Fit to lead!
From CNN’s American Morning:
CNN’s John Roberts: “I just want to try to get to the heart of it so that people at home can understand. Our Jim Acosta talked with your senior strategist David Axelrod about this. In 1995, William Ayers held kind of a get-to-know you event at his place where he was introducing Barack Obama to the political culture there in Chicago when he was running for the State Senate for the first time. David Axelrod said that at that meeting Senator Obama was not aware of Ayers’ radical background. Is that true?”
Obama Senior Strategist Robert Gibbs: “Look, if that’s what David said, that is true. Look, again, this is a relationship, excuse me, that Barack Obama has condemned the actions of Bill Ayers. This is somebody that The New York Times said Barack Obama’s not close to, and, again, John, this is a way of distracting the American people from what’s important.”
Pardon me for interjecting here, Mr Gibbs, but how on earth is it “distracting” from “what’s important” to find out that Barack Obama was so worried about his own political leg up that he didn’t bother to find out anything whatever about Bill Ayers, a man who — I’d venture to say — is quite well known, particularly among those with Harvard educations who live in his neighborhood.
Is Obama really now expecting us to believe that he didn’t know who Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn were? And if so, why on earth should we trust his judgment?
Judgment, for a potential President, is, pace Mr Gibbs, an important issue to many Americans — as he and the press well know, having spent so much time questioning McCain’s “temperament” (as it redounds to his good or bad judgment), as well as his “judgment” in “backing the policies of George Bush.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe for a second a Chicago-area “community organizer” who seems to have been plucked from obscurity by Ayers to chair the CAC didn’t know the most salient biographical fact about his benefactor — especially when we consider the radical ties Obama had to organizations that viewed (and continue to view) Ayers as something of a hero.
But even were it so, what does that tell you about Barack Obama? That he will accept largesse from whomever happens to give it — without first researching the benefactor? That he is completely ignorant of the history that he lived through, and that represented the pinacle of the New Left that eventually re-imagined itself into “progressive Democrats” (whose number Obama proudly counts himself among)?
We are left, after this startling “defense,” with two possible conclusions: either Obama is too dishonest and radical to be President; or else the job will be far too intellectually taxing, given that his knowledge of history doesn’t even extend back less than 40 years…
Note the tenor of Roberts’ question. Even he seems genuinely disbelieving that this is the defense Camp Obamalot is trotting out:
Well, that’s different – if the New York Times says O! wasn’t close to Ayers, who am I to argue?
Baracky lies. It’s ok cause he’s doing it so he can have power and raise taxes and have lots of socialism, but it still bears noting I think. It would be better if he could build his socialist revolution on something more truthful. That’s how all the better socialists do it. William Ayers and Baracky are politically a lot simpatico. They have been for years and years. It’s like how Baracky went to that radical church and gave them all that money. Baracky needs to have the courage of his convictions I think cause it looks cowardly to disown all your pals just to win an election.
I think there may be a third possible conclusion, namely that it simply doesn’t matter what the Obama Campaign says, they understand that the media will not ask the hard follow-on questions, thus allowing them get away with any absurdity and that the majority of the voting public either isn’t in touch enough with the facts to understand the difference or will intentionally look the other way.
Just what part of that particular rant deals with O!’s dishonest characterization of his relationship with Ayers?
McCain’s best buddy Keating certainly did more damage to this country than Willie Ayers ever dreamed of.
Hey look, Obama is ticking up in the polls. Keep that Hooters waitress talking!
Sorry, chaps, that was for contestant No. 2.
I agree Sdfrr. I think they believe with good cause they can pretty much say or do anything they want and the press will never question, report, or investigate any of it objectively. They are correct.
Reference voting fraud charges in Ohio, racist adds including Rush Limbaugh in spanish, repeated lies about his relationship with Rev. Wright and Ayers, the complicit Dem involvment in the morgage collapse, and a host of other things that do not get the objective coverage they deserve. Meanwhile Sarah Palin owns a tanning bad ZOMG!!!!!!
“Is it a bad thing that he had a relationship with Ayers? If so, Why?”
