What Passes for Objective Reporting this Election Season:
First two paragraphs of an AP story:
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of his association with a former 1960s radical, stepping up the campaign's effort to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters. Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, during the tumultuous Vietnam War era four decades ago. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.There is nothing balatantly false in this story, but it's about as one-sided a presentation of the contoversy as one could imagine; no mention that the Weather Underground planned a very deadly attack on Fort Dix; the excuse that the times were "tumultuous;" the reference to Obama being child, no reference to Obama having his inaugural political event at Ayer's house; no mention of Ayers lack of contrition for his terrorist activities; no mention of Ayers' fugitive years; no mention that Obama only saw fit to denounce Ayers' only when it became an issue in his presidential campaign, and the intentional downplaying of Ayers' and Obama's relationship to "serving on a charity board" with Ayers, as opposed to "worked closely with Ayers on a major educational reform project in Chicago." Indeed, I'd say that the last two sentences could have been written by the Obama campaign, and, in fact, that the reporter probably repeated talking points he received from the campaign virtually verbatim.
UPDATE: I'm traveling and haven't seen the New York Times piece on Obama and Ayers. It's possible that the AP reporter was just regurgitating what that story says. If so, the reporter should know better than to rely on the Times, at least in this cycle.
FURTHER UPDATE: Glancing at the comments, a lot of people want to defend Obama, but no one seems willing or able to make a serious argument that the AP story doesn't amount to a defense of Obama in what is supposed to be straight news. The fourth sentence should have simply started with "The Obama campaign ressponds," instead of putting Obama talking points into the reporter's keyboard.
/tinfoilhat
How many innocent civilians has Israel killed?
Should the candidates denounce Israel just because it has killed innocent civilians?
Maybe I'm misreading this snippet, but in what way is the reporter downplaying terrorism during this time? The use of the word tumultuous is accurately used to describe the period in which these events took place, just as it would be to describe the period in which the killing of Ohio State students took place.
The real story here is the McCain/Pailin campaign's continued attempt to obfuscate the salient issues of this campaign, especially McCain's complicity in the degradation of controls on the nation's financial system at the expense of ordinary citizens, by attempting to focus on irrelevant, divisive issues.
Yes, Sen. McCain is really off his game. These indirect attacks are weak and confusing, and they just spawn newspaper stories that weaken the message further. He should be going after the singular salient point that Sen. Obama is almost entirely an unknown quantity, and what little of him we do know reflects leftism beyond any previous Democratic candidate (and beyond most fellow legislators).
Sigh, I guess Sen. McCain is just getting too old for such focused arguments.
McCain has nothing left now. He's discarded his good name to engage in the worst sort of scaremongering and attack politics. He has embarrassed himself by appearing on the same ticket with the laughably ignorant Gov. Palin. And now he's going to lose the election and go back to the Senate to watch President Obama enact his agenda. It must be incredibly galling for this formerly respected politician to have sacrificed everything he spent so long building up, and to get nothing in return.
But it's a story about Governor Palin's campaign tactics, not about William Ayers. That becomes clear in the third paragraph, which you didn't quote:
"While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, it's a stretch of any reading of the public record to say the pair ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."
In short, the AP is calling Ms. Palin
a bald-faced liarbadly misinformed.Would any of the facts you cite have changed that conclusion? If so, which and how? If not, why is it one-sided to omit them?
Thanks for giving us an irrelevant NYT version of the facts.
For this particular brand of Obama supporter, NOTHING Obama has ever said, done or ever will do is pertinent to his candidacy. Except for the vacuous platitudes.
In 2001 Ayers told the NYT he wished they had done more bombing. Obama says Ayers is mainstream. Does anyone find advocacy of killing Americans with bombs to be mainstream? Does this indicate Obama is familiar with the prevailing attitudes of Americans on this subject?
Who thinks Ayers is mainstream. If so, why?
Credit default swaps are going to have their values set starting on Monday. It is starting with Fannie and Freddie, but will move on to Lehman and AIG. No one knows if any of these auctions will be the trigger event for a much larger meltdown, but the OTC derivatives market is unregulated thanks to McCain's former economic advisor Phil Gramm (estimated value of $600 trillion to $1 quadrillion).
Good luck with that.
If....if....there were strong evidence of a deep friendship between the two, then maybe the last one could have some justification. Otherwise, this is just a smear. And deducing some deep friendship based on working on a project together is just plain silly. How many of us have worked on projects together with people we did not like?
In stark contrast with your reasoned, sober, issue-oriented politics.
You mean, like this article?
"Burns got involved in the investigation within weeks of the bombing, which came during a tumultuous year of civil rights demonstrations in Birmingham, where segregation was the law."
By your standard, not only has the author couched the act of church bombing in the excuse that they occurred during a "tumultuous time," but he has also pointed out that the laws in Birmingham enforced racial animus.
As some have said above, this Ayers stuff (as well as some of your other character stuff on Obama) is pretty transparent marketing of the GOP brand on your part, given the relative non-issue this relationship has become. But even assuming that your bias didn't lead you to your position, your characterization of the connotation of the words and phrases in the AP article is woefully off-base. I hope you work with a good editor when you write your next article.
David Bernstein is on faculty at George Mason University.
George Mason has a campus in the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE practices Sharia law.
Therefore David Bernstein favors Sharia law for America!!!!
...or not. But those ties are about as credible as Obama and Ayers.
So what? Am I a four-term Senator who was beloved by media and even opposition politicians alike until a few months ago, when I decided to piss it all away on a failed bid for the Presidency? Did I start out with a reputation for fairness and straight talk, which has been left in shreds by my campaign's relentless misrepresentation of facts in paid advertising and public statements? Did I make a mockery of myself by selecting as my running mate a first-term governor of one of the least populous states in the Union, who has been revealed as a sharp attacker who hasn't given a moment's thought to various crucial issues of national policy? If not, it's hard to see how the tragedy of my stridency or even shrillness is on anything like the same order as that of McCain.
Other than that there's exactly ONE degree of separation between Obama and Ayers, same as there is between me and my best friend. If there's nothing to see here, why the sensitivity? The NYT piece was both late to the party and read like an Obama campaign press release. Why not recall at least a few of the dumpster sifters turning Palin's life upside down and have them do a bit of googling, or even make a few phone calls?
Well, some questions answer themselves.
No, you're just an annoying hack who needs to get out more.
Just asking....
The same can be said of my wife's grandmother and Pope John Paul II. What's your point?
Why not recall at least a few of the dumpster sifters turning Palin's life upside down and have them do a bit of googling, or even make a few phone calls?
This "story" has been out there since Obama hit the presidential primaries. Perhaps some reporters looked into it and saw there was nothing there? Or maybe all of the Em Ess Em reporters are part of the secret, Muslim conspiracy to elect Obama so he can enact Sharia law and make everyone get gay abortions.
"John McCain serverd on a board with David Duke. John McCain had a fund raiser at David Duke's house. John McCain says, he's just a guy I know in the neighborhood."
Seems like a non-story to me.
Obama crossed paths with Ayres because the latter was serving in the education field. To suggest that Obama is somehow suspect because he had occasion to rub shoulders with a man who was performing his civic duties in Chicago, is so narrow minded and petty that it frankly defies comprehension.
