NPR, Reuters reported Palin's claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" -- but not her distortion of NY Times article she cited
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: An NPR news brief and a Reuters article noted Gov. Sarah Palin's recent comment that Sen. Barack Obama has been "palling around with terrorists," a reference to his acquaintance with Bill Ayers. But neither noted that The New York Times, in the article Palin cited for her claim, reported that "the two men do not appear to have been close."
During an NPR news brief on the October 6 edition of Morning Edition, newscaster Jean Cochran reported Gov. Sarah Palin's recent comment that Sen. Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists, a reference to his acquaintance with radical Bill Ayers." Similarly, in an October 6 Reuters article, reporter Mark Egan asserted that "Palin accused Obama of 'palling around with terrorists' in reference to his acquaintance with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam War-era militant Weather Underground." While Egan reported in the Reuters article that "Obama has said he knows Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, only slightly and has denounced his actions with the Weather Underground," neither Cochran nor Egan noted that The New York Times, in the article Palin cited for her claim, reported: "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close."
Indeed, as Washington Post staff writer Michael Abramowitz noted in an October 5 article, Palin's comments are a "distortion of what the Times story concluded."
Additionally, during the NPR segment, Cochran went on to assert that Ayers "founded the Weather Underground group in the 1960s, and decades later he worked on the same charity board as Obama. Ayers also hosted a small 'meet the candidate' coffee for Obama in 1995." She did not mention that the Times article also noted that Obama has never "expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "
Media Matters for America documented that an October 4 Associated Press article and an October 6 New York Times article also quoted Palin's comment and did not note the Times' October 4 reporting.
From the October 6 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
COCHRAN: Republican running mate Sarah Palin made claims over the weekend that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists, a reference to his acquaintance with radical Bill Ayers. He founded the Weather Underground group in the 1960s, and decades later he worked on the same charity board as Obama. Ayers also hosted a small "meet the candidate" coffee for Obama in 1995. In response, Obama is bringing up John McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal of some 20 years ago. McCain took part in meetings with bank regulators on behalf of contributor Charles Keating, and that earned him a rebuke from the Senate ethics committee.
From the October 6 Reuters article:
With McCain losing ground in opinion polls, a campaign strategist was quoted as saying the Republican presidential candidate needed to "turn the page" on the economic issue and make the election about Obama's experience and character.
That effort started on Saturday when Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists" in reference to his acquaintance with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam War-era militant Weather Underground.
"Senator McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance," Obama responded at a rally in Asheville, North Carolina, a swing state where he was preparing for his second debate with McCain on Tuesday.
[...]
But McCain's supporters and his campaign did not back down. They pushed the issue of Obama's character on the Sunday television talk shows and defended linking Obama with Ayers.
"The last four weeks of this election will be about whether the American people are willing to turn our economy and national security over to Barack Obama, a man with little record, questionable judgment, and ties to radical figures like unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
Ayers was one of the leaders of the Weather Underground when it was involved in a series of bombings in the 1960s, when Obama was 8 years old. Obama met him in the 1990s when first starting his political career in Chicago and the two served on a board together.
Obama has said he knows Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, only slightly and has denounced his actions with the Weather Underground.
Obama can run, but he cannot hide from his association with the radical terrorist Bill Ayers.
It is laughable that MMFA's defense of their relationship hinges on a sentence from the heavily biased NYT's that says, the two men do not APPEAR to have been close.
The gig is up.
Yes, the gig is up. The Palindrone Twit has lost what little credibility she ever had.
nerzog,
You got it backward. Obama's credibility is taking a huge hit. His latest defense is that back in the 90's, he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist. Hahahahaha....
What do you think of McCain's association with CONVICTED (unlike Ayers) felon/terrorist Liddy?
I do believe Liddy served his time. '
Besides there is a world of difference between conviction of breaking and entering and bombing the capital building and 200 other bombs, going underground as a fugitive from justice, conducting a terror campaign, and then being unrepentant, all the while still denouncing the U.S.
If you think there is equivilence, more power to you. :-)
"You think property damage is worse than the murders Liddy plotted?"
You would think that plotting to kill someone is worse in the eyes of someone who thinks all life is sacred, wouldn't you?
Maybe real estate is just a little more sacreder to the true Republican. ;0)
Anyway, I think Barney's just pulling our legs here. Nobody besides Sean Hannity and a couple of little old ladies really think the "Ayers Connection" is anything more than a joke.
