April 17, 2008

Dear Senator Obama

Let me pass along a wee little bit of advice regarding equivalence.

There is no equivalence between your friend of many years William Ayers, his terrorist group's killing of police officers during an armored car robbery, their craven targeting of a non-commissioned officers dance (think Army prom) and other bombings they conducted for "peace," and your attempt to make those terrorist murders equivalent to Senator Coburn's hypothetical statement about a legal interpretation.

In your attempt at moral equivalence, you try to make actual murders and attempted murders the same as hyperbole.

Of course, it's all "just words" in a grand game, isn't it?

Perhaps Ayers—whom you try to explain away as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago"—can better explain what these words may mean to others the next time you attend a political fundraiser in his home.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 17, 2008 02:13 PM


"Again, why the need to streeeeeeeeetch the truth beyond all recognition to make Obama look like a terrorist?"

Do you know something we don't know?

And if the man did indeed attent a fundraiser "at his home" (something I hadn't heard before) don't you think that tends to imply more than just a purely casual connection? I mean, it's not as if Ayers is exactly your run-of-the-mill, leftist, college prof, is he?

I mean, don't you think it's possible that if you're attending an event in the home of someone with, charitably, a notorious past, it might be, at the very least, politically tone deaf (unless, as some suggest, Obabma really doesn't think consorting with people like Ayers--who would be shut away forever if he did what he did today--is a bad thing...which would be a very bad thing for someone with aspirations to the Presidency).

The problem is that Obama tries to minimize/sweep away *every* single instance where he's associated with a litany of dubious characters as "oh, well, I didn't know..." or "uh, you know, it was only that one time..." which all sound a lot like "I did not sleep with that woman" after excuse #87 which, incidentally, is the point the OP is obviously making.

Posted by: ECM at April 17, 2008 03:33 PM

[original comment deleted by mistake: repost -CY]

Again, why the need to streeeeeeeeetch the truth beyond all recognition to make Obama look like a terrorist? Fox News Fact Check does not agree that Obama is as chummy with Ayers as you clearly insinuate:
Reading your post, however, one would think Obama was defending his fishing buddy ("friend of many years" in your words). Maybe, CY, just maybe, Obama is telling the truth. And maybe you can try to be more accurate in your characterizations of the facts as they are, not as you wish them to be.

To circle back, Obama's point was NOT that both Ayers and Cobern's positions or actions are equivalent. Rather, his point was that knowing and associating with someone does not mean you condone that person's every action and adopt their views. It is thus unfair for you to suggest equivalence between Obama and Ayers based on what appears to be a very casual connection. By that standard, McCain and Hagee-the-Catholic-Hater share the same worldview since McCain considers him a friend. See? Not fair, is it?

Bottom line is this: there are lots of arguments you can form using actual facts without resorting to blatant overstatements and fabrications.

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2008 03:35 PM

Off topic, but can someone please tell me how to embed a link? For example, if I want the word "cheaters" to link to, how is this done? If you can provide guidance, please email me on the side. Thanks.

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2008 03:47 PM

"Bottom line is this: there are lots of arguments you can form using actual facts without resorting to blatant overstatements and fabrications."

Good point, maybe you can get Obama and Clinton to start doing so.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 17, 2008 04:14 PM

The difference, among many, is that Ayers committed violent crimes... yes, terror in fact. It is unfortunate that the skanks he was associated with at the time merely blew themselves up and left Ayers breathing but that is, of course, far preferable to a few dozen dead debutantes; the stated goal for this piece of shit. Obama lays down with dogs. His Coburn statement is reprehensible and claims that he is anything other than a work colleague are unsupported. As usual Barry has just pulled something from the air. Coburn of course holds a place on the Left that Ayers holds for the Right. Coburn claimed his obloquy from defending babies from murder. Ayers, by murdering. Barry will have no luck claiming equivalence outside the Dem primaries; a loony bin at best, a hive of treason and stupidity generally. Claims that all these associations have no bearing fall down for one reason; if this was just random noise why does it always cut in the anti-American direction? This is a nation of freedom and prosperity. Obama gonna Change all that.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 17, 2008 05:42 PM

All a matter of point of view. In the inverted lefty world in which Obama moves, his reaching out to Tom Coburn in that manner proves Obama is generous and open-minded, almost too tolerant. After all, to the liberal-left crowd in south Chicago and the liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where Obama resides, Senator Coburn is a dangerous hick from a gun-toting hick state and to equate him with Bill Ayers elevates Coburn.

