Bill Ayers | What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been
Bill Ayers looks back on a surreal campaign season.
Whew! What was all that mess? I'm still in a daze, sorting it all out, decompressing.
Pass the Vitamin C.
For the past few years, I have gone about my business, hanging out with my kids and, now, my grandchildren, taking care of our elders (they moved in as the kids moved out), going to work, teaching and writing. And every day, I participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful and irresistible movement for peace and social justice.
In years past, I would now and then - often unpredictably - appear in the newspapers or on TV, sometimes with a reference to Fugitive Days, my 2001 memoir of the exhilarating and difficult years of resistance against the American war in Vietnam. It was a time when the world was in flames, revolution was in the air, and the serial assassinations of black leaders disrupted our utopian dreams.................
ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.truthout.org/110708R
John McCain's smear tactic's against Barack Obama just backfired in his face!
Keith Olbermann blows McCain and Palin out of the water with an Expose on McCain's connection to Ayers and Rashid Khalidi.
McCain has a CLOSER relationship to Rashid Khalidi than Obama ever had, and oh my goodness John McCain is connected to Ayer's too! GASP! ;-)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27464383#27464383
Juli Norwood
You could have chosen a running mate who’d spent time working for all Americans and taken an interest in the world, but you chose a hypocrite who raised the sales tax while claiming she cut taxes, who aggressively went after earmarks while claiming independence, and who abused power at the local and state levels. Sarah Palin obtained her first passport last year. With the help of over $150,000, she brought glamour to your campaign, as you chose politics over country.
You could have run a campaign on issues. Of course, making the case for trickle-down economics is challenging, and offering a $300 million prize for a better car battery is pretty hokey, but you could have tried. Perhaps you could have followed the model of Alan Greenspan, who admitted he was wrong about deregulation and the markets. Instead, you yell socialism, brag about being a maverick, and sponsor robo-calls claiming Obama pals around with terrorists. You know all Obama did was work with a man Republicans and Democrats in Chicago have accepted into society as a hard-working educator.
Everyone, McCain had a chance to do better. Vote for Obama-Biden.
John McCain has been running a character assassination campaign against Barack Obama. He's been playing a con game to try to shift around Bill Ayers and Barack Obama to try to somehow associate Obama with Ayer's militant anti-war activities during the Vietnam War (which happened when Obama was a kid), just because Obama, along with countless respectable citizens, both Democrats and Republicans, served on the board of directors of a non-profit organization that Ayers, now a respected Professor of Education, happened also to be on.
John McCain has been playing a shell and pea game trying to make people associate Obama with certain bad apples in an organization called ACORN who were trying to make false voter registrations. The truth is that ACORN is a bipartisan get-out-the-vote organization and they were the ones who blew the whistle on their these bad apples as soon as they found out they were doing it. What that means is that all they want to do is just register as many people to vote as they can, but they leave the decisions up to those people. The problem is that some of the people they hired to get the vote out (and, as you can imagine they hire thousands of people), want to cheat to make money, so they'd fill out phony voter registration forms. This goes totally against what ACORN is trying to do. This link explains it:
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=17855
It's true that the Obama supports ACORN, because, as a good, honest, upstanding citizen who supports Democracy, he wants everyone who's eligible to vote to be registered and vote, regarldess of whether they vote for him, for McCain, for Ralph Nader, or for someone else. That's Democracy at it's finest. He and ACORN are both blameless in this regretable act by a few bad apples.
But, McCain didn't stop his smear games there. He's authorized robocalls and mailings to people all over America saying nasty, hateful things about Barack Obama. These robocalls and mailings try to make him out to be a terrorist or claim that he's a Muslim. The truth is that Obama's a Christian. The truth is that Barack Obama's an upstanding citizen who cares about protecting America from terrorists.
What you can do.
Contact eveyone you know and tell them this. Stop dishonest character assassination attempts this elections season. Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers (you may even be able to do this online, just go to google.com, search for your newspaper's name and you may be surprised to find that they're online and you can send a letter to the editor over the internet right now). Do whatever you can to get the word out about this dishonesty from the McCain camp.
One reason I'm voting for Obama is because I think he's simply more honest than McCain. McCain just seems like an oily con artist to me.
If you'd like to donate to my grassroots campaign for Barack Obama, click the link below:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ivanrichmond
Joe Vogler (I don't know if Joe was a plumber) was murdered during a sale of illegal explosives. Did Joe wear a Stars and Stripes lapel pin? No way, Joe said, "I won't be buried under their damned flag...when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." Who was Joe? Joe was the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party. It's stated goal is " the ultimate independence of Alaska," from the United States. They are modern day secessionists.Surely a woman like Palin, who has lambasted Obama for marginal associations with a man who shared a community board, has denounced her secessionist husband for his membership in the AIP. Oops, She was the keynote speaker for their 2006 convention. Hard to say she didn't know what they were about, she attended their 2000 convention with her Dude. She recorded the greeting for this year's 2008 convention. Say it ain't so Sarah! What, no renounciation of the Dude who wants to steal those oil reserves from US Citizens? No renounciation of the Dude or his organization that wants to rip the largest state from the Union? I presume that since Palin has read "All of them" newspapers, that she should have some understanding of what happened during the last Civil War. No renuciation, but it's okay for her to engender hatred against a man attempting to do something constructive for his community that involved sitting on a board with someone who did something horrid when Obama was only eight. Oh, Sarah, beware of the log in your own eye before you condemn the splinter in Obama's.