Ayres paid for his past. He was attempting to improve the lot of kids in the name of God - unlike the real criminals who have destroyed Wall Stret with their greed and lunacy. To Quote Warren Buffet - "madmen who have planted weapons of mass destruction (in the financial markets."
In my experience Americans are big hearted people, tremendously generous ... and given their druthers fair and decent. Attempts to smear Obama along these lines is frankly disgusting. It discredits America.
The media could drag up McCain's mob or Keating ties. But neither of those would address the problems facing America and would serve as a distraction from the policies of the candidates.
I certainly don't think Mr. Ayers is mainstream and I don't like his hyper-privileged self-righteousness. Yet, I don't think he has openly advocated killing Americans with bombs. He claims/claimed that the Weather Underground has never killed anyone (except fellow members who made mistakes while making bombs).
Ayers chose him to be on the CAC -- an organization which, at very best, was good at doing nothing with millions of dollars -- and they worked together in it. Ayers also had personal contact, eg with the children, so it's not strictly a professional relationship. And he was called mainstream by Obama when questioned.
Here's a hint I probably shouldn't give you: the more people try to pass the contact off as "occasion to rub shoulders," the more it looks like there's something to hide.
I heard that Obama and Ayers were gay lovers. It must be true because they haven't denied it!
Does anyone really think that the media is trying to "address the problems facing America" with its coverage, or that it is neutrally presenting the policies of the candidates without distraction?
Way to miss the point. And you wonder why the socialists want to govern you like a nanny shaking an infant?
But he only bombed places like post offices, banks, police stations, and courthouses.
That doesn't count.
Neither does the fact that his organization actually declared war against the United States.
Neither does the fact that Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' house.
Really, there's nothing relevant here.
Really.
Trust me.
How can you say that Ayers "paid for" his past? He got off on a technicality, and said "guilty as Hell, free as a bird".
corneille1640:
If the WU never killed anyone except each other, it was only their own incompetence and other people's luck. You do know what the prematurely-detonated townhouse bombs were intended for, don't you?
What does the Bush administration have to do with this?
I think they think, this is their mission. To "tell us about her." But it's skewed in impact. And also not really very newsish. More editorial, really.
Obama is an empty suit. That's not my assessment, that's the British ambassador's, who said that "Obama's policies are still evolving" and "there is little Obama track record to refer back to."
Obama has left a very thin paper trail-no Illinois Senate records, no college transcripts, the CAC files were almost embargoed. He has left no wake, no clue as to his essential self. So we are left to look to his friends, and we see Ayers. We see Wright. We see Frank Davis. We see Rezko. We see his half brother, George Obama, living on a dollar a month in Kenya. Each of these relationships shows a profound lack of judgment.
Obama's relationship with Ayers is just another piece of redundant evidence that he should not be President.
“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." Bill Ayers, NYT Sept 11, 2001
Obama says this guy is mainstream.
More seriously though, since tenuous connections to unsavory people and organizations can be constructed or construed for both presidential candidates, I'm willing to call it a tie on that score, and move on to trying to analyze their respective policy distinctions.
Any McCain backers confident enough in their man's positions to go there instead of bickering about this other marginalia?
It is amusing that when the accusations against Obama are technically correct, but supporters are afraid that people might draw the "wrong" conclusions about them, all of a sudden people know exactly what is meant by tone and implication. There's a whole chapter in Screwtape about it.
I doubt anyone thinks that Obama is a secret bomb-thrower. That Ayers and Obama share some interests in changing education and worked closely together to effect those changes could have been a fairly innocent act. When it is revealed how many of those changes were attempts to teach radical political thought and influence schoolchildren in political ways, then, who Ayers was, who he is now, and what he thinks about his earlier self become pertinent. It is the combination of events that calls for attention. Having unrepentant criminal friends is a problem for a political candidate. It should be. It's not a crime in itself, but it is fair information in our evaluation of him.
Sigh. No matter how many times that is said, the defenders will say "they're accusing Obama of being a terrorist! Obama was only 8 years old then!" I always think that if people have to attack you for what you haven't said, it's because they can't produce a good argument against what you did say.
Defenses such as calling his associations "paper-thin" or that they "crossed paths" only means people have stuck with the official Obama version of the story and ignored what has been unearthed.
Guess the irony of obfuscating facts by making a charge of obfuscating facts is completely lost on the Obama Truth Squadders.
But it's too easy on both candidates.
Palin, for instance, gave a speech this year giving aid &comfort to enemies and is married to an acknowledged traitor.
As for claiming we think Obama's a terrorist sympathizer, keep moving those goal posts whenever it's convenient.
Hypocrites.
"So what?"
So you're an example of the kind of person this country will validate if Obama is elected. Which means, judging by your comment: Arrogant, mean-spirited, vindictive, petty.
'nuff said.
This is getting tiresome. McCain was included in the Keating 5 to put a Republican face on a Democrat scandal. Robert Bennett (a Democrat), the special counsel, did not (and does not to this day) think that McCain should have been included.
Here's the SLATE piece, warts and all: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
And here is Bennett in a Feb 2008 interview with Alan Colmes: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331651,00.html
"....But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five, which, by the way, this New York Times article goes back to and discusses, goes back years and years.
And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him...."
Enough already.
Why do people recite things they can not reference?
You speak of Ayres as though he is the quintessence of evil. Maybe Americans are kind of sheltered compared to countries that have gone through internecine conflicts at the barrel of the gun - including bombing campaigns. What those countries understand is that these conflicts can only be resolved by compromise and inclusion.
America's experience of a home grown gun-and-bomb campaign is extremely limited. There have been incidents involving abortion activists etc but it is small fry compared to countries that understand the reality of vicious sectarian and political conflicts.
In N.Ireland Martin McGuinness a former provisional IRA leader and a sniper in Derry at one point, is a statesman of some stature. Many other former Shinners and IRA members have made the move from hard core activism to mainline politics. The peace process is a credit to N.Ireland and it shows the capacity of the people to move beyond the petty desire to lay blame and draw lines.
The important point is that Barack Obama has no history whatever of colluding with groups espousing violent activism - it is completely outside his experience. His contact with Willaim Ayres was a coincidence of circumstances ... tangential to his Chicago work.
I mean in the name of God ... if take a job in education in N.Ireland and I have dealings with Martin McGuinness - who was a former Education Minister no less - are you suggesting that any political ambitions I might have should be jettisoned because I had a few pints with Marty - who I repeat used an armalite rifle on the Brits and was an IRA leader with considerable cache.
This line of reasoning is beneath Americans. Irrespective of partisan loyalties, don't you at least acknowledge that in Barack Obama you have a national leader who does you proud. The entire world believes so. Why would you want to smear a great American who raises your stature and your credibility worldwide. It's simply perverse and sadly - petty. Americans are bigger than that - as the results will prove come November.
I don't think they're making an excuse, I think they're just contextualizing Ayers's terrorist activities. I mean, you would agree that Ayers is to be distinguished from someone like, say, Timothy McVeigh, wouldn't you?
