Is Ayers Relationship with Obama a Valid Talking Point?

Just a note.  I don't pay attention to the posts (especially those posts smearing Obama) of those that have only been blogging here for a couple of weeks.   The timing of their presence here is questionable at best!  Readers beware!!!

//The above post ("Obama's progaganda machine")is a copy/paste from LFR site!//

In all honesty - and please don't call me a liar - this is the first I've heard of this site. Have just taken a quick peek now and hope to have a closer look when time allows. Thank you for introducing me to it :-)

First: All evidence must quickly be labeled "Smear". Then, of course, anyone attempting to bring the truth into the public arena needs to quickly be labelled a "Swift Boater".

This usually works for the Obama believers; however, the general public is becoming less and less vulnerable to the Obama propaganda machine... Thank God! No doubt it's a fruitless exercise trying to open the eyes of Obama's believers.

//The above post ("Obama's progaganda machine")is a copy/paste from LFR site!//

Actually not! This was taken from an article by Dick Morris on “The Hill” http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-ayers-con...

I forgot to mention in my above post (The Truth Behind the Obama Smears) to click on the 2 hyperlinks -- "sole donor funding vicious attack ad"  and "criminal violation"  Both are articles that explain in more detail.    

Groups like Let Freedom Ring and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are behind all of these smears about Obama!  The above post ("Obama's progaganda machine")is a copy/paste from LFR site!

Next Generation Swift Boaters

In 2004, Harold Simmons was the biggest funder of the manipulative smear group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In 2008, Simmons is the sole donor funding a vicious attack ad ( http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/27300... ) in some battleground states that uses tortured logic and clumsy innuendo to invent a tie between Barack Obama and terrorism.

The ad goes completely beyond the pale by cynically exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in an unfounded connection with Chicago academic William Ayers. Then it claims that Ayers somehow “launched” Barack Obama’s career — an assertion so outlandish that not even Simmons’ fellow discredited Swift Boater Jerome Corsi included it in his smear book.

The ad may even be a criminal violation ( http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-simmons...,0,2360525.story ) of campaign finance laws. Simmons has previously been fined tens of thousands of dollars for campaign finance violations – including forging the signatures of his own daughters to make political contributions from trust funds.

Minnesota Star Tribune: ( http://www.startribune.com/ ) Swift Boater Behind Anti-Obama Ad

Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, a major backer of Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth four years ago, is the sole donor to an advertisement attacking Democrat Barack Obama over his relationship with one-time radical activist William Ayers.

It's understandable that only those not swallowed up in Obama's propoganda machine are prepared to look at the mounting evidence regarding Obama's associations which, no doubt, have influenced his own philosophical outlook. It's clearly evident that Obama was splitting hairs and concealing the truth when he said that William Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released recently by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.

After Walter Annenberg’s foundation offered several hundred million dollars to American public schools in the mid-’90s, William Ayers applied for $50 million for Chicago. The purpose of his application was to secure funds to “raise political consciousness” in Chicago’s public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers’s group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it. In doing so, he was following Ayers’s admonition to grant the funds to “external” organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform. Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them.

Reading, math and science achievement tests counted for little in the CAC grants, but the school’s success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.

Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he “wished he could have done more.”

Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.

That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.

So let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:

a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and

b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.

Now that Obama is apparently ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.

Not a good recommendation for a president.

 William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990's. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: "No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago ..." (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&...

Smear groups and now the McCain campaign are trying to connect Obama to acts Ayers committed 40 years ago - when Barack was just eight years old. Here's what the  New York Times reported on the connection (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ay...

But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8."

Barack has  publicly denouncedAyers' radical actions from the 1960's (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/0... ( http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/0... )):

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

I know what I said.  I'm not arguing about what I said.  I've stated that I was clarifying WHAT I said with my last 2 posts -- for you, mainly, since you were the one to quote me.  And I didn't twist anything!   You, like the Repub campaign, are doing a bang-up job of twisting the facts.  You just tried to do it right here. And the only thing "telling" is that you need to go get some therapy!  I didn't realize stating that your post was nonsense and full of generalizations was a personal attack.  Wow!  Did I strike a nerve or what? Or are you truly that desperate for McCain to win?  Oh that's right, you aren't endorsing anyone.  You're an "Independent" -- yeah right. 

