Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Ayers to the throne

As Ray Robison points out via email, if the NYT is trying to get out in front of an Obama story to “soften it up,” might that not signal that, on the horizon, is to come a blistering offensive aimed at FINALLY publicly pinning Barack Obama to at least some of his more radical cohort?

Because that would be boss.

— As would be a willingness to go after Frank, Dodd, Obama, and the “root causes” of the credit crisis, which could reference a pattern of Democratic legislation as a jumping off point to discuss the dangerous commingling of government with big business — the ultimate way to reassert the need for less byzantine regulatory initiatives (an argument that appeals to conservatives) while simultaneously asserting “reformist” credentials in the kind of “straight talk” you’ve built your reputation upon (which substantive and rhetorical efforts would appeal to independents).

But then, that would demand a willingness on McCain’s part to attack a party other than his own — and the fact remains, the guy seems more than willing to lay the blame at the feet of “big monied interests,” refusing to recognize (or rather, refusing to acknowledge) that in this case, it was a government related entity who provided the proximate cause for the current economic crisis.

Were McCain the “maverick” he claims to be, the first words out of his mouth in the next debate would be Frank, Dodd, Obama, Raines, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, accounting irregularities, Enron, investigation, prosecution, government failure, and “let’s fix this mess for the long term.”

Because he’s not really a maverick, however, his first words will likely be to congratulate Obama on helping push through the bailout.

At which point he may as well speak to Obama after the debate and see if he maybe could replace Biden as Barack’s VP pick…

(h/t ray robison, Terry H)

85 Replies to “Ayers to the throne”

  1. happyfeet says:

    A McCain presidency will help our lost little Republican vaginas in Congress man up a bit I think. For real I think that’s what this analysis points to.

  2. nikkolai says:

    If Saracuda is at the top of the ticket, we win this thing going away. As it is, a toss-up.

  3. Kevin B says:

    see if he maybe could replace Biden as Barack’s VP pick… with Sarah Palin! and then watch Obama go pale.

    (Sorry.. Consider me nounceless.)

  4. Salt Lick says:

    “let’s fix this mess for the long term.”

    What’s this involve? Because I’m not seeing how “more regulation” wins for McCain.

  5. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    It might have something to do with this ad, which is rolling out Wednesday on local stations in battleground states and nationwide on Fox News.

  6. geoffb (JARAIP) says:

    Both tickets seem to be inverted.

  7. Salt Lick says:

    Because less byzantine regulatory initiatives (an argument that appeals to conservatives) just means sitting down and rewriting the old regulations. Which doesn’t strike us hick types as “mavericky” at all.

  8. glasnost says:

    The Chutzpah of you folks is absolutely unbelieveable. You’ve been hooting, hollering, and screaming bloody murder about a complete nonstory for months if not years, the criteria for nonstory here being, “literally no relevant events have occurred in the present tense for the entire time you’ve been yammering about it and half a decade previous”. And the linchpin of your vast conspiracy theory is all about “the liberal media won’t DARE say anything about this because they’re in the tank for Obama!”,

    So here we are, and the NYT finally caves to your bs and runs a 2000-word weekend story on this stuff with only a month to go in the election.. and your new line is:

    if the NYT is trying to get out in front of an Obama story to “soften it up,”

    Are you fuc*ing kidding me? You finally made it ‘news’, in a sense, or at least the fact that you folks have been obsessively fixated on it for months has made it kind of like news in a way, and your flam-flam predictions about how the media were ideologically refusing to discuss it have been proven FALSE, and your response is “they’re trying to soften it up?”

    Dude. People have been running ads mentioning Ayers since August. Nobody cares. The reason nobody cares is that there is no developing story. There’s just a wacky ex-radical who Obama was on a board with. This has been considered by the US electorate and judged… not important. Except to you obsessives. Thus, the point here is that you’ve been demonstrated to be completely wrong about your analysis of the MSM. Again. But, like the classic example of the most die-hard of conspiracy theorists, all imaginable new evidence is somehow interpreted as confirmation of your BS, instead of repudiation.