I was absolutely HORRIFIED to read in the Huffington Post that the slanderous robocalls that accuse Barack Obama of working closely with terrorists that kill Americans are coming from Brooklyn.
This past week, Shoff, a Freeborn, Minnesota Democratic County Commissioner, received the Hollywood call while at work. Because state law dictates that any such calls be made by an actual human, Shoff demanded that he be connected to the supervisor. That official, who worked at the robocall shop King TeleServices in (Red Hook) Brooklyn, New York, said that they had been contracted out by FLS-Connect.Officials with King TeleServices did not respond to messages seeking comment.Asked about the connection to King TeleServices, a receptionist for FLS relayed a message from her supervisors that implicitly acknowledged that they have been working on behalf of the Arizona Republican: "If it is having to do with the McCain campaign or the RNC, you will have to direct your question to them."
Post your interest, ideas, suggested date, time, here, or email me at clarknt67ATnycDOTrrDOTcom
Scott Wooledge
Obama does not look to Ayers for advice. His advisors and supporters include Nobel Prize winners (62 scientists in a recent public letter); investors and business people, such as Warren Buffett; former SEC chairs; two-thirds of professional economists recently polled; admirals; generals; and the overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq who have made political donations.
The McCain/Palin campaign wants to 'turn the page' away from the issues that matter to people's lives. The guilt by association charge on Obama is without merit. Let's consider the associations of John McCain that are relevant to the current financial crisis and to character and honor. McCain was reprimanded by the Senate for poor judgment in asking government regulators to withdraw from examination of his friend and supporter Charles Keating, who went to jail for fraud in the savings and loan crisis. McCain did not associate with Keating 30 years after Keating's crimes; he was part of the crimes.
McCain is indifferent to the impropriety of having paid lobbyists on his campaign staff, including his campaign manager, who received money from a company hired by Fannie Mae until a few weeks ago. McCain has been silent on the decision by the Alaskan legislature that Sarah Palin abused her power. During the last debate, McCain repudiated the “fringe” calling Obama a terrorist. But he allows robo-calls to carry this same message. These charges against McCain are true and important. Voters, pay attention to what matters.
I am in total shock! I can not believe that McCain and Palin are saying that Voter Fraud is ocurring when it was Voter Registration errors. I am so sick of listening to the McCain campaign over and over talking about Ayers, Wright and ACORN.
ACORN was affiliated with McCain in 1996. But that is considered ok?!
Look at McCain onYouTube with ACORN:
It was ok for him but not Obama??? What is this McCarthism - Unbelievable!!!!
What about Ayers?!?! Look here:
Ayers is on the Annenberg board of Directors for the Annenberg
John McCain has on a list (on his website) the name of an Annenberg! Yes, you heard me right, those same Annenbergs that have given money to Bill Ayres, 50 million worth, therefore the Annenbergs must be terrorist sponsors!
Leonore Annenberg is one of the 100 U.S. Ambassadors who support McCain.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-4868-9906-62f555376089.htm
I think Obama’s relatively weak but nonetheless real interactions with William Ayers are a legitimate campaign issue. But Obama’s best response, after telling the facts of the relationship, is to point out who else supported him. Republican machers Walter and Leonora Annenberg$50 million. They also gave money to Rick Santorum, Strom Thurmond and Mitt Romney. Annenberg was Nixon’s ambassador to Britain. If Obama is “palling around with terrorists,” the Republican Annenbergs are funding them. gave the former terrorist Yesterday, the McCain campain put out a press release boasting that Leonore Annenberg had just endorsed him for president. Why is McCain happy to accept the endorsement of a funder of terrorism? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/republicans-who.html
I think Obama’s relatively weak but nonetheless real interactions with William Ayers are a legitimate campaign issue. But Obama’s best response, after telling the facts of the relationship, is to point out who else supported him. Republican machers Walter and Leonora Annenberg$50 million. They also gave money to Rick Santorum, Strom Thurmond and Mitt Romney. Annenberg was Nixon’s ambassador to Britain. If Obama is “palling around with terrorists,” the Republican Annenbergs are funding them. gave the former terrorist
Yesterday, the McCain campain put out a press release boasting that Leonore Annenberg had just endorsed him for president. Why is McCain happy to accept the endorsement of a funder of terrorism?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/republicans-who.html
He also fails to point out the close relationship the Annenberg family had with the Reagan’s…..
This is going way too far and I believe is destroying the fabric of our Nation.
McCain, Palin and their foul surrogates are on TV spouting lies and distortions that are beyond the pale. I just heard on Hard Ball some far right congressperson, Bockman, from Minnesota spout the most nasty rhetoric I've heard about Obama and Democrats, in the same vein as Palin and McCain do in their stump speeches.
It's time that Obama'a campaign start to put out the names of the people that McCain associated with over the past 100 years. The junkets McCain has been on, not only the Keating Five, Palin's corrupt behavior in Alaska and her total lack of ethics. There's a lot more about both of these people that has not been looked at and needs to be aired!
Exclusive use of the high road got Democrats like Kerry no where. There has to be some return fire to counter the Ultra Negative Blitz that Karl Rove and his proteges have launched.