Bad? Nope. Dull-witted in one striving for national political office? You betcha.
“Is it a bad thing that he had a relationship with Ayers? If so, Why?â€Â
Yes.
Anyone with a shred of human decency and morals would see why.
That New Yorker cover doesn’t look like satire no mores.
If you are reduced to defending a terrorist because it helps a political candidate you support you are in serious need of some therapy.
Mr. Pink,
I beg to differ – if it was such a crime to have a relationship with the odious Ayers, we would have to lock up half of Chicago. But maintaining the relationship over years, and denying it, says something far greater, don’t you think?
It should strain credulity, though the credulous will credit Axelrod with having settled this troublesome matter.
However, assuming O’s work with Ayer’s during the eighties never clued him in, <a href=”http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/oct/06/in-1996-media-coverage-of-bill-ayers-was-too/”Ayers was all over the papers when the Dems decided to hold their national convention in Chicago in 1996. Press coverage reminiscing about the salad days of breaking glass began in 1994 and was in heavy rotation in the local and national news until the convention. So the innocent O’s little party, hosted in Ayers living room in 1997 , has me wonder what news journals O had been reading.
Tiger Beat?
Martha Stewart Living?
I think it shows that ideologically they have the same goals, but they are resorting to different methods to achieve them. Not talkin about the bombings here, but about Ayer’s honesty. From the quote upthread he is pretty direct and honest about his desires. Obama not so much.
It doesn’t matter what anyone believes. All that matters is what they’ll say. It doesn’t matter what the campaign’s “defense” is, or how, logically, it entails X or Y. The existence of any defense — a citable, repeatable whatever — is enough.
— whatever. The end.
That’s why they said it, when they said it.
(That the sources of what they said happen to be some of the same people who cite it now, well, that’s just because fuck you.)
Semanticleo – it’s the ideology, stupid.
It’s not just who Obama knew( although I don’t like his friends), it’s what O’ believes in and has worked toward And he believed in this crap, and still does.
For the New York Times to take the tack it is on, ie. playing down the association, must mean that they realize that the association is toxic politically, otherwise they wouldn’t bother. Stanley Kurtz’s work on unravelling the association is gaining ground, so O!’s game now is to say, “That is not the
former domestic terroristco-board member I knew”.The existence of any defense  a citable, repeatable whatever  is enough…
But that’s only cause we don’t have a free press. In America our press is run by political operatives. It used to not be like that.
Well, just to point out soome consistency here, the Obama campaign does seem to accept the largesse of an awful lot of anonymous foreign donors without questioning its provenence. So they’ve got that going for them. Maybe the NY times could wave its hands over that and bless it as well.
Seems to be a double standard when you have idiots constantly asking for Trig’s birth certificate and a DNA test.
But that’s only cause we don’t have a free press. In America our press is run by political operatives. It used to not be like that.
Happy, I’m 50, and can’t remember a time when they weren’t all a bunch of hacks.
Can you throw someone under the bus who is willing to blow it up?
Obama now claims he didn’t know of Ayers’ “violent pastâ€Â
I must have taken the red pill this morning, because this is obviously not reality.
Well yeah they’ve always been hacks but this is the first time they’ve been wholly subservient to a political campaign. It’s like how they do it in Russia now. That’s creepy I think but it’s important for Baracky so I guess it’s okay this one time.
“Can you throw someone under the bus who is willing to blow it up?”
It’s America, you can still do almost anything you want until Obama is elected. Then all hell breaks loose with the thought and speech police, the tire pressure checkers, arugula price checkers, etc.
Of course, the lying crapweasel knew who Billy, and Jerry, and Tony were. He’s a radical lefty, but he’s not retarded.
Axelrod is counting on us to be retarded.
C’mon. There’s no more room under Barry’s Magical Mystery Tour Bus. Or is there?
Guilt by association.
Yawn.
I’ll take your ancient history, baby boomer pseudo-revolutionary and raise you a major financial savings and loan scandal.
Clock is ticking, you guys better hope you can find something better than Ayers!
Is it a bad thing that he had a relationship with Ayers? If so, Why?
