You obviously failed the "IROC IT school o' SILLINESS"... Allow me to refresh your memory as to how this works: I decree, via guilt by association, that McCain must be a racist-sympathizing bigot. After all, he was affiliated with this May guy, who is quite racist. McCain->May->Racist douchebags; consequently, mccain must be in some form of agreement with said racists and accordingly a bigoted and vengeful artifact of the reconstruction era. It matters not that McCain never heard of the May until he made it a point to fire him, so don't even try that one. We all know that any link, no matter how contrived, with someone who espouses radical ideology MUST imply a level of sympathy and agreement. Thanks again, go to IROC IT for showing me how this works.
Don't forget McCain working with racists like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd, so obviously he's racist too if he would choose to sit in the same chamber as them. Of course, that also makes Obama a racist too. Too much whitey in his blood, I guess. Oh, and on a more serious note, McCain is known to use racial slurs.
I just finished reading Dreams from My Father. What exactly did he say that was racist towards whites?? You, sir, are an idiot...
Obama was in danger of appearing to be an "angry Black candidate" if he maintained his association with Rev. Wright. Many of his supporters wanted him to cut ties with Wright immediately. It wasn't until the Reverand's defiant National Press Club appearance that Obama did. This Ayers issue seems like a giant red herring. First, the man has to have some credibility to be in a position he is in now. Second, radicalization of the education system is one thing, but your rhetorical makes it sound like Ayers' promoting teaching children to blow up civilian and military targets. I'm not sure what threat, if any, Ayers pose to the establishment he now participates in. If anyone can shine a light on that, I'd appreciate the insight.
I just want to clear up one thing. I don't believe Obama was ever described as a personal friend with Ayers. He was described as being friendly. That is a definite difference.
Michelle Robinson worked at the law firm that Ayer's wife worked at when Barack met her. (That part of how they met was left out.) Barack married Michelle, and had to know of Ayers at that time. (How could you not? He admits to hanging around the office where Michelle worked.) Ayers (Obama's own people on TV have said) had a "coffee" in his living room and introduced Barack to the Chicago political scene. While it may not have been a party specifically for Obama, he was introduced to the local scene through Ayers. Other Chicago politicians have confirmed it. It was confirmed by local media again this week. Later on during the Annenburg Project, Barack was selected BY Ayers to be the chairman of the board. They sat on that board and worked closely for 7 years. Later as a result of this board's work, Ayers' received money through the government directly because of Barack's state senate seat, much like what the "Keating 5" scandal accused McCain of doing, yet found him to be wrongly named, and not guilty of. Ayers and Barack have been close. Ayers even has a section in one of Obama's memoirs... penned by Ayers. You don't ask a stranger you don't personally trust to take the chairman position on a $100,000,000 project board. You don't ask strangers to do blurbs in your autobiographical book, and after working with them seven years, you would think one would know if you should or not. You would think in the 15+ years Obama has known Ayers, during which time Chicago Tribune representatives have said the topic came up in the Chicago Media, Obama would at least "get wind" that Ayers was the guy from the Weather Underground. Surely someone took him aside at some point and said, "Psst, you know who he is, right?" Is that not enough to notice a pattern? We've only heard "I was 8" or "I didn't know" or "I met him 10 or 15 years ago" when asked directly, or even "he was a guy in my neighborhood." Never has Obama discussed the importance, or exactly what it was that Ayers saw in Obama, that made their relationship so unbreakable regardless of a dirty past, and regardless of his certain awareness that the past was there. That is a judgment issue. If I sat on a board with someone for 7 years, he wasn't just some "guy in my neighborhood." And certainly a guy with a Harvard law degree knows the difference between 10 and 15 years. I'm sure that in 15 years a lawyer would find out what's behind his working peers. Why is it so hidden? That's what I want cleared up. I'm sure we'll see Obama throw Ayers under the bus as he did Wright, Rezko, Phleger and Farrakhan (the one who said of Obama "the Messiah will speak, and the youth will listen). He hid the truth about Raines and Johnson's roles in his campaign as well. Next, Axelrod (Obama's campaign manager) will deny he said that Ayers and Obama were "friends." I just hope that people will finally notice that Obama only breaks ranks (on the surface) after the heat is on. Oh, and so you all can have something to talk about.... BUSH!!!!