This whole smear campaign is geared to sew doubt in people's minds, so that once in the voting booth they will once again settle for the devil they know. The Republicans and McCain are out there trying, and in some cases succeeding, in deceiving middle and working class Americans in to thinking that the Republican Party somehow represents their concerns.
The Republicans and McCain/Palin will say and do anything so that they and their neocon friends can continue to rape this country and turn it into some notion they have of what this country should be, a place ruled by the few.
It is clear, more then ever that the best team for this country is Obama and Biden. Even though at times during this debate, I wanted Barack to go after more of McBush's lies, distortions and insults, I can see that there is a strategy in how Barack responded or didn't respond.
But we can respond. It is obvious that anything abut Ayers or Acorn is a distraction and has nothing to do with Barack Obama or the Democratic Party. I hope the Obama campaign advertising goes after McCain and Palin on issues like the Keating five, and her ethics violations. There are also some real issues like the free cell phone towers on McBush's ranch and how Pallin's million dollar plus home got built in Alaska. Palin has no credentials for the Vice Presidency. I really wanted some response to McCain's attack on Joe Biden.
The high road is fine but there needs to be some response to smears as the campaign has been doing. We need to keep emailing everyone we know to dispute smears, set the record straight and inform everyone about the negative aspects of McBush/Palin.
The media is ignoring Palin's problems in Alaska and repeating all the McCain campaign lies about Ayers and Acorn non-issues. The media needs something else to talk about and the only way to get them there is to feed them some of the real negatives of McCain and Palin. They are both really not who they pretend to be. McCain is a puppet of the lobbyists, his whole entourage is made up of Rove, his followers, the most dirty lobbyists and neo-con Republicans.
There should be more facts getting out there about Schmidt and Davis, two of the most evil, corrupt advisors McCain is being led by. The stuff McCain spouts is written by them. As was obvious in the debates he just keeps repeating their talking points over and over again, like the "Joe the Plumber" routine. McCain will be controlled by these same people if he is elected and as his dementia increases he will be replaced by Palin who is another puppet, but with her own extreme fundamentalist agenda. McCain and Palin are trying to rally their far right base but that won't do them much good if the rest of the country votes for Obama.
Moderate Republicans and Independents must recognize that a vote for McBush/Palin is not in their interests economically or in any other way. They need to vote Democratic to change the course of the country away from disaster.
Democrats need to go after Republican voter registration drives they way the Republican Party is once again going after potential Democratic voters. We also need to contest attempts by Republicans to disqualify minority voters in almost every state.
I think Senator Obama missed an opportunity when Mc Cain brought up the subject of William C. Ayers.
The real question is: Who on the Woods Fund appointed Mr. Ayers to the Board of the Woods Fund, and why was he appointed. Did the appointer know of Mr. Woods background?
There is no indication that Senator Obama had anything to do with Mr. Ayers appointment. Other people of good reputation were also on the Woods Fund Board. One's reputation is not tarnished just because you happen to be part of an organization who happens to have in it people of ill repute. Who among us has never found ourselves in the company of people who we either (a) knew we did not wish to associate or (b) did not know the person's background? Many organizations experience having in them one or more persons who disguise themselves and later deviate from the organization's main purpose and give the entire organization a bad name.
There is no evidence that Obama shared a questionable or doubtful professional or personal interaction with Mr. Ayers. Remember that people who are Board members of such organizations rarely meet and when they do meet it is for very little time and it is generally to deal with the higher level financial and directional issues of the organization. According to Wikipedia typical duties of board members are:
And frequently those decisions are in response to the people who have put money into the organization.
The real issue to me is the judgement of Mc Cain for trying to create doubt, or fear, in the people. Doubt and fear have been Bush's main tool for manipulating the American people. We absolutely do not need another four years of doubt and fear.
With regard to the ACORN voter registration activities: Perhaps Barack Obama could not make this allegation but I would not be surprised if representatives from the Republican Party infiltrated ACORN and intentionally falsified voter registrations knowing full well that this activity would be used as yet another attempt to try and link Obama to the tarnished organization and another attempt to create doubt or fear in the minds of the American people.
We do not ever again need an administration like the Bush administration. Bush's eight years are the worst and darkest in our history. If Mc Cain had really wanted to take a stand he would have come right out and said that he was going to take a leadership position and turn the tiller on the Republican Party and steer it back on course, away from the mis-guided course that it has been on for the past 8 years. But he didn't say that, so, therefore because of the way Mc Cain is running his campaign, there is every reason to believe that he will not be his own man should he become President; there is every reason to believe that he will be but yet another puppet president who is controlled by the masterminds of the powerful Republican Party who are behind the scene.
So I say to the Republicans who continue to manipulate the American people with doubt and fear:
The first time you did this in earnest was George Bush's first election and shame on you.
The second time you did this in earnest was George Bush's 2nd election and shame on the American people for falling for this deception the 2nd time. (I didn't; I voted Democrat)
And you are trying it yet again. Well, I go to bed each night hoping that the American people have FINALLY seen the light and are wiser now and they will not permit themselves to be manipulated and controlled by tactics of doubt and fear.
