Create "The Great American Lager"?

And now the character assassination begins
 

CARSON, Calif., - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of an association with a former '60s radical, a harsh attack on his character that she repeated at three separate campaign events without substantiation.

Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members were blamed for several bombings, including a pipe bomb in San Francisco that killed a police officer and injured another. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.

While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, there is no evidence that they ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.

Nonetheless, Palin made the comments at three appearances in separate states.

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," said told donors at a private airport in Englewood, Colo. Palin echoed the line later in Carson, Calif., and Costa Mesa, Calif.

Falling behind Obama in polls, the Republican campaign plans to make attacks on Obama's character a centerpiece of candidate John McCain's message in the final weeks of the presidential race. Coming late in the campaign, Palin's remark could be particularly incendiary, either backfiring on McCain or knocking Obama off his focus on the troubled economy — or both.

The campaign was clearly prepared to raise the Ayers' connection to Obama. In addition to Palin's comments at her appearances Saturday, the McCain campaign distributed Palin's comments to reporters.

"This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," Palin said. "We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/...H3IYxx1ylsnwcF

I bet Sarah Palin doesn't know Bill Ayers from Roy Ayers.

One has to wonder how much Obama knew to be associated at all with the guy.

Would you serve on a committee with a person who had never disavowed his involvement with domestic bombings and a terrorist organization?

Would you accept campaign donations from him?

I don't think I would, but maybe I'm uptight like that.

Do you get to choose your fellow committee members? If you think you can do more good by being on a committee despite the history of one of the members, then by resigning or refusing and not doing anything, do you?

Like it or not the man teaches at a university and is part of society there, you have to associate with him or you associate with no one. And then you get nothing done. The guy isn't a golf buddy.

Looking at the committee and its work over time, I'm pretty sure I would have declined for a lot of different reasons. I think it would have been reasonable for Obama to decline as well, simply based on Ayers participation.

I don't think that doing good work in Chicago required working on committees with Ayers or allowing him to host fundraisers for you or donate to your campaign.

Ayers and Dohrn are not mainstream figures. Comfortably working with them says something about Obama.

I'm not sure there is a right wing equivalent, maybe Eric Robert Rudolph? 40 years from now, would you be on committees with him?

Instead of taking wild guesses about how comfortable Obama was, how much Ayers has changed, how bad someone has to be to refuse to be on a committee with them, or any kind of right wing comparison, how about looking at what's actually being said.

McCain's camp, via Palin, is suggesting that Obama supports domestic terrorism. Do you actually think that's true?

No, they're suggesting that he is friends with a domestic terrorist and that seems to be true. Just because liberal community organizations in Chicago think that Ayers is back to being a mainstream figure doesn't mean that Americans have to agree with them.

Obama has chosen to make a big deal about how inspiring his story is (he wrote two books about it after all) and the big question about that story is that Obama has chosen to associate himself with some pretty radical people and it would be irresponsible politically for McCain to not raise the issue of what that says about Obama's judgement.

Where are you getting this?

I think you are the one making the leap from "comfortable working with unrepentant domestic terrorist" to "supporting domestic terrorism." How far a leap it is is probably better for you to judge.

I'm sure he knew everything about Bill Ayers. Hell, I'm 27, never been to Chicago in my life, and yet I'm quite familiar with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While he and his wife may not be in the "mainstream," if you're involved in any left-wing politics at all, let alone in Chicago, you've definitely heard of them. If you're active in community organization as far as education goes, you've heard of Bill Ayers. The man has written several books, so it's not as if he's in a bunker biting his toenails and planning the New World Order. In fact, he and his wife were featured in that bastion of the Radical Left, the AARP Quarterly, in November 2001.

Obama, as long as I can remember, has separated himself from association with Bill Ayers's activities in the Weather Underground. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't David Horowitz an "associate" of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers during those days? Is it okay to listen to and associate with him now that he's a conservative?

I suppose what would matter most to me in associating with people in the present is how earnestly they seems to have repudiated their violent pasts.

And that's what makes Ayers and Dohrn, maybe especially, so complicated.

ETA: It looks like Horowitz's connections were Black Panther, just glancing at Wikipedia.

One a different note, if we wanted a really excellent study in "white privilege" maybe contrasting what happened to most figures involved with the Black Panthers and MOVE with the current status of the former Weathermen would prove illustrative. (Or maybe it would just show the benefits of privilege generally.) I wonder why we don't hear more about that.