Posted by: Zhombre at April 17, 2008 06:01 PM

Craig, Obama and Ayers sat on the same board of directors, for the Woods Fund.

Please name for me the board(s) where both McCain and Hagee sat together.

I anticipate an echoing silence.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 17, 2008 06:46 PM

Oh, one more thing, Craig... name the terrorist that hosted a campaign event in his own private home for Senator McCain, like Ayers did for Obama during the latter's run for the Illinois State Senate.

And the tender mercies of the Viet Cong in the "Hanoi Hilton" don't count.

It's no wonder Obama is trying to spin this one furiously. What is worthy of wonder is the fact that Obama apparently never even realized this would be a problem. Talk about out of touch!

Posted by: C-C-G at April 17, 2008 07:29 PM


You're correct, I can't name any "terrorists" that hosted a McCain fundraiser. But if I went back through all the fundraisers McCain has attended, you don't think I'd pull out a few beauts?

I don't know about you, but I've been to a few fundraisers in connection with my job (i.e. unwillingly), and they go something like this. People are mustered to attend, then the candidate arrives and talks to his/her entourage and a couple select attendees for a few minutes, and the attendees pretend like the candidate is just THE funniest and smartest person ever. Then s/he is introduced by a fawning host, and the candidate tells the attendees that s/he can't do it without their money. A few questions are asked, and non-substantive answers are given. The candidate leaves very shortly thereafter never having really met anyone there because that was just one of 2 or 3 on the schedule for that night in a busy season of begging for money. Maybe you and others have seen something different, but my experience has been that candidate barely interacts with the people hosting and attending the fundraisers, and rarely stays more than 45 min or an hour tops.

So based on a fundraiser where the host (Ayers) gave a whopping $200, I wouldn't read much into it. Also, I don't know about you, but I needed Hillary Clinton to educate me as to who that dude is/was, so it's also possible Obama didn't know he was anything more than a professor.

Is Obama really trying to spin this furiously? You are, and Hillary is, but Obama took it head on to say it's not right to suggest that he holds Ayers' views just because he knows the man. Think about what kind of psycho would live their life studiously avoiding people with wacko views JUST SO THEY COULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT. What kind of life would that be? I have really good friends all over the political map, and some with pretty hardcore righty and lefty views. It makes me a more well-rounded person if I can be friends with them and still be my own man. People aren't vessels that fill up with the thoughts and ideas of everyone they meet, so you should consider how fair it is to ascribe Ayers' views to Obama by association. Think about it.

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2008 08:04 PM

Well rounded.

Posted by: brando at April 17, 2008 08:28 PM

Craig, this isn't about a fundraiser where Ayers gave money. This is about an event (it may have been a fundraiser, it may not have been, the only term I've seen for it was "event") that was hosted by Ayers at Ayers' own home!

Of course, you tried your darnedest to skip over that part, because that puts a whole new light on it. The problem (for you, at least) is that I ain't gonna let you pass it by.

And your attempt doesn't even get a "nice try." It was pathetic, in fact.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 17, 2008 08:53 PM


Wow, tough crowd. You know, I depend on you for positive reinforcement since you're so free with the "nice tries." I won't lie to you, I'm hurt. Now I'm over it.

So, I don't know you, but I'm guessing by the emphasis you put on it that the fundraiser being in the guy's home strikes you as a big deal. That is, it significant for you to invite a someone into your home, or for you to be invited into someone else's home, as opposed to a neutral place. Take it from me that there's very little that's intimate or personal about a "home" fundraiser, and the social dynamic I described above is exactly the same. The whole shebang is really way more about the host's narcissism, trying to appear to his/her friends and co-workers that they are important, than about mind-melding with the candidate. The candidate does the same brief jawboning with the host, then "I can't do it without your support ($$$)" mini-stump-speech, then limited Q&A, then little more chit chat with the host, then gone to the next one.

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2008 09:18 PM

Craig, your political naivete is showing clearly.

You really have no idea how the real world works, do you?

That's probably why you're an Obamapologist.

Anyway, here's a question for you... if, say, Rush Limbaugh hosted an event (you keep using the term fundraiser, which may or not be correct--showing that you have no idea of the difference--a fundraiser is an event, but not all events are fundraisers) for McCain, would the lefties jump all over it?