NO ONE can solve all of the country's problems. What we really need is a President who will won't create more problems than were solved. Mc Cain WILL BE four more years of the same. The Republican agenda and philosophy didn't work in the past, it hasn't changed, and it won't work in the future. They are on a stinking sinking boat and while I don't wish anyone to drown, they need to sit in their lifeboats for four years as punishment for what they have done to this great country and get a reality check. They are living in so much denial, and believe so strongly that they are on the correct course (when they are not). Their failure to see their past mistakes and failure to develop a more realistic workable strategy makes them even more dangerous to the country's future.
Bush is a Republican. Mc Cain is a Republican. Mc Cain may do new and different things but they will all be built on the foundation of a failed Republican agenda.
Real Change won't happen until a different party, a new agenda, takes control of the White House.
So I was in my car and if you’ve been here before you know I’ll put the am radio on when I’m taking short trips. Why? Well if it was on for long trips I’d pull my f&^*&ing hair out. (rim shot)
Seriously though. I was in the car and listened to a few minutes of Neil Boortz who was pushing the theory that Barack Obama’s book Dreams From My Father was in fact ghostwritten by none other than…wait for it…WILLIAM “BILL” AYERS!! I was stunned until I came back and used the google. Turns out Jack Kelly of the Pittsburg Post Gazette wrote a column Sunday that “wonders” if they got together earlier.
I am not a professional journalist and apparently neither is Mr. Kelly because just in fact checking one item
Investigative reporter Jack Cashill has noted some intriguing coincidences between Sen. Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” and Mr. Ayers’ 2001 book, “Fugitive Days,” for which Sen. Obama wrote a dust-jacket blurb. Both books have the same lyrical style and are filled with nautical imagery, which would come naturally to Mr. Ayers, who spent a year as a merchant seaman, but which appear nowhere else in Mr. Obama’s writing.
Well you know, thanks to the internet I am able to view copies of this book, read excerpts and why golly! Look at the back cover of several editions as well as Ayers other books, just in case he confused the titles. There are blurbs on it from Studs Terkel, The Washington Post and Edward Said. Well just to give the benefit of the doubt I looked at all of the work of Ayers that I could find. WOW! Talk about blurbs. He’s got blurbs from Studs Terkel, Hunter S. Thompson, Clarence Page, Jonathan Kozol, even Scott Turow. You know, that radical writer, Scott Turow. Jack Kelly must have a special copy of the book with Obama’s blurb.
Did Obama know Ayers? Sure and I think they’ve been pretty clear about it. They sat on a couple of committees together. But Mr. Kelly takes even that truth as an opportunity to smear in his column of on September 28, 2008 where he refers to the Annenberg Challenge whose purpose was “to promote “radical” school reform”.
I don’t know how radical it could be considering it was founded by Walter Annenberg. Does the name sound familiar? He was an ambassador to the United Kingdon in the Nixon administration. His wife was the State Department Chief of Protocol under Ronald Reagan. Annenberg is also said to have been the person who introduced Reagan to Margaret Thatcher.
And here dear reader is where we find the problem with the thinking of someone like Jack Kelly. If Obama is a radical because he worked with Ayers, than is not Annenberg a radical because he employed Ayers? If so, does that mean that Nixon, Reagan and Thatcher are all radicals by “association”?
So why is this important? Why did I just spend time researching and rebutting this? Because Mr. Kelly’s column is carried in the Pittsburg Post Gazette and in the The Toledo Blade. According to the polls the fine people of the state of Pennsylvania have clearly decided who they will vote for (Obama 53% McCain 40%) three weeks from now. Smears like this will not likely change the outcome. However, the fine people of the state of Ohio have not split with such clarity with the most recent polls showing Obama 48% McCain 45%, (within the margin of error for most polls).
I’m not a journalist nor do I work for a campaign but when information is this blantantly misconstrued I get mad. So don’t let Kelly or his ilk have their way spreading lies. If someone you know mentions this garbage, just send them this. Maybe it will help.
Fact: Bill Ayers conducted bombings of public buildings in the 60s and 70s.
Fact: Bill Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
[Bill Ayers] is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. In 1969 he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
Allegation: Obama was associated with Ayers.
Implication: Obama is "palling around with terrorists," according to Palin.
Analysis: THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Palin should know (maybe she doesn’t) that Ayers is no longer a terrorist. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has repented. Palin apparently forgot she is Christian (assuming she is one) and forgot Jesus’ teachings about repentance and forgiveness. She is apparently unforgiving, and so is McCain.
Analysis: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
f they are bringing up this topic just to detract from the important issues that confront the nation and the world, then they are not qualified to be in the White House. The White House is reserved for those who are able to focus on what is important and not the trifles.
Analysis: NATIONAL SECURITY PERSPECTIVE
If Bill Ayers is a terrorist, McCain and Palin are aiding and abetting Ayers by not turning him into the authorities. They know where he is but have done nothing. They have chosen to let him remain at large, allowing him to threaten the safety of all Americans. McCain and Palin are therefore by extension terrorists themselves and are unpatriotic.
Fact: There is another known terrorist. His name is bin Laden.
Fact: McCain chooses to follow him to the Gates of Hell rather than to the mountains and caves near the Afghanistan and Pakistan border.
Speculation: Perhaps he is waiting for both bin Laden Bill Ayers to start running toward Hell before McCain as Batman will start chasing them with Palin as Wonder Woman carrying a moose-hunting rifle.