I've read a lot about William Ayers and have read quotes of his talking about how he has regrets and remorse for HOW they did things. I think a lot of young people did a lot of things the wrong way during those very turbulent times when our leaders were being assassinated and anger about Vietnam was rampant. Since he turned himself in (1980), he has done a lot of good for society, especially in the area of education reform. Personally, I believe that many people did things in the late 60's and early 70's that were very wrong, out of anger toward what was happening in our world. Our country was very angry then. I also believe that age brings wisdom and the ability to turn that anger into doing good. I think William Ayers has made that change as evidenced by the good works he does now for education reform and the community. In all honesty, I fear that the anger felt during those times is rekindling, but that's another thread altogether. I don't think, however, that accepting campaign contributions for a state senate seat or sitting on a common board of directors this many years after the fact should mean anything.

She said today: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10...y4502414.shtml

Palin on Saturday painted Obama as someone who “is not a man who sees America as you and I see America,” and on Sunday, Palin did not back down an inch in hammering the Democratic nominee.

“And he, of course, having been associated with that group, a known domestic terrorist group, it's important for Americans to know,” she told CBS News. “It’s really important for Americans to start knowing who the real Barack Obama is."

That clearly implies that he was associated with a group that was active when he was 8 years old.

Well, except if the "he" I've bolded refers to Ayers, which I suspect it does.

Ayers is the domestic terrorist, and Obama is the guy associating with him.
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...defends-a.html if you want to see more context)

Ayers, here in 2001, himself makes clear he doesn't have regrets.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...01/No-Regrets/

Here's wiki too:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ay...sed_since_2001



ETA: I think this is just going to be one of those divides. Some of us are bothered by Ayers and Dohrn and are disgusted by them having positions of authority at mainstream institutions and others are not. Those of us who are disturbed will hold this association against Obama and those who aren't won't.

Ayres explains those comments in his blog here:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/...t-and-fantasy/

and here:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/...sorry-i-think/

You see apology (well maybe I should say regret and remorse) and I see self-justification without authentic remorse. Oh, well.

I don't see apology. I see a very long explanation about why he won't use the word apology. However, I also see regret and remorse.

I see rationalization and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the horror of what they visited on their victims, but I've amended my comment above.

ETA:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...enemy_too.html

I go back to my Eric Robert Rudolph example and ask if you'd be satisfied with a similar comment from him?

His connections were primarily with the Black Panthers, but they definitely ran in the same circles, and had similar aims. In his book (gasp! I've read it!), he mentions being in the same room with Dohrn when she allegedly praised Manson and the Family. Other Weathermen come up as well; based on that, I'm going to call him an "associate."

The former Weathermen were, without a doubt, beneficiaries of class and race privilege. Ayers's father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison, and it was his connections with Trustees of Northwestern that got his daughter-in-law a job at a law school, despite the fact that her status as a convict prevented her from joining the bar. All of the major players--including Kathy Boudin--came from wealthy families, who put up their bail, provided hiding places, and homes upon their release. It's easier to rehabilitate yourself when you already have a cushy place in society. Also, you can't forget that while the Weathermen were all college educated, many of the Panthers weren't. Most of the Panthers who actually survived haven't done too badly for themselves once they got out of jail.

You can call Horowitz whatever you want, but I think you have to admit that his culpability with the Weathermen is much less than Dohrn or Ayers. And his repudiation of radical violent action much clearer.

So, privileged is privilege? My point is just that the illustrations people use to make their points are often really convenient. Palin's kids are presented as an example and leftist radicals not discussed as much.

I never said otherwise, did I? No, I didn't. Clearly, since I've read several of Horowitz's books written since his conversion, I am quite aware of his "repudiation of radical action." Also, since my college campus was impacted in 2001 because of his actions, I think I'm pretty familiar with his MO.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. I actually think the extreme right, in a period of weakness and desperation, is grabbing at whatever will shock Middle America. Like it did 6 or so months ago when Hillary's camp brought it up, this revival of the Ayers story isn't going to last long.

I see a huge difference between Eric Rudolph and Ayers. However, if, 40 years from now, Rudolph shows that he has spent most of his life trying to improve society and helping others, became a well respected member his community, and demonstrated a significant change in his behavior, and someone associated with him at that time, I wouldn't hold it against that person.

No, I think your analysis is pretty solid on that topic, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

What was your point again? That some people would think Horowitz was okay just because he was conservative? As opposed to thinking he might be okay because he was never involved in the same level of stuff AND that he's disavowed the involvement he did have? I think I must have missed something here.

I think that the Ayers story has play beyond the far right, but maybe I'm wrong. The difference to me is that the media won't pick up the story the same way they would if it were about Palin or McCain. Case in point, most of the main stream coverage on the story focused on Palin's racism in making the connection, which I don't remember happening when Clinton brought it up.

See, I didn't get that at all.

This is what they said on Meet the Press about it this morning:

MR. BEGALA: Well, no. Obama was—he was asked about this in a debate in a primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there; George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it. He pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when, apparently, Barack Obama was eight years old. And, and I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back—I’ve written a book about McCain. I had a dozen researchers go through him. I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization. It was the U.S. Council for World Freedom. It was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultraconservative right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981, when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, the parent organization, which ADL said, “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and Anti-Semites.” Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27034205/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_132008.html

While that's the Huff Post, the original article is AP.