He likely thinks nothing of Todd Palin being a member of a terrorist organization who's founder has said repeatedly he hates the united states and would do anything to have alaska succeed from the union. Palin's connection to this group is way stronger than the Ayers claim righties like to toss around. It's been proven that Todd has influenced Palin's actions when she was governor, think of the influence that terrorist organization will have if she were VP.
Liddy was pardoned in a political move by Ford.
He was involved in an attempt to illegally gather information on the party NOT in power so that the party in power (the Republicans) could maintain power. Apparently you think that this was not serious.
Ayers was NOT convicted. Apparently you believe that being pardoned = no longer an issue, but not being convicted = a big issue.
I'm not defending the scumbag Liddy, but Liddy's sentence was commuted by President Carter after he serve more than five years.
I'm not defending Liddy. I think he is an extremist. As for your talking points, I do believe His "plots" were never serious.
My question would be, if they were actual plots, why were they not prosecuted?
Besides, McCain's relationship is no where near the extent, as Thomas Sowell suggested, Obama's "alliance" with Ayers. Obama has lied and covered up his relationship with Ayers and it is now getting some mainstream press. It is and should be an issue because it reflects on Obama's leftist views and his judgement about terrorists and anti-Americans.
I found it laughable that someone referred to the terrorist campaign by Ayers and the Weather Underground as "property damage". I understand you have to do that contortion in order to believe Obama is not a radical leftist who actively allied with an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers and anti-American clergy like Wright. You are simply deceiving your self or as radical as Obama.
Most Am
How about McCain's alliances here:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra;_ylt=AqgM9KUOi.rRzUrNzF_bi6ph24cA?
I'm curious what excuses you have for this that don't apply to Ayers as well.
Why is that difficult to believe? He was part of mainstream society. Was he that famous a figure that people would just know it without him telling them?
It is beyond credulity that over the course of working and associating with Ayers that nobody told Obama of Ayers radical terrorist background.
Of what crime has Ayers been convicted?
Wouldn't Ayers have to tell those people? If it isn't something he talks about, then people don't know. He would either have to talk about it, or his name would have to be well-known enough for people to find out on their own.
I would think that part of mainstreaming yourself is to avoid thinking about your past, much less talking about it.
Brab,
Your argument is laughable. Ayers was not repentant. He has appeared in many interviews explaining his views and bragging about his past.
Obama's newest defense only shows that he was lying in the first place. If you want to believe he is telling the truth now that his relationship has been 'outed', enjoy the kool aid.
Then that's the answer you should give in the first place. If he's that famous, then Obama probably knew. When were the interviews you're talking about?
If by leftwing coolaid you mean truth, then yum yum!
Tonight's Hannity's America featured more of these absurd lies about Obama and Ayers in Hannity's infomercial for idiocy, including an amazing interview with legendary anti-Semitic crackpot Andy Martin:
LIE: "My view is that the community organizer was really a sham event. Bill Ayers was testing him."(Andy Martin, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Bill Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's community organizing job. It's pure lunacy to imagine that Ayers was "testing" Obama.
LIE: Obama's "community organizing is a grand scheme perpetuated by none other than William Ayers."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Obama's community organizing was not a vast conspiracy for revolution devised by Bill Ayers.
LIE: "They live half a mile from William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist" and "Just a half a mile from those homes is Louis Farrakhan."(Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: It's true, of course, that Obama lives in this same neighborhood, as do tens of thousands of other people who presumably are also guilty by geographical association. The logic of this argument would be, if you live half a mile from a sex offender, then you agree with child molesters.
LIE: Obama and Ayers "appeared together at various public engagements...it would seem that they are more than just a little bit friendly."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Appearing on a speaking panel is not a sign of friendship. There is no evidence that Obama had any role in ever inviting Ayers to speak.
LIE: In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn "hosted a political coming out party for a young Barack Obama."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: This was an event for Alice Palmer, not a "coming-out party" for Obama. Obama was invited by Palmer to the event.
But long before tonight's Hannity, the right-wing has been spreading a series of lies about Obama and Ayers.
LIE: "Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist."
