The truth is almost everyone knows someone who has lived nearby, or who they have worked with ,that have been picked up by the FBI for crimes..Obama has condemned Ayers so I don't understand all the harping??
There is no god
The distressing this is not that he has a neighbor that was involved in something years before.
What causes concern is that Obama had numerous and multiple contacts with many people who maintain terrible values and beliefs.
The most important thing Obama will do as president will make judgments about people and appoint them to positions of power. He doesn't have a great track record.
Ayers is not just a person who lives nearby. He helped launch Obama's career and they served on various boards together. (This is only the begining of their association, which, if you want, I can explain is actually much more involved.)
The question is three-fold:
1) Why would Obama accept the help of someone who was continuing to express the type of ideas he endorsed and why would Obama continue to associate with someone who still expressed those ideas. Now he tries to separate himself from Ayers. Why now?;
2) If Ayers still holds these views, and he is very pro-Obama, what does that say about Obama and why does Obama attract that type of supporter.
3) Obama has a history of associating with OR getting the support of a lot of really bad people. He has also given a lot of them money. Fleger, Wright, Ayers, Hamas, Rezko, Farakan, and others.
If Hamas wants you to win, that ain't a great recommendation. Why does a horrific group like Hamas want him to win? Why did Obama get money for Fleger? Why did he have such a long-time and deep relationship with Wright? Why did he give Wright money? Why did he hang out with Rezko? Why does Farakan like him so much?
I have a lousy neighbor. I smile politely and we go our separate ways.
-- Modified on 10/16/2008 9:15:33 AM
What causes concern is that Obama had numerous and multiple contacts with many people who maintain terrible values and beliefs. >>>> SIMILAR ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE ABOUT MCCAIN & QUESTIONABLE ASSOCIATIONS ... remember KEATING?
The most important thing Obama will do as president will make judgments about people and appoint them to positions of power. He doesn't have a great track record. >>>> SAME COULD BE SAID ABOUT MCCAIN ... eg Charlie Black, Steve Schmidt, Carly Fiorina, Phil Gramm AND ...drumroll.... PALIN !!
Ayers is not just a person who lives nearby. He helped launch Obama's career and they served on various boards together. >>> What "VARIOUS" boards???? And please enlighten us on how he "helped launch" his career.
The question is three-fold:
1) Why would Obama accept the help of someone who was continuing to express the type of ideas he endorsed >>> THE SAME COULD BE ASKED OF REAGAN'S AMBASSADOR, ANNENBERG.
2) If Ayers still holds these views, and he is very pro-Obama, what does that say about Obama and why does Obama attract that type of supporter >> AND WHY DOES MCCAIN ATTRACT THE RABID NARROW MINDED SCREAMING NUTJOBS?
3) Obama has a history of associating with OR getting the support of a lot of really bad people. He has also given a lot of them money. Fleger, Wright, Ayers, Hamas, Rezko, Farakan, and others. ..HE HAS GIVEN MONEY TO HAMAS?? PLEASE DOCUMENT THESE ALLEGATIONS
If Hamas wants you to win, that ain't a great recommendation. Why does a horrific group like Hamas want him to win? Why did Obama get money for Fleger? Why did he have such a long-time and deep relationship with Wright? Why did he give Wright money? Why did he hang out with Rezko? Why does Farakan like him so much? SO IF BIN LADEN CAME OUT & "ENDORSED" MCCAIN YOU'D ABANDON YOUR "FELLOW PRISONER"?
You are a barrel of laughs....
Do a little independent research before spouting the party propaganda.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Lot to reply to, and I have to get to work, so this will be fast.
Okay, I was writing quickly, I may have been imperfect in the use of words, but the ideas are accurate.
You ask “What "VARIOUS" boards….Please excuse And please enlighten us on how he "helped launch" his career.”
Various boards may be imprecise (OKAY WRONG - I said it) but the idea of multiple and long association with Ayers is accurate, regardless if they are on "boards."
As to the start of his career: State Senator Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor at gathering at Ayers's home. Ayers was hosting the start of Obama’s career and was one of his earliest financial supporters.
He and Mr. Obama served together board of the Woods Fund, and they appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. Obama served on the Annenberg challenge, the brain child of Ayers. Documents show that at that time Ayers was an “ex-officio” member of the board. (That is two boards, one "unofficial" but very real.)
In the normal course of life, these would be minimal contacts. You know full well that when people serve on a board, they have more than passing contact at board meetings. "Sit down. Call to order. Do business. Leave." DOES NOT HAPPEN
I am on a board that has meetings every three months. Over half the people go out to dinner after the meeting. We are always calling each other on business and lapsing over into personal.