I'm not even going to waste my time debating the rest of this garbage post of yours!  My post is very clear as to my views.  Unlike you (with your right-wing wacko comments), I don't label anyone.   By the way, I don't give a damn about what you think my style is, because I certainly don't need to justify anything to you.  Unlike you, I'm very open-minded.  I've been both a Republican and a Democrat and I favor the idea of a no-party (or one-party) system actually.  That shade of gray you keep talking about....

Keep burying your head in the sand and touting yourself as an Independent.  I hope that works out for you.   I won't be replying to your future posts. 

 You said:

 It's a witch hunt -- nothing more than fear tactics by the Repub party to maintain power.  People that are afraid aren't as likely to make changes.  This is how third world countries and dictatorships are born -- fear.  Furthermore, Obama is a senator. 

I replied:

Dictators are usually born with great public support by creating class envy and convincing the public that government can solve all their problems, and when the people don't wish to see the truth. Some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen were full of charisma and their countrymen loved them...at first.

How can you twist that?  You brought up fear and Republicans and and dictators all in the same paragraph.  Not me.  I made no comment about dictators other than I don't believe they come about the way you think.  I made no association with Obama - NONE whatsoever.  I didn't bring up his name, I didn't mention Democrats, nadda.  You made that association all by your lonesome and I have to wonder why that is?  It's telling.

  I'm not going to argue any of the other broad generalities and nonsense from your previous post . I don't need to and no one else here needs to either.

That's a nice vicious little personal attack, isn't it?  Is that your typical style?  I didn't hear anyone say that you speak for them, and  I didn't realize Blogher was Democrats only.  Hmm.  Well, I've never found it necessary to use personal attacks.  It's usually obvious to all why people do.

And I don't know why you keep calling yourself an Independent. You are far from it.

So, if a person isn't for Obama then they're a raging right wing wacko, huh?  I don't think I said anything that gave any indication of that.  Just the opposite in fact.  Do you have any idea what my political views are other than I'm suspicious of Obama?  Again, telling.  You'd do well to realize there are lots of people like myself who don't wish to be affiliated with either party.  It must be frustrating when your ingrained to believe it has to be either one side or the other, A or B, black or white, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Most of the country is a shade of grey, I think.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

I know what my exact words were, LePlus.  I  thought that I should better explain myself better, since you obviously misunderstood and decided to quote me.  I think my last post clearly explains what I am saying.  Here's a repost just for you (hopefully it will make sense this time):  

LePlusJeune, I didn't allude to McCain being a dictator (but I would say from your last paragraph of your previous post that you DID allude to Obama wanting to be a dictator - bwahahaha!).

I SAID that historically people that are afraid won't make changes and this is how dictatorships (and eventually third world countries) are formed. So let me see -- if I am the ruling power and I want to maintain power how do I stay in power -- fear! That's what I said. So you and I are not that far apart. Dictatorships ARE often formed by charismatic leaders and often with the support of the people (generally not all of the people but the ruling or the "money" class). But what happens when it all starts to fall apart? War, a crumbling economy, inflation...and fear? Hmmmm.....???? Sound familiar?

And now I will use your quote from your previous post and ask you to think about the last 8 years:

Dictators are usually born with great public support by creating class envy and convincing the public that government can solve all their problems, and when the people don't wish to see the truth. Some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen were full of charisma and their countrymen loved them...at first.

Hmmm? The only adjustment I would make to your post is replacing the word "government" with "big business." All I'm saying is that we all need to think for ourselves and not be fed the party line. Regardless of the party.

Call Obama an idealist if you want. He isn't. He IS the candidate of change. He sees the possibilities and has concrete plans for this country to make it better. He ISN'T John-McCain-politics-as-usual. THAT is what will make him a successful president. I'm not going to argue any of the other broad generalities and nonsense from your previous post . I don't need to and no one else here needs to either.

And I don't know why you keep calling yourself an Independent. You are far from it.

I don't think it should surprise anyone that political discussion are heated and passionate.   That's why some people refuse to talk politics (or religion, lol)

Can you seriously say you've seen much other than talking points in most of these posts...by either side/s? 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Yes, well that doesn't surprise me at all.  Members of both parties seem to think anyone who isn't for them is for the other side.  Like there are only two sides.

Shelley, when I first registered to vote many moons ago in my youth I was a Democrat.  I was a Democrat for a couple of decades.  I became extremely disenchanted and switched to being a Republican.  I remained a Republican for about 15 years and again became disenchanted.