Greetings:
I am at work today and it's a little slow, so I wanted to issue a statement regarding the Ayers topic that keeps on coming up. I have grown very tired of this "last ditch effort" by the McCain campaign to revisit old topics. In an effort to cast doubt and fear in the hearts of voters and Americans in general, McCain and his team are posing inane questions about Obama's character. First of all, this whole Ayers connection was already brought up during primary. It was explained and researched. This is obviously a rather transparent attempt to use fear to win votes or at least take them away from Obama.
First of all, Obama has made it very clear that he does not agree with past the exploits of Mr. Ayers and does not hold the same beliefs or radical ideals. When his career was "launched" in Ayers living room, he was not aware of his past. I know I couldn't tell you what my mom or any other grown-up was up to when I was 8. He was more likely aware of his work for education and reform in Chicago communities . I think Obama has been very clear but McCain is hoping by repeating the same questions over and over again it will lend some sort of credibility to them. In other words if he asks the same questions enough they will magically turn into fact. What IS relevant is... that if McCain thought this was SUCH an important question then why did he wait until the LAST weeks of the campaign to make it a central issue? Obviously he too understands that this question has no actual relevance to anything except boosting his election numbers. It's a sad day when any politician will simply use fear and doubt as a tool to win. If he would do this to Obama and to voters, why wouldn't he do it for any and everything in his administration? He wants to raise judgment questions but not really speak of his own (Keating 5). On that note, what is the point of questioning that either? It happened a long time ago and people learn and gain in wisdom through poor judgment. As long as they are not exercising poor judgment now, what's the issue? Has anyone's judgment been right on from day one? I know mine hasn't (i.e. my vote for Bush first term).
All things said, I think the mere fact that Obama has been consistent with his approach throughout says more than anything. Leave it to the Republican candidate to switch up tactics and approach day after day to match the need to win versus the need of the American people to hear what he intends to do to right this country which has been on the wrong course for a while now.
I read an interesting article regarding Obama's Chicago ties to Ayers here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
Don't let fear and irrelevant questioning sway you. Vote for HOPE this November. Vote for the candidate who has shown political consistency in his approach and direction. Vote for the candidate that has the vision to move forward rather than stay mired in the policies of the past.
Sincerely,
David Jackson - Plano Texas
I'd like to see the Obama campaign turn the Ayers story into one that fits the message of this campaign: The audiacity of hope. They could do so with statement such as this:
Rachel Maddow has a great video on the violent sentiment that has been encouraged at McPalin rallies and McCain's too-late attempt to put the bomb Obama genie back in the bottle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBmO6YAszGU
Shame on McCain and Palin, the real traitors to our democracy!
October 12, 2008Op-Ed Columnist
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama By FRANK RICH
IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries. “I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating. What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops. By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8. We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform. From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals. There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place. Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage. To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner. But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.
IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.
Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.
“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.
Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.
All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.
What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.
By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.
That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.
We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.
Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.
It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.
From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.
McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.
No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”
This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.
The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.
There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.
Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.
To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.
But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.
If you appreciated this message, then please have a look at the rest of my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and if you appreciate my blog, then please donate to the campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/henrymu/gGgFDD
Henry M
Jeff Frederick, the Republican Party, and the McCain campaign cannot be allowed a pass on smears such as this against Barack Obama. Obama supporters and other concerned parties are encouraged to contact the GOP and the McCain campaign, demand an apology from both, and demand Frederick's resignation:
McCain national campaign: info@johnmccain.com
McCain Virginia campaign virginia@johnmccain.com
Republican National Committee (Mike Duncan, Chair): chairman@gop.com
Virginia Republican Party: info@rpv.org
::::::::
The Republican national campaign reached a new low over the weekend when chairman Jeffrey M. Frederick of the Virginia Republican Party (pictured here) compared Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Clumsily associating Obama with 60s militant William Ayers - a man with whom Obama was loosely acquainted within the context of legitimate charity work in Chicago - Frederick told McCain volunteers in Virginia that Obama and bin Laden "both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," concluding that this means Obama is "scary." These remarks were understood as talking points for the volunteers to convey to the voters of Virginia.
Democrats are understandably outraged by Frederick's comments, saying that this is only the latest in a series of inflammatory statements made by Republicans against Obama in the crucial battleground state of Virginia. First reported Oct. 12 in Time, Frederick's remarks are discussed further in the same date's Washington Post. Frederick stood by his statements when questioned later, and John McCain has declined to condemn or comment on Frederick's remarks. Meanwhile, even Republicans have conceded that smears like Frederick's against Obama are a loser's game.
Frederick's comparison of Obama with bin Laden is obviously not only inflammatory but ridiculous: Bin Laden was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center which killed thousands of people. Ayres was a member of a group that carried out a 1972 bombing at the Pentagon in which no one was hurt or killed, and with which then ten-year-old Barack Obama was in no way associated. Ayres is now is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and once served on a charity board of which Obama was also a member. Obama has condemned Ayers's actions in the 1960s and 1970s, and describes him as "a guy who lives my neighborhood."
Frederick's remarks are the latest in a series of inflammatory statements by Republicans campaigning in Virginia. Recently, the head of the McCain campaign in Buchanan County, Virginia, was forced to resign after he published a column in a local newspaper including openly racist comments about Obama and African Americans as well as disparaging statements about immigrants and gay people. Recently also, John McCain's brother Joe described suburban Alexandria and Arlington County in Northern Virginia as "communist country."