    Seriously, someone needs to intervene with you guys. Can we get a show of hands about who here thinks William Ayers probably introduced Barack Obama to Saddamn Hussein in the 90’s? Get a grip…

  9. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    glasnost: go tell Axelrod that he needs to fire you and hire someone better.

  10. happyfeet says:

    Baracky loves people what hate America, glasnost. This is because he is bitter cause his mommy didn’t love him and his daddy didn’t love him, both. It’s very sad and I for one would like Baracky to get the help he needs.

  11. Michael Smith says:

    It isn’t true, as glasnost claims, that “nobody cares” about Obama’s associates. It IS true that Obama supporters aren’t bothered by Obama’s association with people like Ayers or people like Reverend Wright — they aren’t bothered because they are largely in agreement with the rationalizations Ayers and Wright make for their words and actions.

  12. lee says:

    his first words will likely be to congratulate Obama on helping push through the bailout

    I would give 20-1 odds on it.

  13. lee says:

    You finally made it ‘news’, in a sense, or at least the fact that you folks have been obsessively fixated on it for months has made it kind of like news in a way, and your flam-flam predictions about how the media were ideologically refusing to discuss it have been proven FALSE,

    You’re a little quick to claim victory, aren’t you?

    If our screeching finally got mention, and McCain does start talking about it like we wish, don’t you think we should wait and see what effect it has before you declare us irrelevant?

  14. ThomasD says:

    If nobody cares then why all the attmepts at minimizing and mitigating.

    [t]heir paths have crossed sporadically since then.

    Crossed? As if crossed is somehow synonymous with ‘worked directly with for years.’ And it was Obama’s own representation that Ayers was ‘just some guy who lives in my neighborhood’ yet the Times phrases it as something from the mouths of the opposition.

    It’s damage control pure and simple, the Obama camp is broadcasting their talking points in the cheapest way they know how.

  15. If our screeching finally got mention, and McCain does start talking about it like we wish, don’t you think we should wait and see what effect it has before you declare us irrelevant?

    ha ha! no. move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.

  16. geoffb (JARAIP) says:

    We have all heard of “damning with faint praise”. What the Times does is praising with faint damnation. Then when the more sordid details try to surface they will say “can’t we just move on” we already covered that, it’s “old news” and no one cares.

    The Moveon bunch’s name came from this very tactic back in the 90’s.

  17. Rusty says:

    #8
    If it were McCain we were talking about you couldn’t get enough. So you’ll forgive a little paranoia for the sake of honesty.

  18. urthshu says:

    O! supporters aren’t bothered by it b/c they largely have daddy issues themselves. Folks with daddy issues like to burn things, its in all the literature.

  19. Dan Collins says:

    That the simple question, “What were your relations with William Ayers at CAC, and what was its mission?” has not been directly asked of the candidate by the MSM is . . . illustrative.

  20. guinsPen says:

    You finally made it ‘news’, in a sense, or at least the fact that you folks have been obsessively fixated on it for months has made it kind of like news in a way

    Sort of, in some respects.

    Hat Trick !

  21. urthshu says:

    I also like how one article contravenes all the whatdoyacallit STUDIES that say the MSM is [o yes] Left-leaning. Oh, and the leaks from news folks what are saying they’re in the tank for O!, hard core. Oh, and the statements from news folks bragging about how they’re gonna influence this or that for the Dems, and how they do it.

    But you know, ONE article!!1!1!

  22. The Other Ed says:

    The reason this story never goes anywhere is that people do not think Obama working with a guy 13 years ago on education and local politics necessarily means Obama is in any way involved with crimes that Ayers did 40 years ago.

    Are all the Evangelical Christians working with Charles Colson now guilty because of his Watergate crimes years ago? Of course not, there needs to be a closer connection than unrelated involvement decades later to make these types of associations resonate with voters.

  23. happyfeet says:

    Don’t be stupid, Ed. Baracky gravitates to people what hate America to where they want to blow shit up and kill people. Also he’s a raving socialist tool.

