I worded my anology in such a manner that would suggest that the association involved factors of a positive nature as well. I’m not that bothered by it , after all I’m rooting for Obama, but I am disturbed that the general public appears to be willing to forget what Ayers was all about.
Calling the Weathermen a “terrorist organization” is strictly correct, but leads people to associate them with radical Islam. Generally we didn’t refer to Tim McVeigh, abortion clinic protestors, or the violent Anti-Vietnam crowd as terrorists.
By using the term now, the right is hoping that the teaming masses will think Barack “Hussein” Obama->muslim->terrorist.
I don’t think the public is forgetting what Ayers once was about at all, I think they (correctly) recognize that simply knowing Ayers is insufficient evidence that Obama is a closet radical who secretly believes the violent tactics of the Weather Underground were justifiable acts.
I’m with you on this.
I don’t hold Obama responsible at all for any level of contact he had with Ayers. As an active members of Chicago society involved in local charitable organizations, I would expect they would have plenty of opportunities to interact.
It does bug me that Ayers was able to get daddy and his money to grease the skids for him to come out of hiding and become ‘rehabilitated’. But hanging it on Obama? Nah, that’s just makin’ shit up.
We’ve been using the term terrorsts long before Osama came along and brought us “radical Islam” to the forefront. The Weathermen , Black Panthers, and the SLA were called terrorists back in their day as were various European groups like the Baader Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Faction of that time as well as the PLO and the FLQ. McVeigh was immediately tagged as a domestic terrorist.
But I won’t disagree with your assertion that the Pubbies won’t mind at all if a portion of the public will infer some association with “radical Islam”.
Nobody has said the OP was a right-winger. I was the first to ask what the debate was and, as we can see, others have come along and found something to discuss. I’m still hard-pressed to figure out where this comment came from.
I do not condone bombing or other violence for causes one believes in, but Ayers did what he did 40 years ago, was apprehended and indicted, with the charges later dropped on a technicality due to prosecutorial misconduct.
The government did not pursue the charges any further and Ayers appears to have molded himself into a productive member of society, worthy of being hired by as prestigious an institution of higher learning as University of Illinois.
Forgetting the fact that Obama and Ayers were both chosen to serve on a board concerned with education, probably because they traveled in the same academic circles and because of that some of the same social circles, how does that board service translate into associations between Ayers and Obama that lead back to or draw on the violent period in Ayers life, a period I might remind you again that took place when Obama was eight and beyond which Ayers has rehabilitated and redeemed himself?
No one is defending Ayers for his what he did 40 years ago, nor saying anything nearly like he’s “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” The thrust of the conversation, set off by the OP, is about the man he is today and his actions, progress and the esteem in which he has been held in his field of endeavor since then.
It is the Republicans who are bringing him and his past up by saying, in one breath (as McCain did), I don’t care about Bill Ayers, but then in the next (as McCain did), pushing the idea out to people who hadn’t even asked for it, “But Obama does have some questions to answer for.” If you don’t care, why keep bringing it up, and if there are questions to be answers, say directly what they are. Otherwise, it’s all and only insinuation.
Some people keep saying Obama has lied about some past connection to Ayers but until they come up with something concrete about that lie and its relevatory powers to connect Obama with terrorism committed forty years ago, I’m going to have to pass.
Truth is I am not a right winger. Ayers is portrayed as a bomb throwing nut. He is a college professor at U of Ill. Distinguished Professor to boot. He wrote and edited several books on educational theory and practice. Mayor Daly used him to remake the public school system in Chicago. He is respected and an authority in the field. He was one of the 3 writers on The Annenberg Project which was about remaking the public education system. He was part of the Woods foundation which dealt with poverty and voting . He is much more than a bomber 40 years ago.
When he was asked about his wild younger days ,he said he wishes they had done more. That does not mean bomb more but refers to doing more to stop the stupid and wasteful Viet Nam war. I wish we could have stopped it earlier too. People died needlessly and our treasure was looted. It is happening again.
Yet, somehow the fact that Ayers was selected as Chicago’s Citizen of the Year in 1997 never gets mentioned by the right. A Citizen of the Year is actually an “unrepentant terrorist”? Please explain that to me in little words.
Obama sat on the same board as Ronald Reagan’s friend (Leonore?) Annenberg along with a Citizen of the Year, and yet somehow Palin implicitly contends Obama and the Annenbergs are “palling around with terrorists”?
Palin’s just a particularly noxious cretinous yahoo, and McCain’s no better for jeopardizing the country by picking her, as a surprising number of conservatives have complained (I guess it’s “Country Later”). Why doesn’t she proclaim that Reagan’s friends the Annenbergs are people “who see America, it seems, as being so imperfect – imperfect enough that they’re palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. Americans need to know this. … I think, OK we gotta get the word out. This is in fairness to the electorate we gotta start telling people what our side represents.”
What I find amazing is that, according to my Westlaw search, there were a whopping 17 news mentions of William Ayers and the weather underground from 2000 to 2007. But, since this year with Obama running, there have been 55 times as many mentions of Ayers in the same database in just 10 months.
So don’t tell me this is about Ayers, defending Ayers, or him drifting off to oblivion (he was already there). It’s about smearing Obama, pure and simple.
I don’t believe that for one second.
Yeah, but you don’t even know who Geoffrey the Giraffe is.
The Flying Dutchman is Geoffrey the Giraffe?!?! :eek:
And this is your contribution to this great debate ? I wondered why you lost your mod job.
In defense of Bil Ayers offers an account written by someone with no time for either political party.
Sure. McCain’s a war criminal and Ayers is a hero.
Why should I believe that you are rooting for Obama any more than I would if any other poster with your history said it? Your entire posting history not only suggests, but screams otherwise.
Even while you say you are rooting for Obama, you are attacking Democrats, attacking our stances. You’ve supported Bush and the Republicans for as long as I’ve noticed. You voted for the Conservatives only three days ago.
If you’ve changed your mind, it must have been only this evening.
Neither of these comments have anything to do with the topic of this thread and each are better suited to the Pit (and best suited to oblivion), than to GD.
[ /Modding ]
Very well.
Sorry. I’ll decline further comment.
I liked this bit in the Chicago Magazine story:
lol 