TRUTH: Bill Ayers is not, and apparently never was, a terrorist. The conventional definition of a terrorist is someone who tries to kill innocent people for political purposes. As Factcheck.org noted, In fact, nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground. (Factcheck.org)
LIE: "I'm sure he's very patriotic, but his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question....Because, if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished he'd bombed more. And then, the worst thing of all, that I think really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist -- an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life.' (John McCain, April 20, 2008, ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos)
TRUTH: Obama was not friends with Ayers. Ayers did not kick off Obama's campaign. And Obama was not comparing Ayers' actions with Coburn. Obama was pointing out that he works with people even when he disagrees with them.
LIE: "Obama's oldest friend in politics is a murderer and unrepentant terrorist. Why are they friends?"(ExposeObama.com email, Sept. 7, 2008)
TRUTH: Ayers isn't Obama's oldest friend in politics.
LIE: Ayers was "Obama's boss."(Jerome Corsi, p. 147)
TRUTH: The chair of a foundation board is not the boss of the members.
LIE: Jerome Corsi claimed Alice "Palmer would never have introduced Obama to the Hyde Park political community at the Ayres-Dohrn home unless she saw an affinity between Ayers and Dohrn's radical leftist history, her own history of far-leftist politics, and the politics of Barack Obama."(p. 137)
TRUTH: The event wasn't held primarily for Obama. It was Palmer's own announcement that she would run for Congress. Obama was there as Palmer's endorsed successor for her Senate seat, but there's no evidence that he had any role in deciding to hold it at Ayers' home.
LIE: Jerome Corsi claims about Obama: "either he did not know Ayers and Dohrn are still radical leftists--in which case he is implausibly naive--or Obama did know, which would confirm he joined with Ayers and Dohrn because Obama too continues to believe, albeit silently and secretly, in the Far Left's radical agenda."(p. 140)
TRUTH: Obama probably knew Ayers was a leftist, but he didn't care. Obama believes in the notion of a free society, where you work with people you disagree with.
LIE: "Even today, Ayers appears to hold the same radical political beliefs he did in the Weather Underground, and Obama had to know that was also the case when he first met Ayers in 1995."(Jerome Corsi, p. 147)
TRUTH: Corsi doesn't explain how Obama "had to know" Ayers' views on politics when he first met him. Telepathy? Mind-reading?
LIE: David Freddoso calls Obama's distant connection with Bill Ayers "a remarkable relationship for a presidential nominee to have."(p. 122)
TRUTH: It reality, it's not remarkable at all. The notion that people should resign from foundations and refuse to speak in public in order to avoid any connection to a former radical never convicted of a crime is absurd.
LIE: "The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers."(Tony Blankley, September 24, 2008)
TRUTH: Thousands upon thousands of people lived near Bill Ayers in Manhattan. Obama didn't know Ayers.
LIE: Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval. (Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence to support his claim. Ayers was one of several people involved in starting the group, and was not its guiding spirit. According to the New York Times reporting, Obama was recruited by other CAC leaders who knew him through the Joyce Foundation.
LIE: Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda. (Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence that Obama and Ayers worked as a team. Ayers attended six meetings of the group along with Obama.
LIE: "Obama is hanging around with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. By the way, Bill Ayers advertised himself as being a communist with a small c just when he was beginning to
partner with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Stanley Kurtz, Hudson Institute, Washington DC, October 1, 2008)
TRUTH: Contrary to this McCarthyist attack, there's no evidence that Obama ever knew that Ayers supposedly called himself a communist, nor is that a good reason for Obama to end his work on school reform and charitable activities.
LIE: "who provided Obama with the only executive experience he has ever had in his young life? Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist, communist revolutionary... (Joseph Farah, World Net Daily, October 2, 2008)
TRUTH: Ayers did not provide Obama with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge job. And Obama has also had executive experience in community organizing, running a voter registration drive, as well as running his campaigns. The New York Times reported, "In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year."(Scott Shane, New York Times, October 4, 2008)
LIE: "Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as quote 'respectable and mainstream.'"(American Issues Project ad, August 2008)
TRUTH: David Axelrod described them as "friendly," not friends. Obama didn't call Ayers respectable and mainstream (although Ayers now is); Obama's campaign on his website posted an op-ed in the press that described Ayers that way.
LIE: "I can't understand why somebody who wants to be president of the United States, I'll be perfectly honest with you, would want to associate or not condemn the actions of people in the past."(Paul Ragonese, April 27, 2008, Fox News' Hannity's America)
TRUTH: Obama has condemned the past actions of Bill Ayers and called him somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago. (April 16, 2008 debate)
LIE: "Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval."(Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence to support his claim. Ayers was one of several people involved in starting the group, and was not its guiding spirit.