  24. happyfeet says:

    Baracky is designed to validate what Al Qaeda was trying to do several years ago. Blow up the financial centers for the people and present a more humble face to the world and subjugate America to a global consensus. It’s not a healthy development.

  25. ThomasD says:

    Great OtherEd, then why doesn’t the NYT and Obama just embrace the relationship with Ayers, if there’s nothing troublesome by all means let it all out.

    But that’s not what Obama did. When he was asked about the guy who he has a long association with he called Ayers ‘some guy whos kids my kids went to shool with.’ Obama lied. Did he lie for a specific reason, or is it just in his nature to lie about his close associations?

  26. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Are all the Evangelical Christians working with Charles Colson now guilty because of his Watergate crimes years ago?

    Colson repented of his crimes.

    Ayers regrets that he didn’t do more.

    Big difference there, Ed.

  27. urthshu says:

    Not only that, but Obama’s kids are like 6yo and Ayers’ are like 30yo. WTF?

  28. urthshu says:

    In another thread someone asked about Bracky’s possible cabinet: Here, before I forget.

  29. urthshu says:

    Old article, BTW. Obviously, John Edwards is out. And I would think Baracky might really put Al Gore to be UN Ambassador.

  30. ThomasD says:

    Thanks Urthshu, that was me.

    Dang, this one is a corker.

    Another stratagem for keeping financial markets calm would be to keep Henry Paulson, who has earned the respect of many Democrats, in office for a year or two.

    I’ll treat the rest as equally worthless; it’s all just palace intrigue and way too inside baseball to be accurate.

  31. Neo says:

    The NYT is merely regurgitating the same Kurtz material in the form of a fluff piece. I doubt many Times readers read the WSJ.

    The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false, said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

    I’m not sure any conservative critics ever thought this was the case. There seems to be plenty of evidence that Obama managed to cover much the same material, that Ayers could have provided, during his time in academia and before.

    The question conservative critics have been asking is .. did the Chicago Annenberg Challenge provide an opportunity for “fellow travelers” to work together ? The answer seems to be “yes”.

  32. ThomasD says:

    Actually, I stand corrected. That article is comedy gold.

    Top strategist David Axelrod likely would avoid the mistake Karl Rove made and remain (subpeona free) outside the White House.

  33. Carin says:

    This has been considered by the US electorate whitewashed by the MSM and judged… not important.

    Fixed that for ya!
    I’m back from vacation (Florida- I forgot to visit Thor). Did I miss much?

  34. Carin says:

    Obviously my html is a bit rusty.

  35. urthshu says:

    ThomasD-
    News Max has another more recent one up. Couldn’t find it right off, but its a good comparison.

  36. I’m back from vacation

    yay!

  37. urthshu says:

    Here it is

  38. urthshu says:

    Hey welcome back, Carin.

  39. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Hey, Carin. Glad to see you back.

  40. Rather than waiting for McCain to do something, here’s an idea:

    1. Think up a question about BHO’s associations that hasn’t been asked and that’s fully sourced.

    2. Get a video camera, go to a BHO appearance, and try to ask BHO the question on video.

    3. Upload his response to Youtube.

  41. Semanticleo says:

    Is this the ‘Ayer’s thread or the Nationalization of the Finance Industry thread.

    If greed is good, then we have to give credit to Socialism, as well.

    I submit that Nationalization be Pan American.

    It has been suggested that the $70 Billion is the beginning of the negotiation. I am hearing 2-3 TRILLION will be the ultimate tab for Reganomics.

    We are placed in the position of having to duck under the cesspool for cover when a gleeful antagonist threatens to throw a bucket of snot on us, as well.

    I suggest this giant shit burrito be flavored with soem profitable ventures.

    The Oil Industry

    The Pharms

    The Medical Industry as a whole.

    Tobacco industry

    Liquor Industry.

    All should be Nationalized, because of the suffocating debt to asset ratio which plagues us well into the century.

    After all, A Republican Administration set the precedent.

    (Only Nixon could go to China)

  42. happyfeet says:

    Instead of following Baracky around with a video camera you can stay home and rearrange your books by hue cause that wouldn’t be insane at all.