I finally realized that neither party has my best interests in mind.  They're all a bunch of self serving idiots...and that's why nothing gets done because of partisan bs.  So, as of about three years ago I'm officially a registered as an Independent, wishing to cow tow to no one.  Why should either of the two biggest parties assume they have me in their back pocket?  I'm probably more Libertarian than anything but I do believe some government controls are necessary, socially liberal, fiscally pretty conservative. 

I believe if we all registered Indenpendent the two big parties would have no choice but to a) run soley on issues because they wouldn't be able to assume that certain sectors will vote for them no matter what and b) have to put their money where their mouth is once they get in office because of A.

So, there you have it.  I haven't said who I'm voting for.  In fact, a few posts back I said I might write in.  Possibly vote for Barr. 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

You left out a few lines.  These were your exact words..... 

 It's a witch hunt -- nothing more than fear tactics by the Repub party to maintain power.  People that are afraid aren't as likely to make changes.  This is how third world countries and dictatorships are born -- fear.  Furthermore, Obama is a senator. 

When you first say that it's a fear tactic by Republicans and then you say dictators are born out of fear...what exactly were you alluding to then? 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

LePlusJeune, I didn't allude to McCain being a dictator (but I would say from your last paragraph of your previous post that you DID allude to Obama wanting to be a dictator - bwahahaha!). 

I SAID that historically people that are afraid won't make changes and this is how dictatorships (and eventually third world countries) are formed.  So let me see --  if I am the ruling power and I want to maintain power how do I stay in power -- fear!  That's what I said.  So you and I are not that far apart.   Dictatorships ARE often formed by charismatic leaders and often with the support of the people (generally not all of the people but the ruling or the "money" class).  But what happens when it all starts to fall apart?  War, a crumbling economy, inflation...and fear?  Hmmmm.....????   Sound familiar?

And now I will use your quote from your previous post and ask you to think about the last 8 years:  Dictators are usually born with great public support by creating class envy and convincing the public that government can solve all their problems, and when the people don't wish to see the truth.  Some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen were full of charisma and their countrymen loved them...at first.

Hmmm?  The only adjustment I would make to your post is replacing the word "government" with "big business."   All I'm saying is that we all need to think for ourselves and not be fed the party line.  Regardless of the party.   

Call Obama an idealist if you want.  He isn't.  He IS the candidate of change.  He sees the possibilities and has concrete plans for this country to make it better.  He ISN'T John-McCain-politics-as-usual.   THAT is what will make him a successful president.  I'm not going to argue any of the other broad generalities and nonsense from your previous post .  I don't need to and no one else here needs to either. 

And I don't know why you keep calling yourself an Independent.  You are far from it.   

I wonder the same thing every time I log into the site lately!  I don't just wonder if there are "plants" here, I know it must be true. The posts are so vicious that it's unbelievable to me.   But don't worry UM, in a couple of weeks (when Obama is elected President) they will all be gone. 

Excuse me! You seem to be implying that women who support your view are just average women, whereas those with a different view are members of some PAC group. Did I understand you correctly?

Say it aint so Joe :-)

Sorry, but you do not hold the floor, and you most certainly do not have any authority when it comes to my God-given right to express an honest opinion. The last time I looked this was still a democracy! My opinion is valid - whether you agree with it or not! You seem to be lacking any real debating skills, choosing rather to silence those you disagree with by hurling unfounded accusations.

I'm not wondering that at all.  I think that it's possible, but I don't begin to wonder if opinions that are either the same or different from mine are spurred on by people who have an agenda to promote. 

Janet + http://fuzzypinkslippers.com ( http://fuzzypinkslippers.com/ ) = love

http://urban-sunrise.net ( http://urban-sunrise.net/ ) - a blog for 18-35 year olds

Okay, we all know that Colin Powell is in support of Obama.  He called Obama a "transformational figure" Said his election "would electrify the world" and is just "what the country needs."   

Wright --  wanted his 15 minutes of fame.  I'm a re-born Christian.  You should hear some of the things my minister has said on Sunday mornings. 

Ayers - served on a board with Obama. So what?

Rezco -- this has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and NOTHING!  Nothing.  That's why you don't hear about it!  Another fabricated witch-hunt by the GOP!

ACORN --  Ken Blackwell = George Bush (with his 23% appr. rating)= more GOP lies

Franklin Raines --  The collapse of Fannie Mae is Obama's fault?!  Are you kidding me?   ROFLMAO!!!!    Hmmm... Eight years of Republicans and greed.  Can you say Republican payback for Enron and Halliburton?

