to kick off his political career, but it shows that Ayers still held his radical views.

If one believes the Obama campaign, then it's even worse, in a way. It would demonstrate that Obama has terrible people judgment. He would have to be remarkably naive not to figure out what kind of people Ayers and Dohrn were. In that case, he's unqualified to make vital appointments for which a President is responsible.

It is simply not believable that in 1995 Obama didn't know that Ayres and Dohrn had been members of the Weather Underground.

Let me ask Brendan and others here who are members of the Duke community. If someone was teaching at Duke who'd been a prominent and highly publicized member of the Weather Underground, or one of the Chicago Seven, or one of the Berrigan brothers, do you think that's something that wouldn't be well-known and routinely discussed among people at Duke and in Duke-related circles in Chapel Hill?

I've been a part of a couple of university communities, and I know how they operate. Far less interesting facts about faculty members than their history with the Weather Underground are common knowledge.

That's not to say that Obama's knowledge of the Ayers-Dorhn back story ought to be a critical issue in deciding for whom to vote. But let's be clear-headed in deciding whether the Obama campaign's claim of ignorance is credible. In your hearts, you know it's not.

David, Rob, what you still haven't convinced me of is that Obama had any serious connection with Ayers. Being two of several members on the boards of charity organizations supported by both Democrats and Republicans (none of whom apparently objected to Ayers presence at the time) simply doesn't make the case.

As for what Obama knew in 1995, I'll tell you that I hadn't heard of Ayers before this election and it's not hard to believe that most people born in the 60's and 70's hadn't either.

I'm sure this is red meat for the McCain crowd, but I doubt it works beyond that. Honestly, they've got a much better shot at resurrecting the Reverend Wright controversy than convincing most voters that Obama pals around with terrorists.

Some people say McCain exhibited evidence that he was unqualified to make vital appointments (for which a President is responsible) with the Palin nomination.

You say Obama exhibited evidence that he was unqualified to make vital appointments (for which a President is responsible) for attending an afternoon coffee.

That's your take.

Jinchi –

Please don’t infantilize your otherwise valid question with the “Obama was only 8 years old when Bill Ayers did bad things” meme. It’s got nothing to do with anything. No one has accused Barack of knowing Ayers when he was 8 years old so it is a complete non-sequitur. I’ve seen other reasonable comments of yours on this sight and this doesn’t seem worthy of you.

The term “Palling around” doesn’t have a specific definition as far as I know, but if I had launched my political campaign at someone’s house and then served on several boards with that same person over at least 7 years (1995 -2002) - one of which was for an organization that this person was responsible for creating and I assisted in funding this person's programs with $100,000's over the years - I suppose it might appear that we were “pals”. Especially if I had never let it be known publicly until years later that I disagreed with radical and violent actions this person had taken when I was only 8 years old.

Even then, I doubt I would be able to get away with saying with a straight face that this person was mostly just a casual acquaintance in my neighborhood.

The problem is this - it is not clear exactly how close the relationship between Ayers and Obama has been. Maybe it isn’t close at all as the NYT reports, though by ignoring keys facts they seem to overstate their case.

And the relevance of Ayers is this: if Barack thought Ayers past was unremarkable – since he never apparently remarked on it or took any actions to remove himself from the association - once he found out about it, is that not possibly significant? Doesn’t it show at the minimum a possible lack of character or judgment?

Couldn’t this have been investigated well before now – just a month before the election? Hillary brought it up back in a debate in March, I believe, and no-one followed up to see if Barack’s comments were legit?

Where has the media been? Is it that hard to peer over the lining of someone’s pocket?

The comments to this entry are closed.