  43. urthshu says:

    Cleo, the government can’t even run a lottery or a horse betting parlor profitably.

  44. Carin says:

    It’s good to be back:)

  45. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Palin goes nuclear on Ayers.

  46. thor says:

    I think I’d vote for Bill Ayers before I vote for Sarah Palin.

    At least he’s already done his time and paid his price to society.

  47. At least he’s already done his time and paid his price to society.

    what? when was that?

  48. and may I please have some of what you’re smoking or drinking.

    for after the show tomorrow, of course.

  49. B Moe says:

    Cleo, the government can’t even run a lottery or a horse betting parlor profitably.

    Hell, they went broke running a whore house.

  50. B Moe says:

    The Pharms

    The Medical Industry as a whole.

    Tobacco industry

    Liquor Industry.

    All should be Nationalized, because of the suffocating debt to asset ratio which plagues us well into the century.

    Those are all already run by the government, Cleo, what you want is to take away may right to refuse to participate.

  51. […] morning, Jeff G. speculated that something like this might be in the […]

  52. ThomasD says:

    Thanks for those links Urthshu.

    John Bolton, senior vice president for public policy research at the American Enterprise Institute and member of the Project for the New American Century, is an informal adviser to the McCain campaign and could be asked to return to his former post at the U.N.

    Yeah baybee!

  53. Carin says:

    It has been suggested that the $70 Billion is the beginning of the negotiation. I am hearing 2-3 TRILLION will be the ultimate tab for Reganomics.

    I’ve been out of the loop, but I didn’t realize Regan was responsible for all this mess. Boy, do I have some catching up to do.

    But I’m thinking our new economy is cool. Capitalism on the way up, Socialism on the way down.

  54. Carin says:

    Shit, the government (on a local level which should be easier) can’t even coordinate highway construction projects w/o fucking up. Yea, I want them in charge of every other aspect of my life.

  55. lee says:

    Yeah Bolton would be great, and I hope McCain does put Lieberman in his cabinet, as Sec Defense. I like Giuliani in Homeland Security.

    I’m happy to have missed Al Gores name in there.

  56. TmjUtah says:

    Holy crap. How bad can it be, you ask?

    Go here.

    Hang tough to at LEAST 1:55.

    Well said, Mr… Baldwin.

    I never in my wildest dreams thought I’d say that. Or link to video with Bill Maher, Christine Amanapour, Alec Baldwin, and Gary Shandling.

    It’s the End of Times!

  57. Carin says:

    I was looking for Jenny Granholm’s name, but I guess she backed the wrong horse, huh?

    Dennis Archer was OK as a Detroit mayor, but he kinda flaked out. No great shakes. I though he wanted to get out of politics? Kwame is, of course, available.

  58. Semanticleo says:

    “what you want is to take away may right to refuse to participate.”

    Oh, opting out of each citizens share of the profit, could be written in. Is that the principle you are taking a stand on?

  59. B Moe says:

    Christ you are an idiot, Cleo. You don’t have a fucking clue how shit works, do you?

  60. Carin says:

    Government? Profit? OH haa haa ha ha … that’s a good one. Leo’s got a sense of humor I see.

  61. lee says:

    You don’t have a fucking clue how shit works, do you?

    Speaking of which,Maher’s little roundtable TmjUtah linked took only 6 minutes for me to conclude the same for all of ’em.

  62. TmjUtah says:

    lee, like watching people in a fog, ain’t it?

    But I’m still gobsmacked by Baldwin’s voiced opinion, no less for the venue in which he voiced it.

    I was only able to hang out for five minutes and change; nothing like a little apostasy to get their juices flowing.

  63. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    The thing that struck me (other than the Sign-of-the-Apocalypse statement by Baldwin) is just how much hair Shandling and Maher have lost since the last time I saw them, and how haggard Amanpour looks.

    Guess I’ve been doing a better job of avoiding them than I thought.

  64. Rick says:

    Since the bidness of government is to legislate laws and regulations and enforce them, I propose that the true, priority target of nationalization should be the legal profession. Guaranteed legal care for everyone!