Would it be a bad thing if John McCain had a relationship with Eric Rudolph? If so, Why?
Well, a bomber is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood!
Well, a bomber is a person in your neighborhood,
A person that you meet each day.
Nice to see this getting out there in the press, even if they are trying to bury it.
A race-baiting preacher is a person in your neighborhood,
&ct.
Louis Farrakhan’s a person in your neighborhood,
&ct.
#33 guilt by participation.
They were thick as thieves, CaptHowdy. O funded all of Ayers’ bestest ideas for messing up the little kiddies.
A slumlord is a person in your neighborhood, &ct.
Nice to see this (and Wright) getting out there. Thanks to Palin. Next comes Rezco?
#33 guilt by participation.
Oh, OK. I always miss the nuance.
And capn doody misses the whole point of the post. McCain, who I think it is very safe to say, is not liked very well by any in here, learned from his mistake (of course he was exonerated, so maybe no real mistake anyhow) and wants to change (there’s that word!) business as usual. O! is lying through Axlerod’s teeth and dupes like you believe it because O! is your hope. Your lives suck so bad, you are entirely invested in the empty suit.
Baracky is just like Blanche DuBois, you know, just depending on the kindness of strangers. He’s a trusting sort that way. Sometimes they turn out to be not the strangers he thought he knew.
“Look, if that’s what David said, that is true.”
This is easily the scariest thing I’ve heard from a political operative in quite some time. George Orwell just turned ove rin his grave.
I’ll second what charles says. If that isn’t gobsmacking to most humans, I’m going to go check my ammo locker. Barack “codemned the actions” of an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Never mind LOUDLY condemning the man himself, and his spouse, and the class of unhinged anti-war dickbrains that infest many of our colleges.
Condemnation seems a little fluffy, don’t you think? Bring in — THE COMFY CHAIR.
I’ve been fighting an uphill battle with people at my work about the whole Ayres/Wright/Weather Underground/Franklin Rains thing with Obama- I’ve sent them links to all of the articles – all 3 of the people I’m dealing with had never even heard of any of those people. So I play follow the logic.
Does Barak Obama have more experience then john mccain? Answer : NO.
So why are you voting for Barrak Obama – Answer : better judgment, he’s “right”
So if judgment matters, don’t you think its important to look at other occasions where Obama has used his judgment ? Answer : well i guess
So if his judgment led him to associate with violent radicals, racist preachers and utterly corrupt businessmen, who’s a partial cause of the banking crisis.
Answer : Well… well.. at least it won’t be 4 more years of Bush.
/facepalm
Why would you find this in particular alarming? Surely it can’t be alarming simply because it is stated out loud.
After all, you can see in the everyday, ordinary behavior of every political operative or spokesperson (no matter the party affiliation) that some proposition or other just like this one is what must go through their minds as they jump to spin or rush to defend their candidate in every egregious position or misstatement of fact. They are not now nor have they ever been interested in the least with any pursuit of the truth, otherwise they wouldn’t be in politics.
*and raise you a major financial savings and loan scandal.*
Let me draw you your attention to Carter’s “Community Reinvestment Act” as well as Franklin Rains, a close advisor to the Obama campaign. After you’ve done your due dilligence, come back and talk to me about the current state of the economy.
“Kerfluffle Fluffers”
Then why is he getting so upset about it, Cleo? Why the action alerts — phone spamming, and blog swarms? If it doesn’t ruffle the feathers, he sure has a strange way of showing it.
nikkolai: “Nice to see this (and Wright) getting out there. Thanks to Palin. Next comes Rezco?”
Who, according to some, is getting ready to sing…
After all, you can see in the everyday, ordinary behavior of every political operative or spokesperson (no matter the party affiliation) that some proposition or other just like this one is what must go through their minds as they jump to spin or rush to defend their candidate in every egregious position or misstatement of fact. They are not now nor have they ever been interested in the least with any pursuit of the truth, otherwise they wouldn’t be in politics.
No, Sdferr, this goes beyond that. This is inelegant, barefaced lying. Keep in mind what Axelrod said: “Well I mean, when he went, he certainly  he didn’t know the history.”