It defies credibility to assume that people went to the meetings and had no contact beyond that across the table.
This is especially true if Ayers is one of the guiding lights of the organization. He is bound to have contact with others in the group.
1) Why would Obama accept the help of someone who was continuing to express the type of ideas he endorsed >>> THE SAME COULD BE ASKED OF REAGAN'S AMBASSADOR, ANNENBERG.
This is a very bad comparison. Some people make bad judgments and may get duped into a onetime contact with people who are unsavory. Annenberg (and people like him) give hundreds of millions of dollars to hundreds of groups. Often they have assistants who do 95% of the work in selecting those who will get aid. They don’t always vet them that well. Anneberg was very generous to education. The fact that he gave money to one group that was a bad move is hardly comparable to the person who sat on the board and conducted the business with Ayers.
Again, this is a one shot thing. If Annenberg had a history on numerous such contacts I would be inclined to question him.
"2) If Ayers still holds these views, and he is very pro-Obama, what does that say about Obama and why does Obama attract that type of supporter >> AND WHY DOES MCCAIN ATTRACT THE RABID NARROW MINDED SCREAMING NUTJOBS?"
He doesn’t attract screaming nutjobs. By any account this is a very recent and very small group. Also, you can’t choose who comes to rallies. You can chose who you associate with for 20 years. You can chose who you sit with on boards. you can chose who you ask to baptize your kids.
Anyway, the left has always attracted a lot of screaming nut jobs.
To compare a few screaming people that will never meet with McCain to people who have been deeply involved with Obama is really weak.
3) Obama has a history of associating with OR getting the support of a lot of really bad people. He has also given a lot of them money. Fleger, Wright, Ayers, Hamas, Rezko, Farakan, and others. ..HE HAS GIVEN MONEY TO HAMAS?? PLEASE DOCUMENT THESE ALLEGATIONS
Sorry, typing too fast. I should have had an “And/or” in a couple places. He hasn’t given money to Hamas or Farakahan. He only has their endorsement. He hasn’t given money to Rezko. He only got a questionable land deal with Rezko.
He has given money to Wright and Fleger, see link.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/features/article_1430476.php/Obama_retools_as_McCain_muscles_in_on_change_message__News_Feature__?compage=30&comcount=44&comlimit=10
The relationship of Keating is nothing compared to Wright. Wright was Obama’s spiritual mentor. He was a member of the church for 20 years. He chose the church because he was attracted to Wright's style and philosophy. Obama got the name of his book from Wright. Wright baptized his children. Obama got money for Wright’s church.
My general point – and this is the point that I stick to - is that there is a pattern. It is that all of these are associations and connections with differing types of contact. Some he gets money from. Some he gets money for. Some he serves on boards with. Some are his mentors. Some are friends for decades. Some are spiritual mentors. Some endorse him. Just on the ones that he chose to have active contact with – Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and Fleger – this is not a good list.
Obama has a relatively brief period in public. To attract so many in such a short time isn't a good indicium of his judgment.
No one you can name in reference to McCain has anything near the degree of association that Ayers or Wright had with Obama.
McCain was in Washington for decades. He is bound to have a few people that had minor contact with him that are less than good. but on the whole, if you average out their contacts, he comes off much better.
"If Hamas wants you to win, that ain't a great recommendation- SO IF BIN LADEN CAME OUT & "ENDORSED" MCCAIN YOU'D ABANDON YOUR "FELLOW PRISONER"?"
But bin Laden did not endorse McCain. If Bin Laden DID endorse McCain it would make me really nervous. Your “what if” is like “what if my mother had four wheels? She would be a Mercury Sable. But she doesn’t.” Hamas and others do endorse Obama and that doesn’t speak well of him.
-- Modified on 10/16/2008 3:17:47 PM
Your opening admission of hyperbole is gratifying, since hyperbole permeates your entire argument.
The "giving money to Hamas" is an obvious example. (& I'm being generous on this one)
The generalization of what happens on boards, just because you happen to be on some boards, is fantasy. You are making assumptions without any substantive proof.
According to you, Annenberg gets off clean because his underlings didn't vet Ayers properly, but somehow Obama was supposed to vet him? I highly doubt that you're familiar with all the backgrounds of all the people that are on the boards you attend.
"The relationship of Keating is nothing compared to Wright" >>> according to you there are shades of grey, & you choose to see your candidate in a pastel shade LOL. I see it as parallels.
"He doesn’t attract screaming nutjobs" >>> OH REALLY??? Need I really say more??