Ad Hominen Attacks
I hope that Obama keeps his next debate simple and direct. I thought it was very thoughtful of him to mention education at least twice in the townhall debate; an issue that I do not remember McCain even implying.
The false, negative rumors escalated against Obama gained their strength through being recognized and publicized even though they lacked validity. Regarding the contrived, personal attacks, Obama should merely dismiss any ad hominem statements against him as false. It would be a mistake to address, for example, the Ayer rumor at the level of details because a detailed, convoluted response implies its credibility. In other words, if Obama responds to the Ayer rumor in a detailed manner, he will seem deceiving and mildly self incriminating. On the other hand, if Obama dismisses these attacks as falsely poised and invented by an racist, resentful anti-Semitic, he will gain the upper hand through attacking the rumor and the source of the rumor itself. Additionally, if he criticizes the McCain campaign for even recognizing the rumors of the racist Andy Martin he will gain a greater advantage.
The Sadistic Victim versus the Scapegoat
In terms of psychology and literature, there are two scenarios of irony in which an individual is segregated and attacked. The first is as the scapegoat of a tragedy, but this victim, after being tortured and harassed, is reborn as the god of the next generation (ie. Jesus Christ, Dionysus). The second scenario of segregation is that of the sadistic comedy and its victim whose torture is cathartic and pleasant for the audience. The ad hominem attacks by the McCain campaign against Obama represent the sadistic and cathartic torture of comedy, the laughing angry mob, the second type of irony.
Within this article, a functional definition of tragedy and comedy are used. Tragedy is the protagonist and his separation from society; comedy is the integration of society.
Let me explain the differences between the two scenarios; pretend there is a group of x-children who harass a lonely y-child. In a tragedy, the perspective of the audience would follow the y-child and his separation from the group. The audience would be compelled to sympathize with the y-child to and pity this tortured scapegoat. An example of this is the story of the crucifixion of Christ where the audience sympathizes with the tortured scapegoat.
The alternate perspective occurs within a comedy. Likewise, in this scenario, the x-children inflict torture on the y-child. However, from this comedic perspective, the audience feels a sadistic catharsis through the torture of the y-child. Why?---because from this perspective the audience identifies with the x-children. Many Americans ethnically and nationalistically identify with McCain, the Caucasian Patriot, and the associated leaders of campaign. This is why you can search youtube to find some horrifying videos of republicans at campaign rallies making aggressive personal attacks against Obama. Many of his radical supporters are driven by the sadistic pleasures of a comedy and its victim. They empathisize "Hussein", his middle name, to indicate he is an outsider. An this is the least of it, there are plenty of cases were he is called Osama instead of Obama. This is the emotional state of the present, sadistic perspective that permits such segregating, ad hominem remarks against Obama.
Yes, Barack Obama will have no problem appealing to individuals that focus on policy. Some people are usually not able to distinguish correctly between the proposed policies of the two presidential candidates; nevertheless, Obama connects with these people through the clear manner in which he words his proposals making his policies pertinent to all people willing to listen. When Americans listen, they realize that Obama's policies are better for Americans now and better for the future of humanity. But how will Obama appeal to emotional Americans that can not understand policy or perceive their long term effects?
I am a little worried that Obama will lose to the McCain campaign's comedic, angry emotions of identity and segregation. I would suggest that he change the perspective of the dissenting audience from identifying with the x-children to identifying with him, the y-child. I doubt any extreme republicans will budge, but with this change in perspective, emotionally driven swing voters will feel guilty for leaping on to the angry, segregationist wagon, and will join those who sympathize with the scapegoat, the y-child. If Obama makes dissenters emotionally realize that they actually identify with his values and aspirations, the same, authentic values and aspirations set forth by our founding fathers, then he may convince a few of these dissenters.
Fundamental Values and Aspirations
Listening to Obama's words at last week's townhall debate was reassuring; he had the right experience and the right proposals. However, only until the closing statements was I really pulled in to sympathize with Obama at the emotional level. In these closing statements, he mentioned his background and how the image of a revered America inspired his father. He mentioned, in a thankful manner, the opportunity that America stood for; the opportunity that made it possible for him and his wife to receive an education. He brought us into his perspective and compelled us to relate to him with mutual respect and sympathy. I hope he moves our perspective in the days preceding the election, once again, like he did last week in those closing statements. We must be illuminated; we must associate our values and aspirations with those of Obama; we must identify the inhibiting problem within his opponents; we must realize that through Obama's values and policies our future will be realized.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
For most of the election, Sen. John McCain's campaign has been somewhat subtle about trying to tie Sen. Barack Obama to the former '60s radical William Ayers.
No longer. A 90-second Web ad released Oct. 8, 2008, features sinister music, side-by-side photographs of Obama and Ayers, and a series of dubious allegations about their past connections, including this one:
"Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together."
Ayers was a founding member of the militant Vietnam-era anti-war group the Weathermen. He was investigated for his role in a series of domestic bombings, but the charges were dropped in 1974 due to prosecutorial misconduct. He is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and actively engaged in the city's civic life.