A spouses co-worker does not mean a close connection. He was invited by Walker. Again that does not make a close connection. I would hope the host would introduce his guests to one another. That isn't odd or anything. Wrong. They didn't work closely together for 7 years. They were on a board together. That is very different than working closely together. People can be on boards together and hardly ever even see each to see each other. They have only been close in proximity. Actually both of those things are not uncommon among strangers. But nobody is saying they were strangers. They are saying that the two didn't have a significant relationship. And I'm sure if they did, Obama denounced the acts of the weathermen then just as he has now. It wasn't unbreakable because there was nothing there to break. They didn't have a relationship. They bumped into each other at board meetings, and a few speeches. Sitting on a board doesn't involve daily work or meetings. They don't even really have to meet to be on a board together, though undoubtedly they did. Usually it just means your name goes on some letterhead, you gave some money, and your name can be used in fund raising efforts. You could also do speeches or other fund raising depending on how active on the board you were. But it most certainly doesn't denote a close relationship with anyone else on that board. It isn't hidden, because there isn't anything there to begin with. There is nothing to clear up. Raines had no role in his campaign, and that's been confirmed by everyone involved. He never had a connection to Farrakhan. Farrakhan can say whatever he wants, and call Obama anything he wants to. That is in no way a link between the two. To bring up Farrakhan is laughable. He has already thrown Ayers under the bus, by calling the activities detestable. There is nothing else he needs to do. Again you only seemed concerned with Obama's questionable connections. McCain's ties to the Iran/Contra group were incredibly more direct and meaningful. McCain's ties to Keating were definitely more direct and meaningful. McCain's ties to Ayers are fairly close since the founder of the board's widow is a McCain supporter. As others have pointed out McCain worked far more closely and for more years with racists like Helms, and Thurmond not to mention former Klan member Byrd than Obama ever has with Ayers. Yet somehow McCain has never denounced those guys. McCain recently had a campaign chairman write racist trash in the newspaper. McCain voted against making MLK day a national holiday. McCain supported keeping the confederate flag as part of South CArolina's state flag. Is that a pattern? There are certainly more direct and concrete pieces there to make McCain a racist, or racist sympathizer than there is to make Obama a defender of Ayers and the weathermen attacks. If people try and put things together in a conspiratorial manner, then it might look like it.
Seriously FB, I don't know how or why you do it, but your patient and factual rebuttals to wingnut talking points are deserving of commendation. Of course, they're also deserving of sympathy, given that wingnuts don't listen to anything they don't want to hear. Regardless:
Hey thanks, I appreciate that. It's nice to know it doesn't come off as incoherent dribble to everyone
This is dangerous and irresponsible and is what needs to be ostracized from our political process for infinity. It’s a shame what so call American citizens will stretch to demonize another American citizen to win a political campaign. I couldn’t tell if it was you, George, or Basso posting this recycled republican fear mongering xenophobic garbage. I’m sorry to say, but this kind of malarkey is not just bad for the republican image but it’s bad for this country as well.
Iroc it posted the fear mongering stuff. I was refuting it, and used an example linking McCain to racists and racism to show how easy it is to do.
You left out one thing...that board also had 7 republicans and was a foundation for an ambassador appointed by Regan.
kind of like the racist diatribes of a persons spiritual advisor and mentor...oh wait, that's much worse
Man, if Obama did that, I'd lose some respect for him (though would probably still vote for him). 1. I don't think having a relationship (be it professional, friendly, or romantic) with Ayers is inappropriate, and I don't think he should be apologizing for it. 2. While it'd be okay to tell people that Ayers would not be in his professional circle, I would think it'd be lamentable for Obama to say "Ayers can't be my friend anymore." If he were to say anything, it'd be preferable to say he doesn't agree with Ayers; I don't see why you'd have to shun the person to. 3. He certainly can't call himself 'naive.' Besides being politically dumb, I think his decision to be friendly with Ayers has more to do with his character (that is, tolerance) than his judgement. There's nothing naive about his decision to acquaint himself with Ayers (except maybe the thought that irrational opponents may some day use that acquaintance as an excuse to not vote for him for the presidency). 4. The whole subject seems to not be worthy of the dignity of a response. By responding at all, Obama would imply that his relationship was (a) closer than we had imagined, and (b) somehow illegitimate. He had been a bit evasive at first on the subject, but I think we now have a good understanding about how close the relationship was (well, I take that back, since the TJs still claim they are somehow conspiring together -- but they won't believe a clarification from Obama anyway). To even adress it formally (not to mention apologize for it!) would be to mislead people about its nature.