Ayers (please learn to spell his name) "went through a judicial process" with a "verdict"? You seem to be under the impression that he was acquitted. In fact, charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. Ayers' girlfriend and two fellow Weathermen were killed when their bombs went off prematurely in a Greenwich Village townhouse. As Wikipedia notes, ". . . a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of dynamite, four 12-inch (300 mm) pipe bombs packed with dynamite, and 30 blasting caps. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had fuses already attached. Also found were timing devices rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath Columbia University, and literature of the political protest organization, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), from which the Weatherman organization had split off. Police described the building as a 'bomb factory', and said that at the time of the explosion dynamite was apparently being wrapped in tape with nails embedded to act as shrapnel. . . . . It took nine days of collecting body parts to determine how many persons had died in the blast." The target of these bombs was apparently either a dance for non-commissioned officers and their dates at Fort Dix, New Jersey, or the Columbia University Library, or both. As I already wrote, it was only incompetence on the part of Ayers' colleagues and lover that prevented them from killing dozens or hundreds of innocent people. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him close enough to "the quintessence of evil" to make anyone who voluntarily associates with him contemptible.
Whether Obama is a national leader (not yet, he isn't) who 'does us proud' is something we Americans will decide for ourselves, thank you very much. If the entire world believes that he is, that just goes to show how ignorant much of the world is.
Please stop embarrassing yourself by writing of things you have no knowledge of.
McCain gleefully murdered an untold number of innocent civilians with his bombs.
In the eyes of many commenters and VC contributors, it appears, damaging a small amount of American property is a lot more egregious than murdering many brown people.
National Review (who ought to know) says that CNN is full of it.
http://tinyurl.com/4ey8l9
Then there's this.
Draw your own conclusions.
/troll
Is this really where people want to take our political discourse?
I personally have never worked with a known terrorist. You may have I guess. Obama sure did.
The only difference between McVeigh and Ayers is that McVeigh was a "better" bomb maker. They both intended to kill their fellow Americans.
Ayers is scum and anyone who defends him is....
And McWeevil I'm glad you don't speak for more enlightened Americans - change is indeed coming.
It isn't.
He is pursing his exact same goal--of overthrowing the Constitutional order of the US--through different means...in this case, twisting the minds of children.
When did he complete that process? On Sept 11, 2001 Ayers told the NYT, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
Makes you wonder what the Ayers apologists would say if a McCain associate said, "I don't regret lynching blacks; I feel we didn't do enough."
Wow, I wish I could get those several minutes back. Life is too short for that sort of conspiratorial rooting around.
Here is a quick word count from this article.
Possibly or possible = 8
Might = 5
Mao or maoist = 7
Guess = 3
The central thesis seems to be that the Ayers family and SDS/WU have "sent" Obama as some sort of end game to implementing a Maoist regime in America.
Read it for fun; cite it at your own peril.
Arrant nonsense. McCain accepted political contributions and free travel from Keating, then met with federal regulators in an attempt to earn favorable treatment for Keating's business for federal regulators. Not to mention the fact that Cindy McCain was invested in a Keating real estate development. McCain wasn't included to put a Republican face on the scandal; he was included because he took money from someone, then provided a political favor. Whether he was corrupt or merely too stupid to realize how he was being played is a question that remains open to this day.
Obama hasn't dredged it up because that really isn't his style. Like it or not, one candidate has been running a gutter campaign, and it's not Obama. (I personally think he's been too soft at times; legit scandals like Keating Five should be fair game, as should, say, Palin's ties to the Alaskan Independence Party. But that's just not how Obama feels the need to conduct his campaign, and I suppose it isn't hard to see why.)
I used the N.I. example simply to demonstrate that many who have a violent track record can indeed become a part of the political process, also to demonstrate that this harping on Ayers and his civic contacts with Obama is somewhat ludicrously myopic and partisan - since Obama as we know was never involved with Ayer's deeds, even marginally.
If you are trying to make a case of guilt by the simple act of association years after the fact - sure have a shot - but it ain't going to fly. The more the right works this, the more Americans will see it as a character assassination attempt - an effort of last resort.
Well, when McCain is comparing Obama's policies to Bush's... (In the debate; it maybe have been offhand, but it was funny because it's true.)
Pitman
And this is a bad thing? When people bring this up, what exactly are they trying to appeal to? A sense of conformism? Authoritarianism? Empire? None of that applies.
dccinc
You're confused. There is plenty, to put it lightly, to dislike about Obama without liking McCain. You just can't deflect it that way; it's weak.
The Difference
It's the media's job to tell us who to vote for if we feel certain ways, not to inform us so we can draw conclusions.
mac7
Confounding. You see this as a good thing? Why?
(Except through Ayers, whom he categorizes as "mainstream".)
When the resume is blank, that's the only resort available.
So Obama was on national TV bragging about voting with Bush 90% of the time?
Man this is getting confusing.
clicky
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/
Well, they're both domestic terrorists. Ayers was just less competent (or less "lucky") and his intended victims were not killed. Oh, and Ayers avoided punishment. Are there other distinctions that you were thinking of?
While I admit I was not there, I sometimes wonder if everyone in the 60's spent their days blowing things up, dodging drafts, marching in protests, killing cops, and having sex at Woodstock. But hey, since it was all "tumultuous" and stuff - unlike all those entirely placid decades before and since - then I guess a few unrepentant bombers aren't anything we should worry our pretty little heads about.
This crap was even debunked by the National Review.
Um, no, it wasn't. As near as I can tell CNN apparently just fabricated that reference out of thin air. The NR bloggers over at The Corner are not happy with CNN right now.
There seem to be a pattern in how stories that are harmful to the Obama campaign are covered. First the stories are ignored for as long as possible, then they're obliquely noted in paragraph 37 of a story on a different topic, then they're "refuted" by asking for a comment by some completely reliable source like an Obama staffer. Finally, if the pesky story still hasn't gone away yet, they just start making stuff up. Where Ayers is concerned they've apparently reached that final stage.
"John McCain serverd on a board with David Duke. John McCain had a fund raiser at David Duke's house. John McCain says, he's just a guy I know in the neighborhood."
Seems like a non-story to me."
-----
To be fair, McCain has eight houses, therefore eight complete sets of neighbors. With that many people to remember, it would be understandable if David Duke sort of slipped through the cracks...
The problem in trying to shame the left with terrorist associations is that the left isn't shamed by them. The left likes terrorists. They're big fans of Che Guevara, who murdered hundreds of innocent civilians that didn't subscribe to his revolutionary ideology. They love Lynne Stewart, who of course passed messages from the blind shiek terrorist. They're enthralled with Sami Al-Arian, who ran organizations linked to Hamas. They love the FARC. They love Castro. They don't think the war on terrorism is a "real" war.
So leftists like Obama see nothing wrong with paling around with terrorists like Ayers. They think they're chic and it's great fun. They don't give a crap how murderous those people are. They. Don't. Care. The only difference is that while the terrorists have the stomach for violence, people like Obama do not.
Distinguished Professors of Education at one of a state's two flagship universities are pretty much in the mainstream. Why not look at Jim Lindgren's Weather Underground ties? (Both he and Dohrn are on the Northwestern Law faculty.) Or let's look at McCain's Black Panther ties (both McCain and Bobby Rush are in the United States Congress).