    And as lawyers would then earn only a regulated amount of income, they’d have less to spare to fund Democratic mischief. Leave ‘baccy alone for a while longer yet.

    Cordially…

  65. Dread Cthulhu says:

    Semanticleo: Don’t worry Tic Toc. Lawyers will fade in time due to attrition once they find they can’t sue the government without the governments PERMISSION.”

    You really don’t pay all that much attention to reality, do you?

    Before you say anything this stupid, count the number of lawyers in the legislature.

    Then, take a long look the success that has been the efforts at real torte reform.

  66. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    The Other Ed: The reason this story never goes anywhere

    Note that “The Other Ed” has copied and pasted an identical comment on Just One Minute, and doubtless on several other blogs.

  67. JBean says:

    The reason this story never goes anywhere is that people do not think Obama working with a guy 13 years ago on education and local politics necessarily means Obama is in any way involved with crimes that Ayers did 40 years ago.

    So, if it’s such an innocent connection, where are the quotes from Ayers? Why isn’t he interviewed for these stories? Why isn’t he on TV, telling his side of the story? Why does the NYT say Dohrn wasn’t available for comment — the story’s not about her. It’s about Ayers and Obama. 

    Why doesn’t the NY Times mention that Dohrn went to jail for seven months for refusing to cooperate with the Grand Jury about the string of robberies related to the Brinks robbery/homicide that they mention? The stories on Dohrn’s antics — declaring the Grand Jury didn’t have jurisdiction, getting out of jail and applying for membership in the NY State bar — are in their archives, just a mouse click away for readers, but absent for reporters. Why?

    But the Italian restaurant was a nice touch….I have to admit. I like my lies served with scungilli and calamari. Yum.

  68. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    JBean: So, if it’s such an innocent connection, where are the quotes from Ayers?

    “Ed” is an Axelrod sockpuppet, JBean. He won’t be back, at least not under that name.

  69. lee says:

    I propose that the true, priority target of nationalization should be the legal profession. Guaranteed legal care for everyone!

    Why, that’s fucking GENIUS!!!!

    A 6th amendment right in the face of the nannystate. I like it!

  70. Ric Locke says:

    Uh, Semanticleo, I’ve had that nickname for over fifty years. Congratulations, today you are a ten-year-old… but be careful you’re attaching it to the right person, ‘k?

    Regards,
    Ric

  71. lee says:

    like watching people in a fog, ain’t it?

    a hands in front of you feeling around fog. In unfamiliar territory. Amidst natural calamity and an upset tummy.

  72. JBean says:

    SBP –

    “Ed” is an Axelrod sockpuppet, JBean. He won’t be back, at least not under that name.

    Ya think?

    We should all be screaming for an appearance by Ayers — this has got to killing him.  He loves him some spotlight, and there he sits, muzzled and bypassed by everyone….ready to tell us all about his stupendous accomplishments and enlightened thinking on all matters under the sun — we need to give him a voice.

    Free Bill Ayers!

  73. lee says:

    I’m thinking they could have been there for a casting call, for the Posiden Adventure III

  74. lee says:

    Or maybe The Battle of the Bulge, done in a Letters From Iwo Jima way.

  75. lee says:

    Baldwin could have been trying out for that poor sap General that broke the news Operation Barbarossa was a failure.

    Mahr would only be offered the job of soldier #4 killed in combat, which he would decline having too much ego.

    Gary Shandling knew he could get Jewish Buffoon with minimal effort.

    That woman would get a 1 second scream as the bombs fell.

  76. Rusty says:

    #41
    Comment by Semanticleo on 10/4 @ 1:04 pm #

    Is this the ‘Ayer’s thread or the Nationalization of the Finance Industry thread.

    If greed is good, then we have to give credit to Socialism, as well.

    I submit that Nationalization be Pan American.

    It has been suggested that the $70 Billion is the beginning of the negotiation. I am hearing 2-3 TRILLION will be the ultimate tab for Reganomics.

    We are placed in the position of having to duck under the cesspool for cover when a gleeful antagonist threatens to throw a bucket of snot on us, as well.