Silly question, of course they would.

However, since you've demonstrated on several occasions that you're absolutely clueless about the very topic you're trying to sound like an expert on, I doubt if I'll ever treat you like an intelligent person again. In short, I don't deal with phonies well.

Go back to DU where your "expertise" won't be questioned.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 17, 2008 09:28 PM

Well ok, C-C-G, I tried to address the issues you raised in a straightforward manner. You, on the other hand, appear to be drinking tonight. We can try again another time perhaps. Party on.

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2008 09:40 PM

Once again, you attempt to appear wise, and fall flat on your face. I do not drink, my family has a history of substance abuse problems, so I avoid it.

You haven't tried to address anything in a straightforward manner, you can't even get it through your head that an event isn't necessarily a fundraiser. You admitted you had no idea who William Ayres is, though it's been well documented online, and you can't seem to grasp the significance of the choice of venue for a political event.

In short, you're just another mind-numbed robot of the left; your own comments above illustrate that wonderfully... I never once mentioned money or contributions, and only referred to fundraisers in a futile attempt to educate you about the difference between an event and a fundraiser... yet you keep trying to drag money and contributions in. Why is that? Because you can't comprehend what I am really getting at, so you keep talking about irrelevant things.

Like I said before, go back to DU, you'll fit in quite well there.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 17, 2008 09:55 PM

What do Barrack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon. *bad-a-bing*

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 18, 2008 02:59 AM

Just a point of fairness, McCain's associations aren't being held against him either:

father-in-law Jim Hensley - Convicted felon for bookmaking & bootlegging for the mob and hired McCain for VP of PR
Charles Keating, Jr. - Convicted felon for S&L collapse. Chuck was a huge financial contributer to McCain and of course McCain was caught up in the Keating 5 stuff.
Fife Symington III - Gov of Arizona, convicted of extortion and pardoned by Clinton.
John Kerry - nuff said!

Some of them, you can't help such as who your father-in-law is but then you don't also have to take a job with said convict-in-law as his PR guy.

None of these people are terrorists but if associations with terrorists are a means of defining Obama, shouldn't associating with extortionists, defrauders, traitors, and those convicted of mob activities also defined McCain?

Posted by: matta at April 18, 2008 06:43 AM

Left out of this converstaion is the reason Obama's predecessor took Obama to the event.

Ayers and his wife were luminaries in the community. The liberals looked up to them.

Posted by: davod at April 18, 2008 06:44 AM

This back and forth with the supporter of Sen. Obama, of course...misses the point, by a mile.

If we choose to ignore the continuing "friendly" relationship (based upon the description given by Sen. Obama's own campaign)that existed prior to today, what continues to how Sen. Obama parses the going forward relationship with men and women of distinctly violent, virulent, noxious anti-American sentiment.

As the patchwork quilt pattern of Sen. Obama's worldview comes into focus, his penchant for surrounding himself with lunatic fringe, violence inspired, radical, leftists....socialists, communists, maoists, Nation of Islam separationists, becomes crystallized that this is no accident of fate.

What Sen. Obama's apologists suggest for public consumption (I suspect behind closed doors, the conversation is quite different...whether on Billionaire's Row in SF or in Berkeley or Haight-Ashbury) that these mere "happenstance" relationships are a "distraction".

Please forgive me, but "Frank" was not mere "happenstance". He was a strong imprint upon young fatherless Barack and his CPUSA antagonism toward America and American values being imbued into Sen. Obama seems to have played out as young Barack evolves from college to young adulthood and even today.

Please forgive me, but the pathway imprinted by "Frank" the CPUSA member...continues to be traversed when Barack seeks out his most radical professors. His imprint from "Frank" draws radical fringe ideals to college student a magnet.

Barack, after graduation...has a burning desire to connect with the "Dreams" of his father. His father, of course, is a virulent anti-America, anti-West, socialist...who has died...and young Barack looks for a mentor in his life and finds Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright is a virulent, bombastic, flame-throwing anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-white disciple of Louis Farrakhan. He teaches Farrakhanisms through the veil of Christianity...filtered through the theo-politics of the Marxist inspired black liberation theology.

For 20 years, Sen. Obama embraces Rev. Wright, intimately and tightly to his a guiding light and quite possibly yet another "father figure", who continues the pathway set by "Frank", on a course that Sen. Obama has never wavered from.

Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn are not some bizarre disconnect from this pathway...when viewed in light of the very consistent pattern in which Sen. Obama has affirmatively sought out and embraced the most demonstrably aggressive anti-American sentiments throughout his entire life.

He seems to be channeling his father's antipathy and seeking to embrace him beyond the grave and to somehow recapture all those missing days of absence and abandonment. He is giving a hug to haters of America. He is drawn to them.

It is in this light that we now can witness and comprehend the discomfort of wearing a flag pin on his lapel. Being that overtly pro-America is a disappointment to "Frank", to his radical college professors, to Rev. Wright, to Farrakhan, to his father's the Kos Kidz who form his base. The hate and blame crowd doesn't go for "jingoism" in the form of...well, actually loving the country.

(you can force yourself to accept a pin from a disabled vet, who works for "other disabled vets", because disability is an emblem for the anti-war crowd, they use it as a tool to pretend they care about the healthy troops)

It also becomes clear why Sen. Obama puts his hands figuratively "in his pockets" when the Pledge or National Anthem is played. He can't bring himself to exhibit Pro-America behaviors, that is a betrayal of his entire imprinted "being". His closest "father figures", Frank, Jeremiah, Louis, Barack Sr...would not approve.

It is in this context that we must view how Ayers and Sen. Obama have interwoven a relationship that is "friendly" and how Sen. Obama winds up at the man's house and as a fellow board member.

This is the inner circle in which Sen. Obama travels. The fact that he says that Bill Ayers was a murderer 40 years ago, as if the crime against police, the government, the military has been erased by consistent with the sympathy for which he carries and has always carried the torch for violent, virulent, radical anti-Americanism.

This plays just fine for the radical left. This is swept under the rug by the regular left. But it won't play in Peoria. Nor should it.

Posted by: cfbleachers at April 18, 2008 07:27 AM

Matta, everyone knows about the Keating 5. You're trying to equate McCains problems of more than 2 decades ago to what Obama is doing today? Really??? At least McCain apologized over 20 years ago for his actions, Obama is still very much involved with Reverend Wright and the terrorist Ayers. How does something so irrelevant even pop into someones mind? I mean, even far left wing fanatical nut jobs aren't that intellectually vacant are they?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 18, 2008 08:29 AM

@Capitalist - I've forgotten the witty reparte that exists on this site. Please keep up the silly stereotyping, it just shows the weakness of your argument. Politicians don't apologize for their actions, they apologize for getting caught.

To answer your question, I DID NOT compare the acts but rather said that if associations are going to define Obama then the same should apply to McCain. It may have happened 20 years ago but that means McCain was still in his late 40's/early 50's when he made his choices of whom to associate with which is roughly in the same ballpark as Obama today. I think its completely fair to judge someone for office based on the choices they make and the company they keep. Its just that all candidates should be viewed through that same view point and held accountable for it.

Posted by: matta at April 18, 2008 09:44 AM
father-in-law Jim Hensley - Convicted felon for bookmaking & bootlegging for the mob

Wrong. Hensley was charged with falsifying liquor records and received a 6 month suspended sentence. He was never charged with either bookmaking or bootlegging.

Fife Symington III - Gov of Arizona, convicted of extortion and pardoned by Clinton.

Wrong. His conviction was overturned and therefore, legally speaking, never happened, and he was never convicted of extortion in any sense. He was convicted for fraud. Furthermore, McCain couldn't have been expected to know of Symington's legal troubles (real estate fraud) before everyone else did, so you can't argue that he was willingly and knowingly associating with a criminal. The same holds for Keating. As Obama notes, Ayers was breaking things and killing people when Obama was 8. the association was long after those things became common knowledge.

Lastly, are you telling us that John Kerry is a traitor? Beacuse, you know...

Posted by: Pablo at April 18, 2008 10:40 AM
I think its completely fair to judge someone for office based on the choices they make and the company they keep.

I do too. And as I just demonstrated, that concern doesn't apply to McCain in regard to the people you've mentioned, unless you'd like to suggest that he should have rejected his wife and her family because of her father's conviction for falsifying records, which is just like bombing government buildings... It does apply to Obama, however.