LIE: "Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda."(Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence that Obama and Ayers worked as a team. Ayers attended six meetings of the group along with Obama.
LIE: About Bill Ayers, "Barack Obama really couldn't bring himself to say 'you know, I really don't like that guy.' That was too much for him to say. He had to talk about what a decent guy he is and what a good professor."(Jim Geraghty, "Hype: The Obama Effect")
TRUTH: There is no record of Obama during the campaign calling Ayers "decent" and "a good professor." In fact, Obama really did bring himself to criticize Ayers, denouncing him during a Democratic debate as "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago."
LIE: "Obama was feted at a fundraising event" at Ayers' home.("Hype: The Obama Effect")
TRUTH: Obama never had a fundraising event at Ayers' home.
LIE: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers had a close working relationship...the two of them were running the foundation together. (Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence of a "close working relationship" beyond attending a few meetings together. The notion that Obama and Ayers were the only ones running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is absolutely false.
LIE: "The most important smoking gun is that Barack Obama was funding Bill Ayers' radical educational projects."(Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: This is false. Obama was the president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, not its dictator. There's no evidence that Obama made any funding decisions. Moreover, it would have been completely unprofessional for anyone, including Obama, to ban Bill Ayers from receiving funding for educational projects because of alleged radical activities decades earlier which Ayers was never convicted of. Kurtz has no evidence that projects were judged based on anything other than their merits. This is a pure smear by association.
LIE: Emails "give us strong evidence that there may have been a cover-up in Bill Ayers' role choosing Barack Obama."(Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: This is a fabrication. The email Kurtz is referring to shows absolutely no kind of cover up. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite. In his blog, Kurtz quotes the entire email Ken Rolling wrote to CAC founders Warren Chapman and Anne Hallett and notes that Sam Dillon, Education Reporter for the New York Times, was working on an article. Rolling wrote about Dillon, He is trying to understand how Barack got 'picked' for the CAC board, by whom, why, etc. - I have avoided that question head-on though I believe Barack was Debbie Leff's/Joyce nomination." This email reveals no kind of cover-up, and the New York Times article found several sources that said Obama was not picked by Ayers.
LIE: "There is a secret group in the Obama-Biden campaign tasked with shutting off any leaks from the record that links Barack Obama to his longtime adviser and mentor Bill Ayers, professor of education at the University of Illinois and unrepentant Weatherman terrorist and fugitive from the 1970s....There is a substantial independent report from a major Democratic source that confirms Diamond's suspicions. The source confirms the unit is led by Bill Ayers himself and likely includes Tom Hayden and other members of 'Progressives for Obama.' Most critically, the Democratic source says this unit has direct access to media adviser David Axelrod of the Obama-Biden campaign."(John Batchelor, Human Events, September 12, 2008)
TRUTH: There is no "secret group." Hayden reports, "I am not part of any effort, personal or organized, trying to protect Obama against any leaks." The notion that Ayers is leading the "unit" is laughable. According to the University of Illinois library, "all papers have been available since August 26" about the school reform group that Ayers and Obama worked on. Diamond, the source cited for the existence of the "unit," declares, "I have no evidence of such a unit." Diamond added, "I told Batchelor that I would not speak to Human Events yet he made up a quote from me and placed it in his article."
Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
LIE: "Obama's oldest friend in politics is a murderer and unrepentant terrorist. Why are they friends?"(ExposeObama.com email, Sept. 7, 2008)
TRUTH: Ayers isn't Obama's oldest friend in politics.
Snoopy,I think, unless there's something I don't know about, the bigger lie is that Ayers is a murderer. He's never killed anybody, has he?
Actually, I think they could have done a little better with that response. Got this list from huffpost. I'll send them a note about that gaffe.
SNOOPY, you are my hero! Of course I don't know why so many people here even respond to "anotheramerican". His very name implies that anyone with the truth is NOT an American, typical of his species.