    I suggest this giant shit burrito be flavored with soem profitable ventures.

    The Oil Industry

    The Pharms

    The Medical Industry as a whole.

    Tobacco industry

    Liquor Industry.

    All should be Nationalized, because of the suffocating debt to asset ratio which plagues us well into the century.

    After all, A Republican Administration set the precedent.

    Oh. Shit. You’re serious!

    The irony, it’s galactic in scope.

  77. Jeff G. says:

    Did that fellow name Obama chair?

  78. Jeff G. says:

    Worth quoting in full:

    NYT’s Ayers-Obama Whitewash [Stanley Kurtz]

    As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught.

    The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, “Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close.” That was quickly changed to, “Obama and the ‘60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths.” Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early “education project” and since have simply “encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood.” Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, “their paths have crossed sporadically…at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.”

    There is nothing “sporadic” about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

    Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960’s has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.” The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ “small schools” project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.

    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. Shane mentions the book endorsement, yet says nothing about the book’s actual content. Nor does Shane mention the panel about Ayers’ book, on which Obama spoke as part of a joint Ayers-Obama effort to sink the 1998 Illinois juvenile crime bill. Again, we have unmistakable evidence of a substantial political working relationship. (I’ve described it in detail here in “Barack Obama’s Lost Years.”

    The Times article purports to resolve the matter of Ayers’ possible involvement in Obama’s choice to head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, yet in no way does so. Clearly, the article sides with those who claim that Ayers was not involved. Yet the piece has no credibility because it simply refuses to present the arguments of those who say that Ayers almost surely had a significant role in Obama’s final choice.

    Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama’s name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond’s key points, or the documents that back it up. (I’ve made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.

    The Times also ignores the fact that I’ve published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See “Obama’s Challenge.”) Maybe that’s because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.

    Shane’s story also omits any mention of the fact that access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records was blocked. What’s more, thanks to a University of Chicago law student’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we now know that access to the documents was blocked by an old Obama associate, Ken Rolling, on the day I first tried to see them. And as a result of my own FOIA, we also have evidence that Rolling may have been less than fully forthcoming on the question of Ayers’ possible role in elevating Obama to board chair at Anneberg. In fact, Rolling seems to have been withholding information from a New York Times reporter. I’ve made this material public in a piece called, “Founding Brothers.” How could a responsible article on the topic of Obama, Ayers, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ignore the story of the blocked library access and the results of the two FOIA requests? How could a responsible paper fail to aggressively follow up on the questions raised by those requests, and by the documents and analysis presented by Steve Diamond?

    Most remarkably of all, Shane seems to paper over the results of his own questioning. On the one hand, toward the end of the piece we read: “Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship.” And it’s no wonder, says Shane, since Ayers was caught expressing no regret for his own past terrorism in an article published on September 11, 2001. Yet earlier in Shane’s article we learn that, according to Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt, Obama and Ayers “have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005.” Very interesting. Obama’s own spokesman has just left open the possibility that there has indeed been phone and e-mail contact between the two men between 2002 and 2004, well after Ayers’ infamous conduct on 9/11. Yet instead of pursuing this opening, Shane ignores the findings of his own investigation and covers for Obama.

    The New York Times in the tank for Obama? You bet. And sinking deeper every day.

  79. Rick says:

    Such a stinging riposte! But at least you express a single, coherent thought. And after a year of trying to decipher you, my gratitude is genuine.

    Cordially…

  80. […] the moonbat Left and their leashed media, should definitely take it to Obama and his Alinsky thugs. Jeff G posts As Ray Robison points out via email, if the NYT is trying to get out in front of an Obama story to […]

  81. Rusty says:

    #83
    You have that backwards, meya.
    The charity instructed the money be spent, someone from USB was handing out dollars from the charities account. Now. Can you tell us how much this money materially improved the quality of education in the district it was distributed? Here’s a hint. The district is still a shithole and education in that part of the city is still substandard.
    The best case senario for that relationship-ayers/obama-still makes Obama look likwe a tool.

Comments are closed.