As for launching Obama's political career, Obama's ties to Reform Judaism are as strong as to Ayers, according to the NY Times:
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.
“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”
“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”
We let terrorists in Northern Ireland become part of the political process because it's the best of several bad choices.
There's a big difference between associating with terrorists because you have to, and because you want to.
That's like saying "sure, I go to KKK meetings, but I also go to church, so it's all okay". Associating with good people doesn't balance out associating with terrorists.
What is legitimate to ask is whether the full nature of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers indicates his political outlook is considerably more radical than he has tried to suggest in his campaign.
Some here suggest that Obama's relationship is "paper thin." Which is remarkable considering that Obama launched his political campaign in Ayers' house. Or that, according to what Stanley Kurtz has uncovered in his FOIA explorations of the Annenberg Challenge archives that their working relationship, including Obama's hiring, seems to be a lot closer than previous suggested.
Or more to the point, as Kurtz asks today: "Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country."
I dunno about "Swiftboating." But I think it's not unfair to ask Senator Obama whether he now wishes to retract that book endorsement, and if he would care to explain why he made it in the first place, and what his views on the U.S. prison system are now, and if they have changed - why.
Both Ayers and his wife are "rehabilitated" in the most "loose use" of the term. They wanted to do great harm. That they failed and then went underground, waited for things to cool off, came up to the surface, took and finished a penalty is all fine and well. They have not reputiated their actions (and I believe that Dohrn has said she would if confronted with the same fact do it again...) That isn't rehabilitated. That is paying your debt. It is not the same.
So what you're saying is that being a fellow senator is the same as having your children baby-sat by, working on the same foundation with, and starting your career with the personal help of someone like Ayers?
Again: if people really found Ayers such an unobjectional character, why would they be making such specious arguments about the alleged non-ties to Obama?
Well, I don't recall reading anywhere about David Duke setting off any terrorist bombs or even suggesting that people do so...
Of course, we all know what's going on: the MSM is covering up for Obama.
And no, I don't want to try to bring these subjects up under President Obama. As a conservative Republican gun owner, I'll have troubles enough.
So, is this the kind of objectivity that Bernstein seeks? I hope not. How exactly should the story have been presented? Some sort of context needs to be provided for Palin's remarks, so that those who have no idea what she might be talking about may discover that she's probably referencing Ayres. They will need to know who Ayres is, and why Obama is allegedly connected to him. Simply saying that he IS connected is biased towards one side, and saying that he is NOT connected is biased towards the other. So where's the middle?
Perhaps when Palin makes such a serious charge, the burden of proof is upon her to justify it! Amazing that this needs to be pointed out on a legal blog, but is it too much to ask that people give reasons for their claims, especially when it's such a grave accusation? When several news outlets have looked into the story and failed to find justification for this sort of claim, and when she provides no further evidence, why is it biased for the AP to follow the same line as the previous news outlets? That Bernstein doesn't like the NYT is not a sufficient reason.
I'm hoping that you'll post at some point to address the challenge you gave and lost (tumultuous years = civil rights era) - do you have another example?
Best regards -
No, the real story here is the Democrats' continued attempt to obfuscate the fact that the financial system melt-down is rooted in their social engineering schemes. All that bad paper existed in the first place because Freddie and Fannie, attempting to get minorities and low-income people into homes, eased the credit requirements on the loans that they would purchase. It's Democrats who kept "easing" those requirements until for all practical purposes there were no more requirements.
It's Democratic operatives who ran FM/FM cooking the books to enrich themselves, providing cash for their protectors in Congress (one of whom was in a 13-year relationship with Fannie's director of housing initiatives). It's Democrats who fought and defeated all attempts at oversight and regulation. Who claimed all was well in MacMaeLand, that everything was working beautifully just as designed. It's Democrats who when confronted with the regulator's report suggested that maybe it was the regulator who needed investigating. Who when given evidence of Franklin Raines' malfeasance called it a lynching.
It was Fannie and Freddie who put all that bad paper back into circulation bolstered by the "understanding" that it was backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Everything springs from the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae well poisoned by yet another disastrous Democratic foray into social engineering. So bring on your salient issues, Obamatrons. You have no one to harm but yourselves.
And besides, who says the Ayers connection isn't a salient issue? Obama, with no background in education, was tapped to distribute the Anneberg spoils. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the Obama campaign does, that Ayers had no part in choosing Obama for that position. The CAC was Ayers' baby. He was very interested in who would get the money and how it would be used (he even managed to get some flowing in his direction). There's simply no way he would allow someone who didn't share his views about education to take the financial reins of that project.
And what are his views? Ayers, who is a great admirer of the Hugo Chavez approach to education, is still the same Marxist radical he ever was, only his methods and approach have changed. He advocates for a "transformative" curricula, one that promotes equity and social justice. He wants schools to become training grounds for revolutionary activists. He believes that first you indoctrinate the teachers and then you provide them with a curricula designed to indoctrinate their students. And that's what he strove to do with the Anneberg funds.
Just as voters have the right to know if Obama shares the views of his 20-year spiritual adviser/mentor and the theology he embraces, they have the right to know which of Bill Ayers' views he shares. They have the right to know why Obama is so very comfortable among these radicals. They have the right to know that Ayers and Obama weren't just a couple of ships passing now and then in the night, but two people of apparent like minds who both worked and socialized together. And they have the right to know that one of the only two executive positions that Obama ever held was director of a project that was judged an abject failure. Read some Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz and see what I'm talking about.
So the current financial crisis is the responsibility of Phil Gramm? Do you do anything other than read Mother Jones? Good grief. I didn't realize that Article II of the Constitution provided a special vote to Phil Gramm that enabled him to pass legislation changing the entire finance industry regardless of the vote of other legislators or the President (who, at the time, was some guy named Bill Clinton).
The legislation you're referring to was passed with 90 votes, including a majority of Democrats. It was signed by a Democratic president. But it's McCain, via his association with Gramm, that is responsibile for the financial crisis?
It's hard to have a meaningful debate with people so devoid of reason that they actually make an argument like the one you did. You're an apologist. There are lots of reasons to vote for Obama and against McCain. But folks like you just make up the facts as you go along, regardless of whether they bear any resemblance to reality. If that legislation was the cause of the crisis, and on that fact, many financial experts do not agree (Fannie and Freddie might have played a small role . . . ), the blame can't be attributed to one person or party. A person with a shred of intellectual honesty would acknowledge as much. Clearly you don't fall in that camp, otherwise you wouldn't have made that ridiculous statement.
FOX has its bias, of that there is little doubt. But FOX doesn't drive news cycles for other papers -- the Times does. So if the Times is driving the bus, the bias carried with it will travel throughout the press. Now whether this particular story was a product of bias is another matter, and I just don't care enough to offer an opinion.
Perhaps, though, you don't think that the news coverage of the Times is biased? Care to enlighten us?
Perhaps here are multiple points. Mine is that Obama says this guy is mainstream.
On Sept 11, 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
Obama says that is mainstream. Who agrees?