<p> <i>It is beyond credulity that over the course of working and associating with Ayers that nobody told Obama of Ayers radical terrorist background.</i> - AA</p>
<p>No one is claiming that Obama didn't find out, they're just simply pointing out the very easily believable fact that he didn't know at the time of their first contact. After that he might have found out, but their contact with each other was so rare and fleeting that it wasn't considered to be a matter Obama considered to be personally significant.</p>
<p>Do the right wing clowns who are trying to play up this virtually non-existent relationship think that Ayres would suddenly become an active participant in an Obama administration when he's been a mostly incidental contact in Obama's life so far?</p>
Strange. Those formating tags were working right for me a week or two ago.
10/6/08
E-mail to NPR
Today Jean Cochran reports that Sarah Palin has accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." But she doesn't report that Palin completely distorts the New York Times article which concludes, "It does not appear the two men (Ayers and Obama) were close."
Obama has also denounced Ayers actions, which occurred when Obama was 8 years old.
This is just pathetic journalism by NPR. Something that's become all too common. To give Ms. Palin a forum to spread pure filth--uncontested--just shows how far NPR has sunk.
AA,
Since you believe guys like Corsi and you value associations, here are two Corsi articles for you to chew on:
1) Apparently McCain is supported by Al Qaeda
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57678
2) Apparently all McCain's $$ comes from organized crime
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57354
McCain can run, but he can't hide, can he AA?
It is laughable that Sarah Palin's contention that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" hinges on a Times article that flatly contradicts the conclusion she drew from reading it. Although, it is forgivable for Palin to have missed the point of the article. After all, she is busy reading "all of" the periodicals in front of her.
But anotheramerican has a point -- Why trust a sentence printed in a news article, when you could instead trust a Republican's distortion of that news article? Especially since that Republican is currently, and badly, losing to Obama? This gig is no more "up" than the stock market.
Mr. H,
Is the NYT one of Palin's sources? Apparently, she has a lot of them.
It is laughable that Sarah Palin's contention that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" hinges on a Times article that flatly contradicts the conclusion she drew from reading it.
Perhaps Caribou Barbie has a probelm with reading comprehension???
The gig is up.
You got that right...the gig is up for John McCain and his nasty little darling. Bill Ayers is old news. Unless there are some voters out there who have just awoken from a year-long coma, people have already heard about Bill Ayers and made up their minds. McCain and his winking, wriggling her nose oh so cute playmate are preaching to the proverbial choir of the hard-core, throw them some red meat base. Normal people don't care...they can see through McCain's transparent desperation. The sad part is that if Obama is elected there will be a hard-core element of the population who will hate their President even before he takes one action and they will never give him a fair shake. Is that good for America...?
hahaha... I found your last sentence pretty funny, since so many here have hurled hateful venom and vitriol already toward McCain and Palin.
Normal people don't care eh? No, it is just that they don't know the depth of the relationship between the two. It has been buried by the compliant media. Only hard left apologists don't care. They don't see anything wrong with it.
It has been buried by the compliant media.
Now who's wearing a tin-foil hat?
Compliant media?!?! The same NYT that beat the wardrums? Ok, AA, time to put up or shut up. Show is the extent of the relationship between Ayers and Obama. Show us pictures (not from Daily Kos) of the two of them together. Show us endorsement from Obama of Ayers' activities.
If you do that, I will show you where McCain called Liddy a friend even after Liddy advocated publicly that the Branch Davidians shoot for the head of the ATF.
GO!
You can rant all you want about the dingbat Liddy and his relationship with McCain, go ahead. It does not take away from the relationship between Obama and Ayers.
Check out Stanley Kurtz's article at National Review for more on the Ayers/Obama relationship, if you haven't already.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=
So, if I cite a Daily Kos column, will you find it as credible as you do the National Review?
Go ahead.
You didn't answer my question, AA. You posted an editorial from a notorious right-wing site and said it was fact. If I do the same from a left-wing site, will you accept it as fact?
Here is a regular newspaper where Palin toned it down:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/30510829.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Here are 30 lies about Obama/Ayers:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/30-Lies-Refuted-about-Ayer-by-John-K-Wilson-081005-996.html
CNN factcheck on Obama/Ayers:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/
And Daily Kos because I know you believe them the same way you believe national review:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/28/10456/3037?new=true
Of course it takes away from the relationship between Obama and Ayers. If the same thing is going on on the other side, then it's negligible. It becomes a non-factor.
...they don't know the depth of the relationship between the two. It has been buried by the compliant media.