I could sit down & spend the next 30 mins taking your argument apart line by line, just like I did the previous time. But I know I'm not going to convince you.
This rebuttal is intended to offer others reading this a differing viewpoint. The bottom line is that you will continue to see the world thru your filter.
-- Modified on 10/16/2008 3:51:31 PM
As I said, giving money to Hamas was poor syntax. The fact remains that he is the sort of person they like.
Sometimes I am happy when bad people hate me.
One does not have to have studies, articles, or “proof” for everything. Indeed, juries are told they can decide guilt based on their daily experiences of common life. I don’t need a study to prove to me that people on a soft ball team are very likely to associate with each other. It is just a part of life that if people are working with someone – on a board, in an office, on a project – people will say, “How’s the kids?” “Wanna grab a cup of coffee or a bite.”
To assume there is no interaction reduces people to the level of robots. Do you really think it is call to order, business, good bye?
You are right. I don't know all the background of all the people on the two boards I have been on. But if I am in three groups with one particular person, I do tend to know him more that someone else whom I only have contact with in one situation.
Likewise, if it is someone I have seen around in my small groups for a few years, I do know a fair amount about him.
And when someone has a level of noteriety for past fame - Hell, yes - People talk. "That's Jim Doe. He was ....."
Now tell me - really - someone as well-known as Ayers in small political circles - do your really think Obama had no idea who this guy was?
He goes to Ayers's house. Is it so astounding to assume that he might ask, "So whose hosting my coming out party?"
Ayers makes an appearance at the board and starts to talk. Is it so shocking to think someone might say, "Who's that?"
Yes, I believe there are shades of gray. The world is filled with 6 billion people who range from Mother Teresa to Charlie Manson. In between are people who steal paper clips from work, cheat on taxes, and all sorts of lesser sins.
(Funny, the left always says the right is too dumb to understand nuances. Now I am criticized because I see the distinctions. Can’t win for losing.)
It is not just that Obama didn’t vet Ayers. This wasn’t a one time deal. It is years of contact in multiple situations.
Anyone can give money to a group and be sucker punched. Indeed, Obama gave money to a Jesse Jackson group that was pretty bad and he used the reason that he got so many requests that he didn’t vet them all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/nation/na-obamafaith12
All I am saying is that someone in Annenberg’s position it is understandable, just as the excuse was available to Obama. (I did not raise that one before because I was willing to cut Obama slack for exactly that reason. I’m only raising it now to show how it can happen. (Although maybe Obama should be more careful with public money than Annenberg is with private money..)
Again, this is all a pattern. I would cut anyone slack for a few mistakes. But the consistency is telling.
Speaking of screaming nut jobs, look what happens when people try to carry signs that say “McCain” down a NYC street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
You can ignore the commentary, which I admit is very partisan, but you can’t deny the reaction of the crowd.
Screaming, hate-filled nut jobs if I ever saw them. And in mass. And what inspired it. People walking down a street carrying a sign supporting a main-stream figure.
You end with “The bottom line is that you will continue to see the world thru your filter.”
I have to say this is typical. Do you not see the world through your filter? If you do, and if everyone does, what is the purpose of saying so, as it adds nothing?
Yours truly in rose colored glasses.
You must have a lot of time on your hands to waste on such verbosity. Unfortunately I lack the time, so you win on volume not substance.
But briefly, you say:
"One does not have to have studies, articles, or “proof” for everything " HOW OBJECTIVE...LMAO
"I don't know all the background of all the people on the two boards" >> YOU MADE MY POINT
"you can’t deny the reaction of the crowd." ... WAS THIS AT AN OBAMA RALLY? No of course it wasn't ... BUT THE SCREAMING NUTJOBS ARE AMPLY PRESENT AT McCAIN/PALIN RALLIES
Finally, on the subject of filters, you are correct that everyone has one. Though my contention is that yours is on too fine a setting. Try dialing in a little objectivity on yours.
Ayers effectively started the foundation. . .he is the one that wrote the grant funding the foundation and BHO was the original Chairman of the Board. This is a relationship that is much closer than 'served together'.
Others on the board? None of them are running for President, so who cares? But just the same, you'll NEVER see me inviting ANY of them over for dinner and if I ever got the invite, I surely would refuse and give the reason.
I live in Illinois. Everyone in Illinois, let alone Chicago, politics knew about Ayers.
-- Modified on 10/16/2008 9:42:35 PM
It is more than "just served." But that is the starting point. It only gets worse, as you point out.
And as you say, Ayers wasn't Mr. Mystery.