Who agrees the following would be mainstream: "I don't regret lynching blacks; I feel we didn't do enough."
On the other hand, if Obama was aware of his terrorist activities or his comments after 9-11 about "not doing enough," and yet still voluntarily associated with the guy, that is absolutely pertinent and speaks very poorly of his judgment and leanings. I honestly don't have a clue, though, where the truth lies and my intuition is that Obama is not the sort of complete Marxist that Ayers is so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
But that's just me.
I guess when Ayers made his comments on September 11, 2001, Obama was not just paying attention.
By the way, I don't think Obama is a Marxist either. However, I do think that comparing Ayers to Tom Coburn is obscene.
By the way, the true trolls are those who want to compare John McCain's military service with Ayers wanting to bomb people as part of his opposition to the war. The people who made those asinine comparisons are truly pathetic.
I know that there was some kind of event at Ayer's house. Would you please show your evidence that it was "inaugural?"
mariner:
hayden:
athelstane:
Same question.
Apparently Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina. He serves as the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of South Carolina, where Ayers hold the title of "Distinguished Scholar."
It's OK because those civilians were "gooks."
Wrong. "Obama was recommended for the CAC chairmanship by Deborah Leff, nominated by Pat Graham, and elected by the original Annenberg board."
Then I guess you think Arnold R. Weber is contemptible, even though he was an adviser to Nixon and Reagan, and has contributed $1,500 to McCain. Weber also served on the CAC board. I guess McCain should return this "contemptible" donation, right?
Yes, aside from the 800 bills he sponsored, he left "no Illinois Senate records."
At the time, Bennett was working as McCain's lawyer. A slight conflict of interest?
Why do people cite things that make them look intensely foolish?
No, the current financial crisis has been caused by a number of things and blame lies at the feet of both parties. The GSEs were a huge moral hazard because they had the implicit backing of the federal government. The lack of regulation of the OTC derivatives market has allowed a hydra to grow and nobody knows just how out of control it is.
The idea that the CRA or the CFMA or the Fed keeping artificially low interest rates or corruption at Fannie and Freddie or any other single problem "caused" this crisis is absurd. What I am pointing out is the new financial crisis that is on the very near horizon with CDSs has ties directly back to the CFMA (the Dems repeatedly tried to close the Enron loophole but failed).
Next week should be a lot of fun.
Well, no, that's not true. CRA is not the culprit. Get better information here at Barrons.
The money shot in this article:
In 1996, Bill Ayers was awarded an honorary degree ("Doctor of Humane Letters") by Nazareth College. Who was on the Nazareth College Board of Trustees, at that time, and who apparently did not resign, in protest? Stephen D. Natapow, who donated $1,000 to Bush/Cheney in 2003. Uh-oh. The undercover Maoists are everywhere.
Some more "contemptible" people. Look here to see the faces of the trustees of the University of South Carolina, with the Republican governor at the top of the list. And look here to see an article by Ayers, posted on the USC web site. How dare they treat Ayers as if he's "mainstream!"
It's about time you folks got in touch with Gov. Sanford and remind him that "South Carolina's Flagship University" should not be promoting material written by a terrorist.
Wasn't it the securitization of the higher-risk mortgages (to meet government affordable-housing targets) that opened the flood gate for all the speculative mortgages by pushing for relaxed screening standard?
On the other hand, the Palin family is bigger than the Obama family because Michelle eats her babies.
Pfaugh.
As for USC, the page he links to specifically says at the bottom: "The views expressed are strictly those of the page author. The contents have not been reviewed by the University of South Carolina."
1. I challenge you directly on the point of your article; I don't defend Obama from the scurrilous implication you make when you constantly associate him with William Ayres. I simply point out that you are completely exaggerating the effect and probable purpose of the author's grammar, word choice, and syntax, by suggesting that it amounts to overt bias towards Obama when it clearly does not.
2. You suggest that I will be unable to identify a similar use of grammar, word choice, and syntax when examining AP articles discussing right-wing terrorism during the Vietnam era, as some proof that the AP would only do so for leftist terrorism (ignoring, of course, the small sample size that this one article represents, but we'll leave aside your apparent disdain for science for another day).
3. I find exactly such an article. Again, I'm not "defending Obama," I'm making the argument that "the AP story doesn't amount to a defense of Obama."
4. You ignore my riposte, and instead of addressing it down in the comments page (which has become a quite lively discussion), you attempt to make sure no one reads it by posting an update that states no one is making arguments as to the bias of the AP.
If this is what counts for argument on the merits for lawyers who have become professors of law, then I can see why you didn't make it in private practice.
However, that's a pretty hefty backtracking from the earlier claims, which complained that not enough details about the shocking activities of Ayres's group and his own later reflections on his involvement were presented, that more speculation about the depth of Obama's connection to Ayres' should have been offered. I submit that if the article had made any of the changes Bernstein proposed in his original post, it really would have been biased towards the other side.
As it stands, even without correcting the last sentence, it's still reporting undisputed facts that are directly relevant to the present issue: Obama was 8, fact, and he did denounce, fact. Whether you think his denouncement was disingenuous or too little too late, that's not a question for the AP to sort out in its reporting. So what it boils down to is that Bernstein wants one change made to this last sentence, and for that he's tarring and feathering the AP in a manner all out of proportion to the crime.
I'd prefer to maintain some level of intellectual honesty rather than trying to assume the answer based on my political preferences and then digging up material is necessary to show moral equivalence for similar conduct (aka as the jukebox method).
In other words, DB doesn't like it when other people do what he does.
So over the next few weeks, I expect to see the NYT and it's breathren doing cover stories where the Obama issues are raised and dismissed. Then to counter any complaints the press will say sure we covered that story extensively and there was nothing to it.
Yeah, when DB is promoted from a blogger to a worldwide wire service like those "other people" that might make sense. Agree with him or not, Bernstein does not present himself as either an entirely object or comprehensive news source. Nor do his writings here form the basis for "news" stories in media outlets around the country and around the planet.
Since when is a reporter required to preface objectively true facts with "The Obama campaign responds"? If this is indeed a requirement for objectivity, shouldn't the second and third sentences be prefaced by "The McCain campaign contends,"?
Then you're obviously a much better American than a bunch of people you can read about here. Because as far as I can tell, this many trustees resigned: zero.
Maybe it's "a far cry," but is it far enough? Why should McCain take money from someone who honored a terrorist?
I know of one event. Was there more than one? Why are you using plural? And how do you know that it was Obama and not Palmer who chose the location for that event?
And how come no one seems willing to explain why this is repeatedly described as an "inaugural" event, even though there seems to be no evidence to support this claim?
If, say, DailyKos hosted an essay by, say, Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-il, would you excuse them of responsibility because they included a little pro forma disclaimer like that? I don't think you would.
And aside from hosting the article, USC has granted to Ayers the title of Distinguished Scholar. Gov. Sanford (R) is the ex officio Chairman of the Board. Why does he allow this? Could it be that he thinks Ayers is "mainstream?"
What's wrong with demonstrating that someone is being hypocritical?
The Community Reinvestment Act can account for roughly 12% of subprime loans and no Alt-A loans, from what I can tell.
This is getting weird.