Hate to say this but you're starting to sound like Sean Hannity. Get a grip, man... ;>)
Irony,
I've been busy as of late, I felt like stirring it up a bit. :-)
I felt like stirring it up a bit (Barney Fife)
So you don't really believe the stuff you post here, and you're confessing to being an unrepentant troll? Good for you. ;0)
Normal people don't care eh?
And we all know that AA has no clue into the lives of "normal" people, seeing as he's anything BUT normal.....
What do you mean, "heavily biased"? Palin says they're rarely wrong.
LOL!
AA wrote:
>>Obama can run, but he cannot hide from his association with the radical terrorist Bill Ayers.
You are pretty desperate, aren't you, AA? CNN and the AP have already fact checked this assertion and found it false.
funny,
I'm not desperate at all. Citing CNN and the AP are like citing Olbermann. If you were to name the two most left leaning news organizations, you just did.
So nobody has the right to question your rapture-site links, but when CNN and the AP are mentioned they can be dismissed out of hand.
Is that right?
I'm not desperate at all. Citing CNN and the AP are like citing Olbermann. If you were to name the two most left leaning news organizations, you just did. - AA
You can't be serious? The AP? As in Ron "Keep up the fight, Karl Rove" Fournier AP? You are really slipping (if that's even possible).
While we're discussing domestic terrorism:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abotion-bombers/
I suppose that if Ayers bombed abortion clinics, McCain would say that shouldn't be a federal crime and that he should be able to get out of paying for the damage. So who supports terrorism, again?
The AP is the most left leaning organization?!?! The same AP that hired Charles Babington (former Bush advisor) as a regular news, not opinion writer?
http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/charles-babington-coverup-artist/
The same AP who employs Ron Fournier who was asked by McCain to work for his campaign and told Rove to keep up the good fight?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/aps-ron-fournier-to-karl_n_112696.html
Find me liberals within the AP with similar connections, AA.
Did you see the most recent AP article by Douglass K. Daniel, stating that Palin's detailing of the Obama/Ayers relationship is racist?
Another example of the AP being in the bag for Obama by playing the race card.. again.
I want concrete connections like the ones I posted, AA. Show me.
how can cnn be so left wing when cnn headline news hands over two hours to glen beck?
So if somebody cites a source that YOU don't like, the source doesn't count. I see.
But his being a relative of Cheney makes him a radical conservative so its a wash.
The gig is up.
Yes, it is. Gramps McCain and Caribou BArbie have nothing to offer the American People but rehashed lies from the likes of Sean HAnnity and M. Rotten Levin. Which is why McCain is tanking in the national polls.
A good indication of how the Republican ticket cares about the country is that today, as the stock prices on Wall Street are plunging and no end is in sight for the free fall of the economy, their main concern is linkage between Obama and questionable characters.
These people have proven there is no depth to which they won't sink to win an election. If only they would learn how to govern or understand how our economic system works.
This is the equivalent of the Emperor Nero's alleged behavior while his capitol was burning.
Worrier,
You better hope that the public doesn't find out that the Democrats are primarily responsible for the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae debacle, and opposed it's reform, because when they do, it will be all over.
AA
Both parties are responsible , they both failed America on Freddie and Fannie.
AnotherAmerican has his dreams, and that's for the public to "find out" (that is, be convinced) that the nonsense being screamed in the right wing media for weeks now is true.
In WingnutWorld,the state of our economy today is no more complex than what can be shown in a youtube clip of hundreds of hours of CSPAN edited down to a couple of minutes of Democrats defending Freddie & Fannie, and GOPpers trying to regulate.
I'm optimistic enough to believe that AA is a below-average American representing a small brainwashed fringe, and most of our fellow voters are able to see through this type of propaganda.
AA wrote:
>>You better hope that the public doesn't find out that the Democrats are primarily responsible for the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae debacle, and opposed it's reform, because when they do, it will be all over.
Don't worry, the American public won't find out because it is not true.
Did any of you (besides ANutterAmerican) see the Fox hour-long deal this weekend, called Saving our Economy? It was ridiculous, even by Fox standards. They're going into hyperstoopid overdrive for grampy. This "Special Report" would have made some old school Soviet boys cringe.
Like the Pravda geniuses who produced graphics like this?
We all know that the Clinton Administration and willing surrogates on Capital Hill changed the rules so lending institutions would lend to those who could not afford it. Attempts back in 2005, led by McCain, died when the Democrats took control of Congress.
willing surrogates on Capital Hill
Are you referring to the Republican majority?
pwned.