The McCain campaign said the "radical education foundation" to which they were referring is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity endowed by publishing magnate Walter Annenberg that funded public-school programs in Chicago from 1995 to 2001.
We'll look at whether the foundation was radical. But first we have to grapple with whether Obama and Ayers ran it.
Obama served on the foundation's volunteer board from its inception in 1995 through its dissolution in 2001, and was chair for the first four years. So an argument can be made that he ran it, though an executive director handled day-to-day operations.
Ayers, who received his doctorate in education from Columbia University in 1987 and is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was active in getting the foundation up and running. He and two other activists led the effort to secure the grant from Annenberg, and he worked without pay in the early months of 1995, prior to the board's hiring of an executive director, to help the foundation get incorporated and formulate its bylaws, said Ken Rolling, who was the foundation's only executive director. Ayers went on to become a member of the "collaborative," an advisory group that advised the board of directors and the staff.
However, Ayers "was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge," and he "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote," Rolling said.
"He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest," Rolling said. "That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge."
Now, was the foundation radical?
The McCain campaign cited several pieces of evidence for that allegation, including a 1995 invitation from the foundation for applications from schools "that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." The campaign appears to have confused two different definitions of the word "radical." Clearly the invitation referred to "a considerable departure from the usual or traditional," rather than "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."
The campaign also cited two projects the foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies.
"That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans," said Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for McCain. "It is a subjective thing, and there are going to be people in Berkeley and Chicago who think that is totally legitimate."
Teaching about the United Nations and African-American studies may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's hardly "radical" in the same way Ayers' Vietnam-era activities were. Moreover, most of the projects the foundation funded (more on that below) were not remotely controversial.
The McCain campaign also cited an opinion piece by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz in the Sept. 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal as evidence of the foundation's radicalism. Kurtz wrote that Ayers was the "guiding spirit" of the foundation, and it "translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice."
But Ayers' views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers' advisory role gave him.
Let's look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of "translating Annenberg's conservatism into practice."
Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, and a host of other mainstream folks.
"The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous," said the foundation's former development director, Marianne Philbin.
The foundation gave money to groups of public schools – usually three to 10 – who partnered with some sort of outside organization to improve their students' achievement.
In his opinion piece, Kurtz puts a sinister spin on this: "Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money...CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN)."
Rollings said the foundation tried to fund the schools directly, but doing so proved to be a "bureaucratic nightmare." But any external group that received money had to have created a program in partnership with a network of public schools.
And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
Had Kurtz chosen to accuse Obama of carrying water for the conservative Annenberg, he might have written: "CAC disbursed money to various business-friendly entities, such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago."
See how easy it is?
The programs the foundation funded were designed to allow individuals from the "external partners" – whether the musicians in the symphony or the business leaders in the commercial club – to help improve student achievement. They were along the lines of mentoring by artists, literacy instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, and training for parents in everything from computer skills to helping their children with homework to advocating for their children at school.
This last activity – something suburban parents practice with zeal – is also suspect in Kurtz's view: "CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents 'organized' by community groups might be viewed by school principals 'as a political threat.'" That is typical of Kurtz's essay – relatively innocuous facts cast in the worst possible light. That's appropriate for an opinion piece, perhaps, but hardly grounds for a purportedly factual political ad accusing the group of radicalism.
We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.
In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.
This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.
10 things to know about Bill Ayers1. Was Ayers the leader of a terrorist group?The FBI labeled the Weather Underground "a domestic terrorist group" whose members took credit for bombings of the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings. The bombings were designed to cause property damage, not hurt people. Ayers never has been accused of killing anybody.But three Weather Underground members accidentally killed themselves while making bombs in New York City in 1970. In 1981, two police officers and a security guard were killed when other members of the group committed an armed robbery.2. How long was Ayers "underground"?Ayers and his wife, Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, were on the lam 10 years before surrendering in 1980.3. Were they ever convicted of "terrorism" charges?No. Ayers faced federal riot and bombing-conspiracy charges, but those charges were dropped because of illegal wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions by authorities. Dohrn served less than a year behind bars for non-bombing activities tied to the group. 4. How are Ayers and Dohrn viewed now?At least before this campaign, they were mainly seen as respected college professors. After getting his doctorate in education at Columbia University, Ayers joined the University of Illinois, where he gained a national reputation pushing innovative -- some say controversial -- approaches to educating at-risk youth. Dohrn has a national reputation for pushing reforms of the juvenile justice system. Ayers has published 15 books. He sits on civic boards with Mayor Daley, who in 1997 awarded Ayers the city's "Citizen of the Year" award. Ayers and Dohrn live in Hyde Park, not far from the Obamas. 5. So how well do Ayers and Obama know each other?Ayers and Obama served on separate boards associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education-reform group that Obama began chairing in March 1995 and continued to work with through 2000. