For those who don’t know, he’s a Weatherman from the Sixties (note the capitalization, 'cause I know y’all are tempted to joke about Willard Scott or partially cloudy or something) who’s apparently been chummy with Obama in the past.
I’m not exactly sure what the guilt-by-association entails; assumably, Obama’s association with this man (which, of course, Obama and Dems in general downplay, much to Stanley Kurtz’s above quoted annoyance) is supposed to indicate agreement with radical politics and an enthusiasm to bomb buildings to make a point (although I personally sorta wish they’d out and say it rather than just imply it; I guess letting folks draw their own conclusions is more effective, though). Liberals, of course, dismiss it all as smears.
My question is, will this have any effect on the general election? Sure, it’s getting play on Fox News and blogs, but both seem to preach to the choir (and that fact, of course, is brought up as evidence of liberal bias in the rest of the media). A lot of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, young people, weren’t alive in the Sixties, so I don’t think it’s something that’ll resonate with them. But I’m sure I’m missing demographics and/or other possibilities.
I think the only people this tenuous and obscure “connection” would influence are people who would never vote for him in the first place. Given all the other variables at play in this election, I’d see Ayers as a factor approaches 0%.
With a connection that tenuous to a group that many people had forgotten about or never knew about to begin with, I don’t think it’ll have much impact. People aren’t exactly teaching kids about the weathermen in school these days. If I hadn’t been satisfying my own curiosity on related topics, I doubt I would have ever heard of them. And that was growing up in the 80s, its probably even less well know for people younger than me.
There are millions of college students across the country heading back to school this fall, and some just getting to college for the first time. Take a guess at how many students in that high number watch mainstream TV News? Not many. I have witnessed some of the amazing organizational acumen these kids are showing in the rallies they are planning. In Connecticut alone Yale and UCONN have huge rallies coming up. I haven’t seen many McCain rallies…
No measureable effect. I do think it was rather silly of Obama to defend Ayers recently, though, but unless something explosive comes down the pipe (heh…), it’ll die a deserved death. I can’t say I’m comfortable with the suppression, but it matters not.
First of all, there’s nothing to “suppress”. They live in the same neighborhood and served on some boards together. Ayers donated $200 to one of Obama’s state election campaigns. Whoop. And Obama was 8 freaking years old when the Weather Underground was active.
Second of all, nobody gives a damn about the Weathermen today except right-wing loons who desperately want to keep the Weather Underground alive as a cause celebre to serve as a left-wing counterweight to right-wing American terrorists like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.
What were the grounds for taking legal action, anyway? (I’m guessing not something related to McCain-Feingold, because the irony would have made it the story of the day.)
You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows…
But seriously, I hope hope hope Ayers will have little influence on the election but to paraphrase nobody ever lost money betting on the stupidity of people.
I don’t blame Obama for dealing with Ayers to an extent - he was a fixture in both educational circles in Chicago and in Democratic Party politics there - and was firmly placed in both way before Obama arrived upon the scene.
I do wonder, though, what it is about these institutions that they would accept Ayers (who remains unrepentant about his past) with nary a shrug. If it were, say, a bomber of abortion clinics we were discussing here, that person would be persona non grata in Democratic and Republican Party politics both.
Of course you do. It is expected. a guy whos moment was 20 years before Barack was born has convinced him to bomb enlistment offices. how couid you let that go,
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: yourself. If there was nothing to suppress (and I think it’s so cute how you put it in quotation marks there), why did they, you know, suppress it? I think it’s a non-issue (and wow, I even said so in my post! Whaddaya know!), and yet I’m not comfortable with the whole use-a-lawsuit-to-shout-down-opponents-don’t-release-documents thing.
Did you read the letter that was linked? It’s pretty straightforward. Regardless of the content of the ad in question, the group that put it together and paid for it to air is supposed to be a non-partisan advocacy group that doesn’t actually advocate for or against a candidate but rather for a cause. The ad specifically tries to cast doubt on Senator Obama, which is apparently verboten for that type of group.
So, in your opinion as someone with knowledge of both law (in general) and this situation (in particular), is that letter an accurate assessment? If so, I’m not seeing anything worthy of the term “suppression”.