The NY Times has finally gotten around to covering the Obama-Ayers relationship:
Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 3, 2008
CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.
Notice how the Times attempts to frame the Obama-Ayers relationship as "paths crossing sporadically." Never mind that Obama consciously chose to launch his political career in Obama's home. It's just "paths crossing sporadically" -- nothing to get worked up about. The article continues:
More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
So it's just "conservative critics" who could even possibly see a problem with Obama's relationship with a committed Marxist who bombed the Pentagon and wishes he had done more? But then it gets better. The Times admits that those "conservative critics" are actually right:
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63.
So there you have it. According to the Times, Obama has in fact deliberately misled about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. But stop reading there, folks -- the rest of article is pure spin. The relationship has been "greatly exaggerated" and anyone who says otherwise is simply attempting to "smear" Obama. Oh, and Ayers is a great guy now, he's a well-respected professor who "has done a lot of good" for the country. In short, Ayers is a true patriot.
Of course, the Times declines to tell its readers that Ayers is still a committed Marxist who as recently as November 2006 visited Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to celebrate socialism and urge Venezuelans "to continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."
UPDATE: Sarahcuda slams Obama for Ayers connection during talk in Colorado:
"There's been a lot of interest in what I read lately. Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago. Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.’ These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in - not my kids and not your kids. The only man who can take on Washington is John McCain."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The Obama-Ayers attacks are part of a politics people are sick of. What does it have to do with winning an honorable exit from Iraq or improving healthcare or addressing the nation's economic crisis? Nothing. It is an attempt to change the subject. IMHO, it isn't going to work.
The fact that Obama has had a close working relationship with a terrorist/still-committed Marxist whose only regret is not having set more bombs speaks volumes about Obama's judgment and the company he keeps. By looking at the company someone keeps, you can get insight into the types of individuals he is likely to appoint as cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, etc., as well as the types of policies he is likely to pursue as president.
And it's not just Ayers. It's also Rev Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, Khalidi, Al-Mansour, etc. Obama's past screams Marxist radicalism. And they're not only Marxists, but also anti-American and anti-Semitic. Now, maybe Obama doesn't believe in that stuff any longer and will govern from the center. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any such evolution in his thinking.
I'm sorry, but Obama does not have, nor has he ever had, a "close working relationship" with Ayers.
Again, I think this guilt by association argument doesn't add anything to the debate. Let's talk instead about what to do about Iraq, what to do about healthcare, and most importantly what to do about the financial crisis. I think the Ayers/Wright stuff plays well to the Republican base, but is it really going to resonate with an undecided voter who is worried about his or her finances and job?
I'm sorry, but Obama does not have, nor has he ever had, a "close working relationship" with Ayers.
I beg to differ: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ayers-dohrn-obama-tie-shouldnt-be-dismissed/
Let's talk instead about what to do about Iraq, what to do about healthcare, and most importantly what to do about the financial crisis.
Obama's solutions: surrender in Iraq, socialize healthcare, and implement wealth redistribution because of "simple fairness."
"Obama's solutions: surrender in Iraq, socialize healthcare, and implement wealth redistribution because of "simple fairness."
I disagree with you on these, but at least this is an attempt at discussion of the issues.
The McCain camp could be talking about these things too. That isn't going so well for them at the polls, hence the Obama/Ayers nonsense.
1peter,
So the company a person keeps says nothing about whom they are likely to appoint to the cabinet, to the courts, and as ambassadors? It also says nothing about his judgment? It's simply a "distraction" from the "real issues"?
"So the company a person keeps says nothing about whom they are likely to appoint to the cabinet, to the courts, and as ambassadors?"
But complete the thought. What does Obama serving on a charity Board with Ayers tell us about who he will appoint to the cabinet? He never appointed Ayers to anything. Ayers and Obama served on the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with other prominent Chicagoans of both parties. We know who he is likely to appoint, given his cast of advisers. In my view the Ayers connection is not important information about appointments. I expect Obama will appoint competent Democrats to cabinet positions, and probably competent Republicans as well.
I don't disagree that the following would be a fair point for Palin to make: "Obama has served on a charity Board with an unrepentant domestic radical, and therefore you should expect him to make similarly poor choices about his cabinet appointments." To state it is to reflect its absurdity, and of course we all should be honest about the purpose of Palin's actual attacks, which is to change the subject.
I am dismayed that at such a critical time, with our nation facing enormous domestic and foreign problems, the campaign for President has devolved to attacks about small matters.
Ayers and Obama served on the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with other prominent Chicagoans of both parties.
What Republicans served on that board? I think you are mistaken. The Anneberg Challenge is Ayers' project. The Annenberg Foundation has members of both parties, but that's a whole separate matter. In addition to the Annenberg Challenge, they also served together on the Woods Foundation board, Obama blurbed Ayers' book, Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' house, they've appeared on numerous panels together (one arranged by Obama's wife), and there is substantial evidence that the relationship extends far further than that.
Just a coincidence? Absolutely not. Rev Wright, Khalidi, Rezko and the others tell the full story of Obama's radical roots and where his heart really is.
I don't disagree that the following would be a fair point for Palin to make: "Obama has served on a charity Board with an unrepentant domestic radical, and therefore you should expect him to make similarly poor choices about his cabinet appointments."
Exactly. It shows terrible judgment. And it's not just that Obama palled around with terrorists and racists for years, it's that he thought we wouldn't even mind. Remember, Rev Wright was an official part of the campaign until the ugly truth came out.
We know who he is likely to appoint, given his cast of advisers.
And his cast of advisers is absolutely frightening. Some have already been thrown under the bus. Malley was forced to resign when it was revealed that he was palling around with Hamas. Then there is Samantha Power, who has advocated that the United States invade Israel to stop a non-existent "genocide" of Palestinians. And the anti-Semite Bzrekinski. It's appalling.
Post a Comment