I'm sorry.  I have responsibilities to attend to.  You vote for whom you want to vote for.  And keep witch-hunting. 

I keep getting updated threads to this post and it's got me wondering -- are the bloggers here just average women responding or is there an agenda going on here?  A couple of weeks ago, I read a response from a Blogher contributer that enlightened us on the fact that there may be a few unscroupulous bloggers that are members of PAC groups that blog talking points and attacks on candidates.  I'm wondering if this is the case here?  Anyone else wondering the same? 

unfit mutha

because motherhood should not have to be a onesize fits all job description

I keep getting updated threads to this post and it's got me wondering -- are the bloggers here just average women responding or is there an agenda going on here?  A couple of weeks ago, I read a response from a Blogher contributer that enlightened us on the fact that there may be a few unscroupulous bloggers that are members of PAC groups that blog talking points and attacks on candidates.  I'm wondering if this is the case here?  Anyone else wondering the same? 

unfit mutha

because motherhood should not have to be a onesize fits all job description

My apologies LePlusJeune for misunderstanding you.

Twice really. You call yourself an independent, and here, all along I thought you sounded just like a Republican. Just goes to figure how one can misread these comments, eh?

Hahaha, you're kidding, right?  I didn't think I was that good.  And I would be trying to get you to vote for whom?  McCain?  Hahahahaha.  Maybe I should apply for a job as an Independent Operative...hmm, where would one apply for one of those positions. 

The Ayers and OJ cases do remind me of each other, though.  Both got off and everyone knew they were guilty as sh*t. 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

I didn't bring up the topic of dictatorships.  MJ2007 did.  My comment was a reply to her when she alluded to McCain wanting to be a dictator (bwahahaha) by saying:

  It's a witch hunt -- nothing more than fear tactics by the Repub party to maintain power.  People that are afraid aren't as likely to make changes.  This is how third world countries and dictatorships are born -- fear. 

I don't believe that to be true.  Dictators are very often well loved leaders who claim they can solve their country's problems. 

Please, do try to keep up.  ;) 

Regards

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Yes Norma, I am quoting a comedian, because it was a compelling moment.  Very telling and oh so far from apples and oranges.... 

Oh I'm sorry.  Do you make the rules here now?  Should we only quote scholarly journals in our posts?  The message is still the same regardless of the source.  The key phrase that you used was "went to jail."  Do we really want a president that calls an ex-convict "dear friend" rather than one that simply served on a board with a 40-years-ago-radical-turned-respected-college-professor?  Let me answer that one.  No. 

Jane, you can point the finger at me and cry out, "Mom, she's picking on me!" all you want. What I'm saying is that if you want to continue bringing up Ayers, ACORN, et al, I feel more than free to bring up other issues, such as the racism implicit, and explicit, in many of the ant-Obama "discussions".

You can't then say, "Not fair! Not fair!" because the conversation no longer goes the way you want. 

I didn't use hysterics, which is an unfortunate term used against women as a method to silence us. 

I didn't accuse you, directly, of racism. 

I certainly didn't say you were having a tantrum, which is another demeaning term, meant to suppress other's opinions.

All I said is that if you and others bring up these points, I feel free to bring up my own -- you don't control the conversation, anymore. Interestingly enough, the only really emotional response that I can see, is yours.

"Tantrum". Indeed. Who is the one who unsubscribed and left when the thread didn't go their way?

But bye now. Be sure to stop by again with more Ayers/ACORN talking points. It's so fun.

I posed the question, originally, about whether Ayers was a valid talking point.  Based on the number of resposes here, it seems that he is.

As to your allegations Shelly, that I do not focus on the issues: I specifically focus on the issues.  The sub-prime mortgage meltdown is a very big issue.  A candidate's acquaintances and advisors are big issues.  But you would rather hurl accusations of racism, engage in innuendo, flame my personal beliefs and accuse me of fear-mongering than actually engage in an intelligent, impersonal discussion.  You indulge in emotional hysterics in an attempt to hijack this discussion--and then accuse me of "control".  

Tantrums are not attractive in children or adults. 

I'm unsubscribing from this post.

Jane Becker

Well, at least I have to give you points for creativity, LePlusJeune -- you're calling Obama a would-be dictator rather than a terrorist. At least you're being creative with your fallacies.

 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_ab...