But the GOP has no Cicero to make the case against deification. And, hell, look what happened to Cicero.
As long as the terrorists are American leftists, yes, Obama sympathizes with them.
That can't be honestly argued against.
Which is why the counterarguments here are dishonest or are distractions.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Your position on any issue is so utterly predictable. Take the follwoing hypothetical newstory:
"Previously undisclosed records show that ________X_________ drafted legislation in favor of _________Y________________ the day after ____Y______ threw a $200k fundraiser for _____X_____." If X and Y were Obama and the National Education Assocation, you would break your little fingers trying to dig up material on the internet showing that (a) the payment had nothing to do with the legislation and (b) McCain had done the same thing on many occasions. Conversely, if X were McCain and Y were "Big Oil," no matter how much countervailing evidence there was disspelling any link between payments and legislation, you'd do nothing but recite the timing of the payments as one of your silly little web links every time you engage in a debate. While it's true that you're not alone in amplifying the shortcomings of the opposition and rationalizing away the sins of your preferred candidate, you are one of the worst offenders I've ever seen. With respect to my hypothetical, there are always nuances that have to be explored, so I don't fault anyone for not accepting a link at face value. But the problem is that whether you accept the link or reject it depends entirely on the identity of X and Y.
With Ayers, as I noted before, I don't have a clue what Obama knew about his views. But if Obama was aware, it is absolutely a sign of poor judgment and radicalism that he maintained association with Ayers. The fact that others had some tangential reltation through an entity is beside the point (the Sanford example you cite doesn't show hypocrisy or anything of the like and is a comical reach even for you). The issue is whether Obama knowingly associated with a guy, including letting him throw campaign events, with knowledge of his history. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but what I won't do is try to excuse the conduct. And if this were a Republican who had associated in the same way with some right-wing radical, you would be demonizing that person. And please don't deny it, because that would only further cement your status around here.
How old are you? At some point in your intellectual development, I hope you realize that politics isn't a game of good and evil and that sins are committed by both parties. You need to get out of the echo chamber once in a while.
Nice evasion. Your original comment was that "the OTC derivatives market is unregulated thanks to McCain's former economic advisor Phil Gramm (estimated value of $600 trillion to $1 quadrillion)."
Again, please cite that special "Gramm Provision" in the Constitution that delegated to this unique individual the power to decide whether that market should be regulated? I didn't even realize that Gramm had been elected President!
Why didn't you tell us?????
The problem is, Obama did denounce Ayres and has not continued to associate with him. He also did not have his "inaugural" political event at the man's house--at least, I've seen no evidence of this. So how bad was the poor judgment? There's gray area here and insufficient evidence. Nevertheless, Palin sees fit to charge him with "palling around with terrorists". Is that fair, do you think? I mean, I can understand why you're worried about poor judgment on Obama's part here, but can you also understand why her comment seems outrageously unsupported and gutter-level, given the paucity of clear evidence?
Lots of people fondly imagine that Bill Ayers is now “mainstream” — but that doesn't make him so. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley portrayed Ayers thus, in a statement praising him earlier this year:
Portraying Ayers as merely a relict of 40-year-old ancient history, however, presents a completely distorted picture of the present man. Beyond his more recent 9-11-2001 outrageousness, referred to in comments above, all one must do to acquire perspective on Ayers' current predilections is go to his own web site (notice first of all the emblem at the top of every page), where he proudly presents a speech he delivered in Venezuela in November of 2006, addressing Hugo Chavez. As Ayers proclaimed there less than two years ago:
Love that “new and deeply humane” world that Hugo Chavez and the rest of the “revolucion Bolivariana” are busily creating — not.
Ayers also suggested at his creepy blog just a week ago that McCain’s brief suspension of campaigning while the sudden financial meltdown could be addressed in Congress is a likely presage to “suspending” the election itself. Right.
The fact is, as the foregoing makes clear to all who can see, that Bill Ayers is not (or not just) an unrepentant Weather Underground bomber from a third of a century ago, but is still a modern day communist revolutionary, seeing his present role as a part of the hard-left propaganda wing, one who — rather than hurling physically explosive bombs these days — now tosses verbal bombs whilst exerting every effort to turn students their way.
The issue is when Obama dumped Ayers. As I noted, it may be that he did it when he found out about the guy's views and past activities. If so, bully for Obama. But if he knew about it and then dumped him overboard only during an election cycle, I think people can legitimately ask whether that was a genuine expression of disapproval rather than a convenient one. I actually think Obama has more trouble on the Reverend Wright affair, because no one really believes that Obama never heard any of the racist rhetoric coming from that guy's pulpit. The most charitable (and I think entirely plausible) view is that Obama knew of it, didn't agree with it, but remained there anyway in order to connect himself to the community for political purposes. He wouldn't be the first politician to do that, but he has had to pay (and may more still) the costs of dancing with that partner. And Obama has now disowned Wright, but not until it was clear that Wright wouldn't keep his lips shut for the duration of the campaign. He showed poor judgment in not disowning Wright to begin with, but it's not as if he's alone in showing poor judgment during this campaign.
Are you talking to me? If you go to the trouble of being more specific, I might be able to understand what you're trying to say.
You mean he's constrained from even stating that he's mildly peeved about it? He's not allowed to drop even a vague hint that he thinks the honor should be withdrawn? There's a rule that says he's not allowed to have and express an opinion on the subject? He's obliged to be silent and thereby imply consent? Really? Who knew?
Please show your proof that there was more than one event. And please show your proof that it was Obama, not Palmer, who chose the location.
If you have a substantive objection to anything I've said, you should tell us what it is. I read your post carefully, to see if one was hidden in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Asking me my age doesn't qualify. Likewise for commenting on the size of my fingers.
I just explained to weevil why the Sanford example is relevant.
As for the little fingers comment, well, I apologize for that. I was simply trying to put into images your response to a particular story (which always starts with "what do I want the result to be"). For all I know, that could be a totally inaccurate statement, though I tend to doubt it.
Funny how jukebox makes an assumption about Sanford that he'd never make for Obama, even though Sanford has never has the same sort of association with Ayers that Obama did. And as I noted, I do not presume that Obama was aware of the extent of Ayers's views or past conduct. But the analogy is rather silly, but hey, when you're aggregating talking points, why bother with rationality? Throw up as many false allegations of hypocrisy and rationalizations, hoping some stick.
if you keep saying that Obama shouldn't be president because of his association with someone who has done, according to the local mayor, outstanding work in improving local schools, then maybe -- single handedly -- you'll persuade the electorate.
By the way, what's the deal with Palin's use of criminals to obstruct and impeded the Troopergate investigation? You know, the lawyers not licensed to practice law in Alaska and so who are committing misdemeanors?
Oh, who cares about Palin . . . only 1 heartbeat away. Maybe we can bring the anti-witch doctor to D.C. and the government from evildoers.
Can Ah git an "ALLEGEDLY!" mah bruthuhs an' sistahs? (Admittedly poor attempt at Ernest Angely's dialect. But then why spend more time on him than he spends on picking toupees, I always say.)