Attempts back in 2005, led by McCain, died when the Democrats took control of Congress.
Good grief AA! Since you've been gone awhile, I thought for sure you bought a new brain!
The truth is little Georgie, asked the Republican controlled congress to look into the housing issue in 2003. Republicans, and that includes McCain, promised to look into the matter. Guess what happened? NOTHING! So McCain's lame attempt to "get on top of the issue" in 2006, was simply an attempt to cover his a**.
By 2006, sub-primes sold in 2002 were adjusting upwards and foreclosures were on the rise. If McCain was truly interested in doing something he should pushed the Republican controlled congress to act on Juniors request, in 2003!. Isn't that what "mavericks" do?
Oh, and that 2005 bill? Chuck Hagel sponsored the bill. It took McCain a year to sign on!.
S.190
Title: A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005)
COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL (Sort: by date)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005 Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006 Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
And here is how things really got stalled. As the wimpy republicans backed off of their interest in investigating because of the threats of racism, with dems claiming getting Raines was a 'lynching', the democrats were allowed to loot and pilliage fannie/freddie to the detriment of the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
As the wimpy republicans backed off of their interest in investigating because of the threats of racism, with dems claiming getting Raines was a 'lynching', the democrats were allowed to loot and pilliage fannie/freddie to the detriment of the country.
Since WHEN have Republicans given a damn about a charge of racism?
Please don't try to peddle that bullsh*t lie. Republicans only pretend to care about race when they pretend they want to increase the number of minorities in their party.
And since when have Republicans given a damn about Democratic objections?
The true story is Republicans had the control of congress and failed to act!
September 11, 2003 - The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley (R), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby (R), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal.
Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
Hmmmm....
Ayres and Wright vs. war and a looming depression.
Glad to know you're voting on the issues that matter!
boyisayboylistenhere,
What matters is voting for or against a leftist. He's an american version of Hugo Chavez and we are finally giving Americans a chance to see who this guy really is.
In your opinion, PC, what reforms will Obama enact that will make your comparison true? What socialist reforms do you see on the horizon, PC?
Socialized Medicine, an unmitigated disaster, follow the Mickey to Cuba to find that out.
Nationalization of Oil Companies, through onerous taxation the removal of incentive for expansion and huge increased costs to consumers......."We'll take over to protect(?) our citizens from exploitation!"
Heightened class warfare, this is classic Marxism, the rights of 'aggrevied group's' against the individual's rights, the rich versus the poor, race pitted against race, in any case it's meant to get rid of the bourgeois, middle classness, individual sucess and entrepenuership. Most visible will be to tax the successful to the point where excellence is discouraged because 'if they do better, it must be because they are taking it from you!'
Restriction of the freedom of the press, can you say Unfairness doctrine? Hugo conveniently shut up his critics by taking the airwaves away from them.
>> Socialized Medicine, an unmitigated disaster
Is that why the US is ranked 30th in the world in health care, whereas Italy is ranked #1? Italy has socialized health care. For what they pay, by the way, Cuba has a better health care system than us.
The rest of your post is a rant. Obama hasn't called for the nationalization of oil companies. And you many think his programs will hurt the middle class, but that doesn't make it socialism. Likewise, you may not like his tax code, but making some dubious connection to marxism doesn't make it socialism, either. Last, I don't know if Obama has even made a stance on the fairness doctrine, but even if that doctrine comes back, it hardly amounts to repression of free speech.
I see you have your talking points down, PC. Obama is not for socialized medicine or nationalization of the oil companies.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
In fact, a few docs from the New England Journal of Medicine favor Obama's plan:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/oct/02/health-care-and-the-election/
Could you find me a credible link for your "nationalizing of the oil companies" theory?
Class warfare? You mean tax breaks for those making less than $250,000?
Says here Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine, do you have something else?
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html
Other than that, good work on the talking points. Let's see some substance.
So the worst-case scenario here is that Obama was in the same circles and worked on some unsuccessful projects with a radical. Yes, even though this story has been pushed already unsuccessfully, I'm sure this time around it will cause everyone to forget about the McCain's history on the economy, his history on the war, his alignment with the disastrous George W. Bush, his health problems and his choice of a radical to succeed him should it be necessary.
This transparently desperate ploy has me in a state of absolute panic, really it does.
It's about Obama being a radical leftist that Americans need to see. And when they are given the information about his background and world view, then we will see panic.