 It's like an OJ story.  Maybe OJ should have received a teaching tenureship, too.  :)

How telling to invoke O.J. Simpson in this (non-relevant) context. This election season we need a scorecard to keep track of all the code words and phrases that are meant to invoke fear, anger, and resentment. 

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

You and the other McCain supporters can no longer define what is or is not outside the borders of what can be discussed. I'm tired of the Republican machine issuing low blows all the while assuming Democrats will be taking the high road.

I admire Obama for taking the high road, but I am sick to death of the innuendo and blatantly biased talking points you and others like you introduce into the Blogher threads. The continue reintroduction of Ayers, ACORN, et al, rather than a focus on issues and what the heck is important in this election.

So feel free to bring up Ayers and every other inconsequential item you want, but I'll also bring up my own talking points. For instance, one of the biggest issues with ACORN is that many of the voters the organization is registering are black, and most of the anti-ACORN movement seems to be about inhibiting the black vote. If that's not racist, I don't know what is. 

The one ad McCain ran that featured Raines showed Obama, the black man, Raines, the black man, and then this poor helpless little old white woman--even members of the Republican party where aghast at the racial implications hidden in that ad, before it was hastily pulled. 

So Jane, you have your choice: you can focus on issues related to platforms and we have have civil discussion, even disagreement, about party differences--and there are many. Or you can focus on personalities and innuendo and asides and snide remarks and vague assocations meant to instill fear, rather than thoughtfulness. But when you do, I will be here, ready to respond in kind, because I don't agree that you have the right to control the discussion. To determine what is or is not a "valid talking point".

You're quoting a comedian in support of your choice for president?!?

Liddy went to jail. Did his time.

Ayers is an English professor who is unrepentent about his murderous intent. Don't recall Liddy actually killed any one during Watergate. It's apples and oranges.

Shellyp--Please check the record.  He was completely exonerated. Come on. Argue with facts. that's why so little of this kind of discussion is fun. Just bullheaded repetition of talking points.

SHOW ME where McCain was found guilty in the Keating 5 mess.  SHOW ME.  It didn't happen.

//But you might ask yourself why you brought up Franklin Raines. That one has already been fact checked and found to have no foundation at all.//Now that's the scam of the century! Factcheck.org, used as a resource by many who wish to debunk negative coverage of Obama, is a division (or project) of the Annenberg foundation. What you probably don't know (but should) is that Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - a division (or project) of the Annenberg Foundation. BTW Bill Ayers was instrumental in founding the Annenberg challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley...

No doubt Obama, with the help of his friends, has covered all the bases...the only information you get is what Obama's associates dish out. Fact check my a**!

The Obama propaganda machine is truly mind-boggling!

Did you really just ask me if I brought up Raines because he's a black man? Are you serious??? Do you really need to resort to calling fellow bloggers racist because they don't agree with you? Is that as deep an intellectual argument as you can make?

I brought up Raines because he is an associate of Obama and responsible for Fannie Mae's involvement in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.  He also donated serious casg to Obama through Fannie Mae, and directed serious cash to ACORN.  To me, Raines is a valid talking point--not a racist slur.

Really Ms. Shelly, it seems to me that you are the one engaging in racist, unethical tactics while the majority of us are actually focusing on discussing the issues.

You should too.

Obama has no real experience--even Colin Powell admitted this.  And Powell said Obama was relying on his advisors.  That means we should take a very close look at Obama's associates--from Wright to Ayers, from Rezco to ACORN and Franklin Raines.

Jane Becker

There is no 'timing' of the revelation of his association with Ayers.  This has been floating around for over a year and the media didn't bother to report much about it.  Remember, it was Obama's fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton, who brought this to the public's attention...months ago.

He didn't just serve on a board with Ayers...he was appointed to Annenberg BY Ayers.  He served on the Woods board with Ayers.  Ayers  kicked off Obama's political career in his home.  Why?  Don't you want to know?  Should we not be concerned what Ayers, a confessed terrorist, sees in Obama that made him his choice to head this organization?

Obama talks a lot about ideals.  Not so much about how exactly he's going to put any of this into action.  Where the money is going to come from - especially, now.  How he's going to get the support of Congress.  He made the same sort of promises when he ran for the Illinois state government and followed through with almost none of it.  In fact, from what I understand, the Illinois state financial status is in shambles and has been for years.  Illinois once had a surplus that was squandered.  It consistently ranks in the last 20% of states for economic growth.  The childcare initiative Obama likes to take credit for was actually started by Governor Ryan.  

