More Dissembling to Come
So now Bill Ayers has gone from being "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" to, well, something more:
"The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois," he said. "That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders."
"Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated," Obama said.
Certainly understandable on his part. I mean, why would the University of Illinois hire a man with Ayers past who wasn't rehabilitated? Of course, if Obama had watched a little television, he might have felt differently.
(Once again, h/t to Hot Air)
My take? I think Obama has known all about Ayers, either before or shortly after they met. I think he's also known that he was going to have to address the question at some point once he decided to run for President. What I don't understand is why he didn't get out in front of this months ago. Or is there more to come?
posted by VermontGuy @ 6:44 AM
12 Comments:
If this were such an important issue why wasn't it raised months ago- its been out there for over a year. Smells of cheap desperation and distraction. I'd be more concerned about who the candidates are pallin' around with today as they seek the highest office- like the shouting Yahoos at the McP rallies
That's the oldest trick in the book. For months and months a candidate successfully denies something that's important is important. Then, when he finally can't stop it any more, he says it's old news and already been looked at.
My impression of Obama is that he has been politically ambitious for a long time and that he purposefully avoided having significant contact with Ayers once he realized who he was. (Mid-to late '90's.) This is desperation. People who bring this kind of thing up over and over just make me think "Political hack" and pretty much close off any opportunity to convince me on anything important.
At least anon 3 admits Obama was fully aware of what Ayers was. It's more than Obama does, who's still using that silly line about being a child when Ayers was trying to overthrow the U.S. Obama worked regularly and closely with the guy for several years (into the early 2000s) after having his political career launched in Ayers living room. He also had to have been aware of what Reverend Wright was saying for 20 years, though he also denies that.
I don't admit what you say. I think after he knew who Ayers was, he avoided close contact. Similarly, I think Obama was probably a bit of a political churchgoer -- went sometimes and missed often. He probably did not hear the more outrageous Wright sermons, which seem to have been few and far between.
The hateful Wright rhetoric was widespread enough for Obama to be fully aware of what he was getting into (for twenty years). He was willing to accept it for political reasons (I hope--the alternative is worse).
Wright said "White Man's Greed Runs A World In Need." That was par for the course for him--making it racial and blaming the rich white world for people's problems (when he wasn't attacking the US or Israel in general). And we know Obama heard this, since he writes about it in his book, and quotes it--in fact, it's from the sermon where he got his title The Audacity Of Hope.
I certainly see the audacity.
I don't admit what you say. I think after he knew who Ayers was, he avoided close contact. Similarly, I think Obama was probably a bit of a political churchgoer -- went sometimes and missed often. He probably did not hear the more outrageous Wright sermons, which seem to have been few and far between.
First, there's no evidence to support what you say. Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with Ayers. Why, at this point, would you assume anything they say about it is the truth?
Second, the real problem with Ayers is not his bomb-throwing past. It's what he (and Obama) tried to accomplish with the money from the Annenburg foundation. Ayers has not changed, he's simply switched tactics. His goal is to indoctrinate children into his socialist beliefs and create a new generation of leaders more to his liking. And Obama helped him do it. It's no wonder the test scores in the schools never improved. That was never the point. Google Ayers and Hugo Chavez and read the speech he gave to him just two years ago to get a flavor of what he believes.
Finally, regarding the Reverend Wright, Obama admitted when he went on the O'reilly Factor that he listened to at least 500 of Wright's sermons during the 20 years he attended his church. Do you honestly believe that none of those sermons were the kind that led Obama to ultimately disown him?
The reason I believe that Obama distanced himself is because the investigative reporters have found little contact between them and because an honest evaluation of the situation yields that as the most likely scenario.
Here's an analogy. You are a young, ambitious right-winger. You are asked to serve on a board of a Heritage Foundation charity. When you arrive, there are a number of people on the board. First, do you personally investigate each member of the Board before agreeing to serve? If one of them has terrible things in his background -- say, he was active in a group that committed lynchings 25 years earlier, and his involvement in the actual lynchings is questionable, but probable. Most of the others on the Board are completely respectable, and treat this person as rehabilitated (although he will pop out with a racist remark now and again). What's more, he is deeply involved in a program to bring school choice (vouchers) to all children, and you believe in that issue. Do you refuse to serve? If you are asked to work on a project with this person, do you make a stand or do you muddle through, thinking everyone seems to think he's okay now? Before you really know the guy at all, he is one of several people who offer to have a "Get To Know You" coffee at his house. Do you make a scene, and say: "I won't come to your coffee! You were involved in a racist group 25 years ago and for all I know you actually lynched someone!" I seriously doubt it. But as you gain prominence, do you avoid one-on-one situations with this person? Probably. But I'll tell you this -- when you have successfully navigated your way to the Republican nomination for President and a bunch of namby-pamby liberals try to smear you with your "association" with this guy, you sure scream a lot louder about it than Obama has done.
The reason I believe this is because looking at the evidence calmly, it seems most reasonable to me that politically ambitious young politicians rub up against people with questionable backgrounds and have to wend their way through these situations tactfully and carefully. So what? Are you saying that Obama wants to bomb places? (IF so, get out there with your buddies in the McCain crowds.)
All the Obama camp will stipulate is that the two have had no contact since 2005, when Obama began his campaign for the Federal Senate. Any real investigative reporting - such as that done by Stanley Kurtz - show that there was considerable contact between them starting at least in 1995 and going back possibly as far as the late 1980's. That Obama has lied about the relationship is something even CNN can't argue. How much he has lied is open to question.
Your analogy won't wash. If John McCain had an Eric Rudolph in his past, however tangentially, the Dems and the press would vilify him for it.
And Obama doesn't have to set off bombs to be a dangerous President. All he has to do is listen to the people he has kept company with for the past 20+ years:
Bill Ayers - Bombmaker and communist, his educational philosophy calls for "infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism".
Jeremiah Wright - Minister and proponent of Black Liberation Theology. A man who called for God to "Damn Amerikkka!"
Rashid Khalidi - Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, a man who believes that Israel is a "racist, apartheid state" (a view shared by Bill Ayers).
Barack Obama is running for President with the thinnest resume of any candidate in modern history. His major accomplishments prior to joining the U.S. Senate (Annenberg Challenge, Community Organizing) were abject failures.
Under the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to look into his past to try and discover what we can expect from him in the future.
I think Obama is secretly a radical and is going to overthrow the government as soon as he is elected President with the help of this Ayers guy. That's what I think.
I think Obama is openly and obviously a member of the far left, since he's always acted as one, and never done anything to give any indication he isn't, and he hopes to take advantage of an historic opportunity to expand government as no one has in our lifetime. He certainly doesn't mind working side by side with leftist radicals, while he's never even worked with a moderate conservative.
Well, I'm hoping we're about to find out. Six months, two years and hopefully six years from now we'll have to revisit these comments, and find out if Obama carefully and conservatively cleaned up the incredible messes left behind by Bush or brought about the end of American civilization. I'm betting the former.
Post a Comment
<< Home