Except you've floated all this crap before. It didn't work then, so now you look doubly desperate trying it again.
It's like bringing up that his middle name is "Hussein" again. It's been done. You've played all your cards already, and the map looks good for Obama.
Then I guess desparation but with some equally desparate attempts to keep this from the American people. As they get to hear more of this, the better they will be able to judge what makes up his character.
Who wants it kept from the people? I don't really care if you guys make it known that Obama engaged in some charity and education work with a radical. Quit making it sound like there's some nefarious plot involved or something, that's all.
And again, if you are a liberal be proud, don't hide! ShameSpiralKnowNothing
And if you're going to get your "facts" from Powerline, don't plagiarize, be proud!
Ourland,
I did put the clip and paste in quotes but the rest are my thoughts. I'm just glad that he's having to stand up to a little scrutinty!
And which one of those institutions were terrorist organizations?
Besides, if you are a public figure, especially a community organizer or politician, it's impossible to run background checks on every one you associate with. For instance, because of my job I talk with a lot of different people. And although I'm "friendly" with some of them, I wouldn't count them as a friend. Thus, it's entirely possible I've been seen in public whose past is not something I would normally associate with (not including conservative, close minded Republicans - sorry for being redundant).
So Steve, what you're really saying is you are two faced and you admire that quality in your elected officials. Not a good argument dude. Should have stopped after the question.
FogHornLegHorn.. I say.. I say.. the issues of insurrection and treason seem more important to ya. Just think about whatchar' sayin' there son. Next thing you'll be runnin' off with some Rhode Island Red in the hen house.
steveswipe,
So would you let your daughter date a guy who has been surrounded by drug runners? Even if he swears off them or tells you that's not who he is?
I know, any association, no matter the degree of separation, will be checked into by this father. My daughter is too important to just wish or hope or have audacity for change in this relationship.
But when I start to look into the beau's background and he starts making excuses, minimizes, or tells me not to ask about his past, the party is over.
What's with insulting nom de' plume?
Anyway, I'm typing this slowly so you can keep up. I don't think Obama was asking Ayers to marry him. They just happened to be in the same area code.
Just because "wishing something to be true" qualifies as fact in WingNutistan, doesn't make it a fact in the reality based community. Obama has not run away from his past - all the principals involved deny there is any substantive relationship.
And to your analogy about your daughter, I really hope you didn't vote for GW. After all, he is a known former drug abuser and drunk, so obviously didn't "...have the hope or audacity for change in that [sic] relationship".
What's with insulting nom de' plume? - Steve Wyp
PC seems to have adopted ridiculous versions of posters' monikers as his signature shtick. I know, it's the kind of thing most of us outgrow by jr. high school, but he really seems to amuse himself with it.
Yes, but if you do the same to him, you'll hurt his feelings and he'll pout and cry all day long.
He's nothing but a troll who likes to parrot wingnut talking points.
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign.
Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.
Now if Rev. Hagee had hosted McCain's first campaign fundraiser, that would have been something, wouldn't it?
What are your thoughts on Liddy, PC?
Liddy Dole?
The soon-to-be former Senator from North Carolina? No, not her.
Now if Rev. Hagee had hosted McCain's first campaign fundraiser, that would have been something, wouldn't it?
Why use Hagee, let's discuss Todd Palin. I'm sure you'd agree, a husband/wife relationship is pretty close.
Since October 1995, Todd Palin, Sarah's "better half", was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States. Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.
Now let's look at what this American Independence party said BEFORE Todd joined.
AIP's founder, Joe Vogler, told an interviewer in 1991: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. ... And I won't be buried under their damn flag."
Now who's "palling around with terrorists"?
I see that Nothing-To-Be-Proud-Of Conservative was so ashamed of his source that he neither identified it by name or provided a link. So I guess we can all derive that "value" of his post from that omission - it's as worthless as his opinions.....
FactCheck.org has a very in-depth, objective article discussing the causes of our current financial situation. Their verdict is that it's the result of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." In short: there is plenty of blame to go around. They cite the Clinton and Bush administration, Wall Street firms, mortgage brokers, home buyers, real estate agents, the Fed, and Alan Greenspan as just some of the key players.
The last paragraph really articulates how I felt pundits, politicians, and others in the media were reacting to the economic crisis. They completely dumbed down the factors that got us into this mess, just so they could score some political points:
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.