No. O’Callaghan has admitted that he's helping Van Flein with "legal strategy." O’Callaghan is not a member of the Alaska bar, and he's committing a misdemeanor.
At this point, Ayers is front-page news. If he wasn't already, Palin's remark made sure of it. So if there was ever any room to claim that Sanford doesn't 'know about Ayers,' that room is gone.
And to the extent that there are folks like you who believe that honoring Ayers is wrong, then it's reasonable to believe that one or more people like you have brought the situation to Sanford's attention. And if you haven't, you should.
And if anyone can show any sign that Sanford has ever "expressed any objection to U.S.C. honoring" Ayers, I will gladly withdraw my remarks regarding Sanford. In the absence of evidence (I've looked), it's reasonable to assume that Sanford has never done such a thing.
If Ayers is truly as "contemptible" as you claim, then Sanford has no excuse for remaining silent. His silence implies that Ayers is now mainstream.
I wonder where you got the wacky idea that discussing my alleged age ("child") is less offensive than discussing the alleged size of my fingers.
But it's no surprise that just like McCain, you're eager to change the subject and avoid the discussion of anything substantive.
You've got it backwards. Obama has never had the same sort of association with Ayers that Sanford had, and still has. Sanford is in a position of authority over people who have honored Ayers. Sanford has a unique opportunity, if not a duty, to criticize what they did. Why is he silent?
Obama's association is a voluntary one. As I said numerous times before, I really don't know whether Obama was aware of Ayers's past, and in my mind, that is the only relevant question. If he did and voluntarily associated with him, it reflects poorly on Obama. Do you disagree with that? I mean seriously, answer that question for the rest of us. If Ayers told Obama "Hey, I once bombed government buildings and on 9/11 I said I didn't do enough," and Obama said "Who am I to judge" and kept his association with the guy, are you actually pretending that Obama shouldn't be held accountable? I'm not suggesting that ever happened. But that's the essence of the inquiry.
That doesn't even come close to the Sanford situation, where you're apparently suggeseting that Sanford should be held accountable for not criticizing someone with whom he didn't voluntarily associate or that he should try to terminate his employment (good luck with that).
This is what I mean when I say you're the worst offender on this site in terms of intellectual dishonesty. A reasonable Obama supporter would say "there's no evidence that Obama knew about Ayers and that their relationship wasn't that close." That's fine. That's a reasonable argument. But only a borderline lunatic or someone incredibly immature would try to justify Obama's association with Ayers by comparing it to the highly dissimilar Sanford situation.
I point to your age and lack of maturity -- whether you find it offensive or not -- because that's the only explantion short of you being a complete nutjob. And many reasonably intelligent people are much more dogmatic in their youth than they are when they have had a little more life experience. That's the most charitable explanation for some of the drivel you post here, and I also think it happens to be accurate.
Reading is fundamental, as one might imagine a law professor would already know:
Analysis: Palin's words may backfire on McCain
As anyone who reads more newspapers than does Sarah Palin ought to be aware, newspapers often run "analysis" features that are not "straight news stories" but provide background, perspective, and (inevitably) a certain degree of judgment.
However, Professor Bernstein is typically uninterested in the truth, only in advancing his views. Facts which interfere with that effort are to be disregarded.
"Sanford is in a position of authority over people who have honored Ayers.
You're unfortunately again being intellectually lazy, jukeboxgrad. Sanford is in no position of authority over personnel at the University of South Carolina, save the one at-large Trustee he appoints to the Board and also a designee to attend meeting in the place of the Governor.
The only people with real authority are the "X Committee" of the trustees, whatever "X" is at a given university. (Here X=Executive.) We have God-know-how-many trustees. But decisions on appointment of deans, provosts, presidents, and all significant university-wide decisions are left to the Gang of Twelve.
Whether a gubernatorial appointee sits on the ExComm at any particular public university is not something I'd know about. But one would need to demonstrate that he/she does in order to make a point about "positions of authority." If the at-large trustee is not on the committee, then his job is really to eat expensive dinners a couple times a year.
I have long fantasized about being a trustee at my alma mater, Notre Dame. But I think that alumni who most need the free meals are the people least likely to get the nod.
And on your substantive comparison, jukebox, wow, that is really, really weak. Whether Sanford has authority over Ayers or not, most governors don't get involved in every micro-detail of university administration.
To put it very mildly. Faculty here in Indianer go ape-shit when a governor or state rep is so bold as to ask "What are you doing with state funds, and why does it involve construction of yet another building?"
"Academic freedom" means never having to say . . . well, anything you don't want to say, really.
(See how damned reasonable we Mid-Westerners are?)
Allegedly. (Sorry, but that's how it works.)
While Palin and McCain are trying to scare us with charges that Obama is going to bring the 1960s back, he's be addressing the economic problems confronting the nation.
Guess which has more resonance with the people?
Remaining silent while a 'contemptible' terrorist is given honors is hardly a "micro-detail." That is, unless you think Ayers is now mainstream.
Sanford is the top official of an institution that has granted honors to Ayers. If that's wrong, Sanford has an obligation to speak up. If it's not wrong, then Obama didn't do anything wrong, either.
Sanford is the ex officio Chairman of the Board. At the very least, he is free to speak up about Ayers. He hasn't. Why not? Didn't he get the memo that McCain needs his help?
But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.
'and it's simply wrong'? 'the charge ... is a stretch'?
these are unattributed in the what masquerades as a news story.
i am a journalism instructor at the college level -- and i formerly worked with the author of this article, a reporter for whom i have no small amount of respect, but reading this makes me want to throw up.
if this is an opinion piece, label it. if it's a news story, EDIT IT FOR OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS.
disgusting.
I am not even sure he has committed a misdemeanor. Hell, despite it being a Kos talking point (which on this site means JBG, but I digress), the relevant Alaska case on the unauthorized practice of law is Skuse v. State, 714 P.2d 386 (1986). Skuse held, in relevant part:Id. at 371 (citations and internal punctuation omitted). Subsequent to Skuse, the Alaska Bar adopted Rule 15(b), which provides:Thus, there is no clear definition of when an out-of-state attorney would engage in the unauthorized practice of law. What exactly does "rendering legal consultation or advice to a client" mean? Because that is the only possible theory these attorneys could be charged with the unauthorized practice of law. Given the Skuse holding, I strongly believe the Alaska courts would agree as well.
Of course, even if the statute somehow survives a vagueness claim there is also a delegation issue (the statute leaves up defining the term to a quasi-private entity, the State Bar of Alaska).
But hey, let the Kool-Aid drinkers keep up the Kos-talking points. Of course, when people opine that orthers are violating the law it might help if they understood it.
"But hey, let the Kool-Aid drinkers keep up the Kos-talking points."
But when will they shut up and drink the damned Kool-Aid?
Oh, true--and Jukebox got his info from the Puffington Host and not Kos--I am sure he is going to try to make that somehow significant.
I would note that he USED to call himself "Jukeboxlawgrad". JBG subsequently dropped the "law" part. His comments regarding Alaska law demonstrate he has no clue about the law, especially criminal law--so at least he is no longer engaging in deceptive advertising with his nom de blog.
"You mean, like this article?"
That article didn't downplay anything. The only think it did do was use the word "tumultuous".