Dictators are usually born with great public support by creating class envy and convincing the public that government can solve all their problems, and when the people don't wish to see the truth.  Some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen were full of charisma and their countrymen loved them...at first.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Okay, LePlus.  I just don't understand how you can still be concerned about this when even the media is now saying that there is no connection.  Fox News even mentioned this the other night during their coverage after the debate.  It isn't sweeping it under the carpet.  There isn't a connection other than they served on a board together.  So what?  I'm not being smart.   I'm just asking -- why should this matter?  There are plenty of crazy and crooked people in this country all around us every day, but does that make everyone else guilty by association?  What we are saying is that just because they served on a committee together, it doesn't make Obama part of the Weather Underground or something.  I could understand your concern IF there was a connection that Obama was linked to something shady, but there isn't.  There truly isn't.  It's a witch hunt -- nothing more than fear tactics by the Repub party to maintain power.  People that are afraid aren't as likely to make changes.  This is how third world countries and dictatorships are born -- fear.  Furthermore, Obama is a senator.  Don't you think that if there was some connection to him and shady dealings with Ayers it wouldn't have been revealed prior to him running for President?  The timing on the release of the so-called association is more than questionable.  

Don't you see that this is the same old same old politics as usual that you are tired of?   The one party bashes the other party -- tries to dig up some dirt on them -- makes them look bad, unethical, unfit to serve office.  When the real concern should be what candidate has the best interests of the American citizens in mind.  This is what is frustrating to me as an Obama supporter.  When Obama talks, he talks about solutions.  Or he is trying to combat these crazy rumors and political garbage.  We, as citizens, deserve better than this political nonsense.  That's why I'm voting for Obama. 

According to Powell, Obama has enough experience, and the right termperment, not to fall apart during a financial crises.

Yes, let's look at Obama's close associations. When you have names of people who are close associates and advisers of Obama, be sure to list them in this post and we'll take a closer look. 

While we're at it we'll take a look at McCain's and Palin's close associates too, shall we? Let's start with Todd Palin, and his assumption of gubenatorial power, as well as his membership in an organization that despises the US. How about J. Gordon Liddy, a good friend of McCain? Let's not forget how closely aligned McCain is with Phil Graamm, the man who probably is more responsible for today's economic situation more than any other, and called the American people "whiners" for even talking about today's economy. Of course, Charles Keating is still in jail, so I don't know if they're that close any more...

Powell gave one of the strongest endorsements of Obama that i've seen. Play word games all you want, he recognized how dangerous the McCain/Palin team are to this country, and how capable Obama is.

So if the only thing you have is an organization that does good--yes, does good, though the Republicans are doing everything in their power to prevent thousands of people from voting--but one in which Obama has absolutely no say, and a person that Obama served on a couple of boards with, and Obama's minister, go ahead. 

But you might ask yourself why you brought up Franklin Raines. That one has already been fact checked and found to have no foundation at all. Is it because he's a former CEO of Fannie Mae? Or because he's a black man, and you're just lumping all the black people together?

Because if you can continue to bring up all your old and tired baggage, Jane, I can sure as heck bring up issues of race, and racism.

Either that or we can all agree to focus on the issues, and perhaps have some decency in this presidential campaign, rather than the borderline racist, vicious, underhanded, unethical campaign McCain/Palin have been running.

Your choice. 

It's like an OJ story.  Maybe OJ should have received a teaching tenureship, too.  :) 

But, yes, that's exactly how it happened.  The evidence was not illegal.  It involved things like wiretapping...and Mark Felt (aka Deep Throat), of all people, was one person responsible for it among others. 

Wiretapping was just so darned popular back in the early 70's, lol.

A web search will bring up tons of stuff on it.  The problem is one has to want to face the cold hard facts directly in the face.  Sadly, too many people don't.  It's much more comfy to want to stay in the cushy bubble of idealism versus realism.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

I'm not a Republican and this very real association concerns me. 

Putting this issue 'to rest' is akin to 'sweeping it under the carpet', imo.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

 "He served on a board with a known home grown terrorist. "

So does this mean that you want to close the University of Illinois - the land grant institution of the state - because they hired Ayers to teach? Afterall, they hired the a home grown terrorist. And please, let's not stop there, lets fire the entire elected Board of Trustee of the UofI for approving Ayers to teach there. And of course you'll have to fire anyone who has ever worked with him or who is 6 degrees of separation from him. Do you honestly realize just how ridiculous you sound.