Posted by: Pablo at April 18, 2008 10:43 AM

Yes, it is the joy of adhering to principles that one does not fear a fair standard. By all means, get McCain's associations out there in the public mind. As long as the characters involved and the terms of the relationship are accurately portrayed there is little doubt that McCain will emerge the superior candidate on the "character" issue, at least as personal associations define it. The contest will be held out in the open. That is one thing the Democrats cannot afford.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 18, 2008 11:23 AM

@Pablo - Last I checked, a suspended sentence still means they found him guilty, right? When someone falisifies liquor records what do you think they are doing? Saying the got more liquor or less? I'd say less. Then what do they do with that unreported liquor? Keep it? sell it? probably. Maybe its just regional differences here but to me bootlegging is the illegal selling of liquor. They didn't catch him doing that (like with Al Capone being caught for taxes, not for running the mob) but I doubt he was personally consuming it.

I don't think he should reject his wife, at least not his second wife. He did reject his first one (before someone gets all hot and bothered over this, he married his second wife a month and a half after divorcing his first one). He shouldn't reject his second wife or family however, he should be judged for deciding to go work for his felon-in-law as his PR rep.

as far as Symington goes, you are right, he was convicted on bank fraud, I apologize for the mis-characterization. Keating was convicted of bankruptcy fraud as well.

As far as Kerry goes, comments on this blog have mostly been in the nature of vile and evil things to say so I would think his good friendship with McCain would mean something to those that dispise Kerry...

Posted by: matta at April 18, 2008 02:59 PM
Last I checked, a suspended sentence still means they found him guilty, right?

Of falsifying records. Not bootlegging or bookmaking. The bootlegging claim is false. And your guesses are just that - guesses. Except that they're also silly. If you want to assert facts, find them.

He shouldn't reject his second wife or family however, he should be judged for deciding to go work for his felon-in-law as his PR rep.

Then by all means, get out there and make that case. I'll going ahead and start the laughing at you. This will be awesome, I'm sure.

as far as Symington goes, you are right, he was convicted on bank fraud, I apologize for the mis-characterization.

Legally, no, as the conviction was overturned. He had no convictions on his record. And again, as with Keating, you'd have to show that McCain was aware of any wrongdoing while associating with either of them in order to equate them with Obama. For instance, Obama knew Rezko was under investigation and in bed with Nadhmi Auchi when they pulled the shady house deal together.

So, you've got McCain's FIL. What else?

Posted by: Pablo at April 18, 2008 03:41 PM

Ahh, yes... let's see... McCain and Keating. Then we have Obama and Rezko, whose trial is ongoing. And Hillary... where to start with Hillary... Whitewater, the White House Travel Office, that $100,000 she "made" in a single deal (I honestly forget if it was stock trading or commodity trading, though I think it was commodity).

If it's fair to bring these things out about McCain, then quitcherbellyaching about them coming out about Obama and Hillary.

Personally, I think McCain is no conservative (I've been known to call him McRINO), and have never really supported him, nor do I truly support him now... I may still end up writing in Charlie Brown for POTUS. However, as deeply flawed as McCain is, Obama and Hillary are far far worse, so if the lefties wanna try the old compare-and-contrast thing, I say bring it on.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 18, 2008 06:26 PM

Thanks for proving my point matta, got anything current? Like in the past 20 years? These left wing fanatics are desperate

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 19, 2008 06:38 AM

I love the left! When they can't reason logivcally or advance coherent arguments supported by evidence their opponents are drunk. So drunk that they make people like Craig look like ignorant 13 year old cellar dwellers who learned about politics on the Daily Show. On the other hand you have Matta who equates the Keating scandal with Ayers, Wright, and all the other Communists Snobama cherishes.

Seems to me that McCain skated on the Keating scandal, although Snobama is knee deep in Chicago politics and corruption. I suppose we are to take Ayers action as the equivalent of McCain's behavior in POW camps. Perhaps in the fever swamps of Amherst and the Bay area but not where real Americans live and work.

I am not sure about other people but I have nothing but contempt for someone who makes 4 million annually and then attacks the US and associates with those who damn it. By the way I wonder if Matta and Craig have any Grey Poupon?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 19, 2008 03:33 PM

matta, you're missing (intentionally?) the really simple point: was McCain associating with Symington once aware of his legal problems? If not, your comparison fails.

Posted by: Pablo at April 21, 2008 02:59 PM

BTW, on what basis are you diagnosing my "hatred of the left"?

Posted by: Pablo at April 21, 2008 03:00 PM