I don’t have any illusions about politicians, but this is taking spin to a new level of dishonesty.
Kerfluffle?
I didn’t know Cleo read Tarranto.
Which I have already noted, and which in turn, does not make it any different as a mental operation from what they do every day, save for its being outloud.
So, I regret I must continue to disagree with you JBean, so long as you’ll allow my contention that the only difference between this behavior and the ordinary behavior I have witnessed for over 40 yrs is that on this occasion the necessary mental operations have been explicitly stated outloud. If there is something more to it than that, you’ll have to draw better, more complete distinctions than those currently on display.
Gov Palin, by the way, has integrated this new Obama-didn’t-know-Ayres-past-meme into her stump speech given here in Ft Myers moments ago. It takes the form,
#6
And Mccain was never involved. He was included because there had to be a republican so the democrats wouldn’t look bad
As election day aproaches Obama is looking more and more like a lefty tool. He should dump Axelrod.
Shh…Rusty. Ixnay on the UmpDay Axelrodway.
I think David Axelrod is doing a great job!
He could no more do that than he could turn himself inside-out over his alimentary canal.
Now pay attention. I know for a fact that Barack Obama, knows what Bill Ayers history was, and has known it all along. If you read the profile of Obama in the New Yorker this past summer: “The Political Scene: Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama”, by Ryan Lizza on July 21, 2008, you might remember that the article began with Toni Preckwinkle, who was described by the author as: “a close observer, friend, and confidante during a period of Obama’s life [i.e. the 90s] to which he rarely calls attention.”
I was an undergraduate at the U of Chicago in the late 1960s. Toni Preckwinkle, who was then Toni Reed was at that time a class-mate of mine. She was hard to miss, a statuesque young woman with coffee colored skin and beautiful green eyes. I doubt seriously that she knew who I was, but every guy in the class knew who she was. She married a classmate Harry “Zeus” Preckwinkle, whose unfortunate moniker she still uses, and to whom she still seems to be married.
In the time leading up to the 1968 Democrat Convention, and in its aftermath, the Weathermen were quite prominent on campus. They probably only had a handful of members, but they were loud and aggressive. I knew who they were, and I am sure that Ms. Reed and Mr. Preckwinkle did as well.
The New Yorker article makes it clear that Obama took political advice from Ms. Preckwinkle in the 1990s. She could have, and undoubtedly did, tell Obama who Ayers was. By 9/11/01, of course, Obama should have known by reading the NYTimes.
And yet, Obama never took any steps, in word or deed, to distance himself from Ayers. Nor has tken any steps to let us know that he differs from Ayers educational/political philosophy. Although the last word on that was a blurb by Obama on an Ayers book.
The only thing I can gather from all this is that Obama has breathed air so leftist that he has no grip on how leftist he is. And that he has no idea of what the mainstream of American politics is.
Sdferr, frankly you are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. Spin is one thing. Saying something is true because David Axelrod said it is right out of 1984. Gee, I can’t wait to have to read the papers every day to learn what David Axelrod has decided is true.
[…] when Robert Gibb said earlier that Senator Obama didn’t know of Bill Ayers’ violent past? Well, that’s not […]
I’m being neither obtuse nor ignorant here, Charles. All I’m suggesting is the following simple syllogism, which I submit, takes place in the brain of the mouthpiece or Spinner, no matter the person or party:
Spinner (Gibb in this case) must agree with Principle (whether Obama or Axelrod doesn’t materially affect this case).
Principle has publicly stated X is true.
Spinner therefore, must state X is true.
This happens everyday with every sort of statement made in a political campaign, with very few exceptions, and those exceptions will always be of a minor issue and further, game-planned and agreed to beforehand. Spinners, by definition, are not allowed to go shooting off their mouths in contradiction to their Principles, and thereby violating their duty to make the Principle look good and wise at all times.
The only remarkable thing in this case is that Gibb said out loud what goes on in his head every time he opens his mouth, at least in his capacity as a Spinner (so, he would not be expected to behave in this way with his wife at home, for instance). Otherwise, as I said before, utterly unremarkable.