 Did I say any of that?  What a fallacious argument.  You don't think for me yet you've fabricated my position  and then criticized the position you made up.  Strawman!

It's not just a board that they served on together, it's a culmination of actions.  First, who appointed Obama as head of Annenberg?  Bill Ayers and his brother?  Ayers knew nothing about Obama, right?  Obama had no idea what type of ideals and objectives that Ayers (one of the founders of Annenberg) expected him to promote as head executive?  Oh, puleazzzze, is right!  Then, Ayers and Obama served on Woods together.  Obama had it in his power to funnel money to several groups (which he did) that could further his political ambitions...Acorn, Rezko, et al.  I haven't even mention the Rev Wright.     Then Ayers and his wife (another Weather Underground member) kick off Obama's first campaign in their home.  Oh, PULEAZZZZZZZZZZE!  This is typical Chicago style politics.  Whether you like it or not that's exactly what it is.

And as far as forgiving criminals - please! Google the term "presidential pardon list" and you will find hundreds of criminals - including those charged with terrorist activity, drugs, embezzlement, and the like. Not to mention that the current president's youngest brother was deeply involved in the S&L debacle which cost millions of tax payers money and for which Keating is now in jail. And he was never indicted, convicted, or anything because his last name is Bush and his father was president. Further, I strongly suggest that learn the history of this great nation and the judgement used by the Founding Fathers relative to their associates and the establishment of the nation and the Constitution. Many of their decisions were suspect at best.

Hello?  I can't be the only one who remembers Richard J. Daley.

The best defense of Obama's actions and decisions you can come up with is pointing out the fact that other do it?  So we should overlook it AGAIN?  I couldn't care less about the Bush family -  I can't wait until the current administration is gone.  Furthermore, are you trying to prove my point?  You're pointing out what happens when we vote for politicians with suspect backgrounds so we obviously should be worried!

As far as history is concerned, I wouldn't assume to know what others know of history, if I were you.  I certainly know how corrupt the process has historically been.  One little piece of history you should take note of is how George Washington felt about parties and partisanship and how it would destroy our country. 

I enjoy a vigorous debate - but, when it gets to being akin to the theatre of the absurd, well it is clear that such debate must end. So, prior to allowing you to have the last unread (by me) response to this comment, let me leave this discussion with this piece of advise: DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA. VOTE FOR MCCAIN. MAYBE HE'LL WIN AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY WASHED UP OLD TERRORISTS OR THEIR 5 COUSIN ONCE REMOVED MOVING NEXT DOOR TO YOU.

Have I once said I endorsed McCain?  Erm, no, I didn't.  I don't like either of them.  I'm tired of the same ole same ole and I'm not going to settle for it any longer. 

I wouldn't continue to debate, either, if all I could come up with were fallacious strawman arguments.

Regards,

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Serving on a board with someone is bad judgement?   That's a ridiculous statement, LePlusJeune.  Ridiculous....   Once again, this is the point I'm trying to make about how rather than talking about the REAL issues in this campaign, Repubs (and others trying to make their case for McCain) will try to make something out of nothing. 

 "He served on a board with a known home grown terrorist. "

So does this mean that you want to close the University of Illinois - the land grant institution of the state - because they hired Ayers to teach? Afterall, they hired the a home grown terrorist. And please, let's not stop there, lets fire the entire elected Board of Trustee of the UofI for approving Ayers to teach there. And of course you'll have to fire anyone who has ever worked with him or who is 6 degrees of separation from him. Do you honestly realize just how ridiculous you sound.

And as far as forgiving criminals - please! Google the term "presidential pardon list" and you will find hundreds of criminals - including those charged with terrorist activity, drugs, embezzlement, and the like. Not to mention that the current president's youngest brother was deeply involved in the S&L debacle which cost millions of tax payers money and for which Keating is now in jail. And he was never indicted, convicted, or anything because his last name is Bush and his father was president. Further, I strongly suggest that learn the history of this great nation and the judgement used by the Founding Fathers relative to their associates and the establishment of the nation and the Constitution. Many of their decisions were suspect at best.