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on grant awards during those years. Ayers and Obama occasionally would see each other in those roles.Also, Ayers served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at dinners the group hosted.The RNC's statement that "Obama's first campaign was launched at a gathering at Mr. Ayers' home" stems from a 1995 "meet-and-greet" coffee that Ayers and Dohrn held for Obama at their home when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate. Obama's presidential campaign has described the event as an opportunity for Ayers and Dohrn to introduce Obama to their neighbors.In 2001, Ayers gave $200 to Obama's campaign. A year ago, the two met walking through the neighborhood where they both live.6. How does Ayers respond to the Republicans' charges?He doesn't. He has declined to comment to the Sun-Times or any other media since Sen. Hillary Clinton first raised him as a potential problem for Obama in April during the Democratic primary.7. What does Obama say about Ayers?During a primary debate, Obama underplayed his relationship with Ayers: "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," Obama said. "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. The notion that somehow, as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."8. Is it fair for McCain to criticize Obama on this issue?Factcheck.org has this take: "Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama's interactions with him. We're making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign's attempts to sway voters -- in ads and on the stump -- with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. And Ayers is more than a former 'terrorist,' he's also a well-known figure in the field of education."9. Has Ayers ever apologized for what he did with the Weather Underground?Not exactly. In 2001, Ayers told the Sun-Times he regretted that "people were hurt, that three of my dear friends were killed, that we were stupid, immature, intolerant and unwise. I regret that I hurt people's feelings." He did not regret "throwing myself as wholeheartedly as I could figure out into opposition to war and to the system of racial injustice."A review of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days that appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, quoted Ayers saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Three days after the terrorist attacks, Ayers clarified: "My memoir is, from start to finish, a condemnation of terrorism . . ."10. Are all former alleged terrorists/radicals shunned?No. Former IRA bomber Gerry Adams is welcomed at the White House as a peacemaker. Former PLO leader Yasser Arafat was too. Former Students for a Democratic Society member and Ayers friend Tom Hayden was elected to the California State Assembly. Former Black Panther Bobby Rush is a congressman representing Chicago, as is former Puerto Rican independence activist Luis Gutierrez.
10 things to know about Bill Ayers
1. Was Ayers the leader of a terrorist group?
The FBI labeled the Weather Underground "a domestic terrorist group" whose members took credit for bombings of the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings. The bombings were designed to cause property damage, not hurt people. Ayers never has been accused of killing anybody.
But three Weather Underground members accidentally killed themselves while making bombs in New York City in 1970. In 1981, two police officers and a security guard were killed when other members of the group committed an armed robbery.
2. How long was Ayers "underground"?
Ayers and his wife, Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, were on the lam 10 years before surrendering in 1980.
3. Were they ever convicted of "terrorism" charges?
No. Ayers faced federal riot and bombing-conspiracy charges, but those charges were dropped because of illegal wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions by authorities. Dohrn served less than a year behind bars for non-bombing activities tied to the group.
4. How are Ayers and Dohrn viewed now?
At least before this campaign, they were mainly seen as respected college professors. After getting his doctorate in education at Columbia University, Ayers joined the University of Illinois, where he gained a national reputation pushing innovative -- some say controversial -- approaches to educating at-risk youth. Dohrn has a national reputation for pushing reforms of the juvenile justice system. Ayers has published 15 books. He sits on civic boards with Mayor Daley, who in 1997 awarded Ayers the city's "Citizen of the Year" award. Ayers and Dohrn live in Hyde Park, not far from the Obamas.
5. So how well do Ayers and Obama know each other?
Ayers and Obama served on separate boards associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education-reform group that Obama began chairing in March 1995 and continued to work with through 2000. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on grant awards during those years. Ayers and Obama occasionally would see each other in those roles.
Also, Ayers served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at dinners the group hosted.
The RNC's statement that "Obama's first campaign was launched at a gathering at Mr. Ayers' home" stems from a 1995 "meet-and-greet" coffee that Ayers and Dohrn held for Obama at their home when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate. Obama's presidential campaign has described the event as an opportunity for Ayers and Dohrn to introduce Obama to their neighbors.
In 2001, Ayers gave $200 to Obama's campaign. A year ago, the two met walking through the neighborhood where they both live.
6. How does Ayers respond to the Republicans' charges?
He doesn't. He has declined to comment to the Sun-Times or any other media since Sen. Hillary Clinton first raised him as a potential problem for Obama in April during the Democratic primary.
7. What does Obama say about Ayers?
During a primary debate, Obama underplayed his relationship with Ayers: "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," Obama said. "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. The notion that somehow, as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."
8. Is it fair for McCain to criticize Obama on this issue?
Factcheck.org has this take: "Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama's interactions with him. We're making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign's attempts to sway voters -- in ads and on the stump -- with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. And Ayers is more than a former 'terrorist,' he's also a well-known figure in the field of education."
9. Has Ayers ever apologized for what he did with the Weather Underground?
Not exactly. In 2001, Ayers told the Sun-Times he regretted that "people were hurt, that three of my dear friends were killed, that we were stupid, immature, intolerant and unwise. I regret that I hurt people's feelings." He did not regret "throwing myself as wholeheartedly as I could figure out into opposition to war and to the system of racial injustice."
A review of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days that appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, quoted Ayers saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Three days after the terrorist attacks, Ayers clarified: "My memoir is, from start to finish, a condemnation of terrorism . . ."
10. Are all former alleged terrorists/radicals shunned?
No. Former IRA bomber Gerry Adams is welcomed at the White House as a peacemaker. Former PLO leader Yasser Arafat was too. Former Students for a Democratic Society member and Ayers friend Tom Hayden was elected to the California State Assembly. Former Black Panther Bobby Rush is a congressman representing Chicago, as is former Puerto Rican independence activist Luis Gutierrez.