Here it is in the Atlanta paper:http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sha..._Analysis.html

Oh, yeah, especially if you give people a forum just for that. Oh, wait, they weren't giving Begala a forum just to make that connection?

And while that group may have some super unsavory connections, I doubt they blew anyone up. ETA: I sardonically laugh to/at myself and add, in the US at least.

Uhhh, I was going by actual video tape of the rally. In the past year or so, I've learned just to go straight to the source instead of having sound bites digested for me.

Unfortunately, I've become quite familiar with finding racial subtext in the sneakiest of places, and I just didn't find it there. But if the Associated Press says I must find racial subtext, it must be OMGTEHTRUTH.

Well, after this election, I think the number of people who are willing to take the AP or any other MSM source at face value are diminishing. I think that was one of the most interesting aspects of Hillary's campaign.

But I think that some people on both ends of the spectrum do take a more passive attitude to the news and enjoy a pre-digested version.


ETA: since I'm posting in this thread in way critical of Obama, I feel like should go on record stating that I don't regard him as the anti-Christ. I just think he is much farther(further?) left than he's presently marketing himself.

I think Meet the Press does a good job of presenting both sides. Mike Murphy, who ran McCain's campaign in 2000 responded with this:
MR. BROKAW: Mr. Murphy, one of the defenders of William Ayers in Chicago is Rich Daley, the six-term mayor of the city, who has said that, in fact, Mr. Ayers has been very helpful on school issues. Isn’t that going to be an effective counterstrike against anything that the McCain people try to do here?

MR. MURPHY: Maybe. But Ayers has kind of gotten off a little easy in Chicago. A lot of people say what a good guy he is. The problem is the one person who hasn’t really condemned William Ayers enough is William Ayers, and I think that’s a real problem. And Obama, while, he’s clearly not the same. He still also has pulled his punches, I think, a little bit about it. And this will be a kerfuffle, it’ll do a little damage to Obama, but fundamentally this campaign’s going to be about the economy.

MR. BROKAW: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: So Obama will take some damage on this, but then it’s going to pivot back to real life, and that’s where I think McCain has to connect.

Brokaw especially seems more mindful about balance. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/ar...nk&oref=slogin

I agree. Tim Russert was also, which is one of the reasons that I like Meet the Press.

I do try very hard to avoid op-ed type pieces (like the ones that are implying racism in Palin's comments). I don't see the comments as racist. I mean, Hilary brought up the same issue during the primaries. It didn't make a difference. Interestingly, Hilary did that when it was becoming clear that Obama was going to win the nomination and it seemed like a desperate attempt to turn things around when she did it.

What's interesting to me is that the article I linked is not a op/ed piece at least in name and placement in most newspapers. It's presented as a AP news story, which used to be an area in which people at least pretended to be objective.

Sure the AP can carry columnists and opinion pieces, but if you look for that article in your local paper, I don't think that's how it will be presented.

ETA: well, the headline does start with "Analysis" which I suppose to most readers should trigger a recognition of bias.

You're right, it's not clearly marked and I think we're seeing more and more of that lately.

No he's not. Hitler was the antichrist.

Obama may not be my preferred candidate, but I do not think he is the antichrist.

Many people I know are saying that. It's like they either want him to win or think he is pure evil. He simply is not the one I want at the helm- but I have nothing against him, I just won't be voting for him.

While I don't agree that Hitler was the antichrist, I certainly don't think Obama is, either. He doesn't meet all of the criteria set in Revelation.

I wonder if it's really true that the mark of the beast will be bar codes inserted into our bodies. I just heard that if we want to eat we have to get it.

People are going to say anything they can that's negative about Barack. I think the "antichrist" came up because Barack comes off so different from McCain and Bush who made a failed attempt to lead this country.:rolleyes: It just seems like Barack offers the nation a chance to change political course. To me, this just totally seems to be missing from the McCain campaign. Another reason I think everyone is so weirded out about him is he just doesn't seem to whip up a batch of new politics. He promises to fix the nation's broken politics, and to me that's just something totally different. People hate different.

So, I guess that makes Barack the antichrist.:rolleyes:

That's what I'm saying. People who are saying the Obama is the antichrist have obviously not read the book of revelation. Which I guess doesn't matter when you're desperate enough to do or say anything to make sure he is not the next President. :(

What's next....will Obama be accused of being the TRUE Flying Spagetti Monster?:confused:

And when has that ever stopped anybody?

Shoot, even the people who have read Revelation can't agree on what it means or how it should be interpreted, much less who the Anti-Christ will be . . . or was. ;)

LOL - I hear ya! :)