I enjoy a vigorous debate - but, when it gets to being akin to the theatre of the absurd, well it is clear that such debate must end. So, prior to allowing you to have the last unread (by me) response to this comment, let me leave this discussion with this piece of advise: DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA. VOTE FOR MCCAIN. MAYBE HE'LL WIN AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY WASHED UP OLD TERRORISTS OR THEIR 5 COUSIN ONCE REMOVED MOVING NEXT DOOR TO YOU.

Much Obliged, SjP ( http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com )

//Because Obama wants to keep the focus of the election on issues and how each would govern.//

Of course Obama wants to keep the focus on issues. Heaven forbid anyone should take an in-depth look into his sleezy character. That's the last thing he wants. So yes, please, let's keep the focus on issues...please!

I should perhaps clarify that by adding... Obama wants to keeo the focus on issues when it comes to his own questionable associations. But, of course, focusing on smears against Palin etc., is quite acceptable. 

It's a bit late for that, I'm afraid. The whole world is showing concern about Obama's links to radicals. Here is just one example: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24485226-7583,00.html

//Almost all of the evidence against Weather Underground was dismissed because of illegal information gathering by the FBI.//

I think it would be fair to say that the evidence itself was not illegal, however, Ayers managed to escape a conviction due to some technical error in the way that evidence was gathered...something like that? There was never any doubt of Ayers guilt, but he managed to escape due to a technicality.

A web search should be able to bring up more information on this.

//Seriously, no one cares. Other than a few desperate Republicans.//

Now that's scary! Voters should damn-well care who they're voting into office! My God, I can hardly believe this is happening... No one cares?

//McCain picked Palin as his running mate--a person who abused the power of her office for personal gain, and who let her husband, a member of a secessionist party, assume gubernatorial powers.//

No sooner had Sen.McCain announced his VP pick (Gov.Palin) when a plane loaded with Democrat investigators/lawyers took off to Alaska to see what dirt they could dig up...and this was the best they could come up with? C'mon, give me a break!

If you really want to know Gov.Palin's worthiness, take an honest look at her record.

//Well, then, I guess we won't vote for Bill Ayers.//

Neither should you vote for Obama if his past achievements are anything to go by. The below account of Obama's achievements is taken from another (trusted) source:

Has anyone ever been to the South Side of Chicago??? I have - many times!
The residents there have been surviving in sub-standard conditions for years. There are no jobs, crime is rampant, and the housing conditions are so poor it is a complimentary exaggeration to call them slums.

The word ‘projects’ indicates a work in progress, but on the Chicago’s south side it takes on a different meaning - a stagnant, decaying slum. 11 of these deplorable buildings on the south side are owned by Obama’s friend Tony Rezco.
Obama funneled State money to Rezco to ” improve conditions in those buildings ‘ - never happened.

Obama also funneled $100,000 for a ‘ let them eat cake’ gazebo on the south side. The gazebo was never built even though I am sure that those families who are living in falling down buildings in crime infested neighborhoods were really hoping for a freaking gazebo.

Sen. Obama handed his wife’s employer a 1 million dollar earmark. He requested 3 million to update a projector at the Sky Theater.

Trinity Church and Rev. Pfleger benefited from the 100 million dollars Obama doled out for the Annenberg Challenge which was SUPPOSED to have been used to help the failing public school system.

Some of the programs Obama turned down for grants were : The Chicago Algebra project , and The District 5 Math Initiative - both are worthy projects that the public school system desperately needed to finance . Meanwhile , Obama’s buddies , and radical groups received millions.

When you go to vote this year, I would encourage you to check out the South Side of Chicago. Obama’s own Senate district. See what “Change” Obama has brought to his own district . Take a look at how his ‘leadership’ has ‘improved’ his own community , and then ask yourself , ” If Senator Obama doesn’t care about his own community, what will he do for me ?”

 And in my mind I have found him to have bad judgement.  The facts are what they are.  He served on a board with a known home grown terrorist.  That, imo, is very, very bad judgement.  I don't need the media to tell me that's wrong.  And his retort was because his kids went to school with Ayers' kids.  Really?  Ayers kids are in their twenties. 

Maybe in Chicago this is the norm - Chicagoans seem to be pretty forgiving when it comes to corruption and criminals.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

//McCain picked Palin as his running mate--a person who abused the power of her office for personal gain, and who let her husband, a member of a secessionist party, assume gubernatorial powers.//

You obviously get your slant on things from MSM (Obama's mouthpiece). Perhaps it's time you switched channels...try 'Fox' for a more balanced view.