It was also an article about a person who became ashamed of his membership in the KKK and turned snitch. Bill Ayers is still pround of his active involvement.
This was not a puff piece. Was it a puff piece where the underlying fact was that the guy was proud KKK member still believed he did the right thing? Was it hiding the close association of a presidential candidate with him? Hardly.
The same can be said of my wife's grandmother and Pope John Paul II. What's your point?
You must be proud of your grandmothers sitting at the head of an organization set up by the Pope.
What? Oh, you didn't mean that close. You meant she's a Catholic and has about as much a relationship with the Pope as I do with Pres. Bush because I'm an American.
Here's that sentence from the article, along with what follows:
What is incorrect or unfair about those words?
Pay attention to what O'Callaghan admitted:
Tell us about the planet where "helping out on legal strategy" is not "rendering legal consultation or advice to a client."
And I just showed you that Newsweek also has the quote. And on the ADN site I've seen video of O'Callaghan personally making the statement.
You're doing the regular GOP thing: deny plain facts no matter how well-documented they are.
Someone might actually think you're serious, so I should point out that you're simply making a bad joke.
It's possible that Sanford has whispered something into his pillow. It's also possible he said something to his shrink, or his priest. It's even possible that he visited the Western Wall and wrote something on a note. But those statements don't count. What counts is speaking up in public. Because unless Ayers is 'mainstream,' Sanford has a duty to publicly object to the fact that his university honored Ayers.
So let us know when you're in a position to show that anyone has heard a peep out of Sanford. If Sanford had ever made a statement about this, it would not be hard to find.
That's an exceedingly feeble excuse for failing to complain about the glorification of a terrorist.
Why can't weevil admit that he is utterly wrong to suggest that JBG ever called on Sanford to do anything but criticize?
That's a lie! I don't golf.
You are obviously not an attorney (if you were you would look at the law and not idiotic talking points). First, the Alaska Supreme Court--you know, those people are the ultimate arbiters of Alaska law--has held that the statute is vague. In fact, the term is undefined. For those who believe in the law and not talking points, that means the law is essentially meaningless. What I did provide was the Alaska rule for how a suspended or disbarred attorney could be engaged in the unlawful practice of law--but that provision does not deal with out-of-state attorneys.
Second, I mentioned that the law has a delegation problem. You didn't understand what this means, so I will small words. What I meant is that the statute itself delegates to the Alaska State Bar and the Alaska Supreme Court to define what the "unauthorized practice of law" means. This is important, because, you see, we have three branches of government--and the Legislative branch cannot delegate the language of criminal statutes to others.
Finally, and perhaps I should have mentioned this in my earlier post, Alaska has what is known as the Corpus Delicti Rule (most states have it). IN other words, even if someone says they are doing something illegal, their words alone are insufficient to convict. There has to be independent evidence that a crime has occurred--and that goes for ALL crimes in Alaska.
Simply put, you don't know what you are talking about with respect to criminal law.
I suppose a really excellent attorney would be able to explain why "helping out on legal strategy" is not "rendering legal consultation or advice to a client." So how come you haven't done that?
Notice you ducked the question. If Obama was aware of Ayers's past and nonetheless maintained his association with Ayers, is that in your mind okay? There are many willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I suspect your position is that even if Obama was fully aware of what Ayers had done and said, it would not reflect poorly on Obama if he maintained his relationship with Ayers. But when asked the question, you ducked it in your typically juvenile way.
Care to answer? And please try to answer without trying to equate it with what someone else has or hasn't done (again, another sign of an immature mind). Just tell us whether you think Obama acted appropriately if he had knowledge of Ayers's conduct and statements?
Don't vote for either Sanford or Obama for president!
The stakes are just to high!
Your reading comprehension skills are obviously lacking. I cited the Alaska Supreme Court's leading case on the unauthorized practice of law. You have not even acknowledged that this case exists. I did some actual legal research.
The Alaska Supreme Court said the term was undefined in the law (as of 1986 when the case came out). I have found nothing in Alaska law that has changed since then.
In answer to your question "helping out on legal strategy" means, "talking lawyer to lawyer and sharing ideas." That is NOT the practice of law, particularly in Alaska.
All you know are your talking points. You obviously do not know the law and your attempts to parse words continues to prove I am right in that assessment.
Count your blessings that juke box is only playing attorney today. A few weeks ago, jbg was giving parenting critiques of Sarah Palin. When asked whether jbg had any kids of its own, there was . . . . silence.
Is that . . . legal?
Ayers and Dohrn were among the most notorious "Weathermen": not least for Dohrn's gruesome public gloating over the mass murders by Charles Manson's cult. They were the foster parents of Chesa Boudin, whose mother Kathy was one of the gunmen in the Brink's armored-car robbery in which the WU murdered two police and a guard.
It is simply not possible that anyone with any serious interests in left and radical U.S. politics never heard of them.
Obame was mentored as a teen by a committed radical and lifelong Communist. As a college student, by his own account, he hung out with campus radicals. This was in the 1970s, when the Weather Underground was very recent news. The Brink's robbery was in 1981.
Furthermore, Obama, his future wife, and Dohrn all worked at Sidley &Austin. S&A was the house law firm for Commonwealth Edison, which was headed by Bill Ayers' father Thomas. Before that, Obama the community organizer worked for ex-SDSer Marilyn Katz. Obama also worked for Judson Miner, a classmate of Dohrn and prominent figure in Chicago radical circles.
To believe that Obama didn't know Ayers, one has to believe that Obama could work with and among many of Ayers' long-time associates without ever hearing about him.
Read the memo -- it's published daily at www.dailykos.com
Surely any honest and competent reader would understand that Sanford "could and should" do everything in his power to "cancel the honor," and to the extent that he lacks direct power to do so, he should speak up and raise a bloody fuss. Why hasn't he? Because even if he lacks the power to cancel the honor, he doesn't lack the power to express his feelings about it. Right?
Nevertheless, I should have realized that I was in the company of simpleminded people. Instead of saying "why does Sanford allow this," I should have said "why does Sanford allow this without us hearing even a peep out of him." Now that I've asked the question in a form that is undoubtedly simple enough for even the likes of you to grasp, will you finally answer it? Claiming that he doesn't want to provide "a badge of honor" to "leftwing moron professors" isn't much of an answer. That same 'logic' applies to everyone who is currently complaining about Ayers (including and especially Palin), and I don't see it leading to any hesitation.
If the motivation to condemn Ayers was something other than a last-minute partisan ploy by a campaign that is rapidly slipping into oblivion, then the folks condemning Ayers would be calling on Sanford to raise his voice. But there is a pointed absence of anyone doing that. You're afraid to do that because you're concerned that Sanford might not say what you need him to say. And that's an appropriate concern, because what he's said so far by his silence is directly contrary to what you need him to say. Because silence is consent.
And yet you didn't. Wonder what that says about you.
You're afraid to do that because you're concerned that Sanford might not say what you need him to say. And that's an appropriate concern, because what he's said so far by his silence is directly contrary to what you need him to say. Because silence is consent.
When you get past talking points, you aren't really coherent.
That reminds me. Still no luck finding that page number?