Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John Martin, a Navy veteran who recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and the co-founder of the group Republicans for Obama, points out that the Republicans have more than their fair share of connections to former Weather Underground member William Ayers:
In 1995, Bill Ayers was part of a team that helped create the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform project that worked with half of Chicago's public schools. Barack Obama, then working as an attorney and law school professor, was elected chairman of the eight-member board of the CAC. The board included individuals of diverse political backgrounds, including Ray Romero, the President of Ameritech; Stanley Ikenberry, the former President of the University of Illinois; and Republican Arnold Weber, who had served in the Nixon White House.In their best efforts to portray Barack as out of the mainstream, some on the right have tried characterizing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as a dangerous fringe organization. What they do not discuss is the fact that the CAC was funded by a foundation belonging to Walter Annenberg, the billionaire Republican philanthropist who served as Richard M. Nixon's ambassador to the U.K. Annenberg and his wife, Leonore, gave the CAC $50 million in the 90's.
But Walter and Leonore weren't just giving money to educational foundations started by William Ayers. They were also giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican National Committee and various other Republican groups, as well as to a whole host of Republican candidates...
Why would billionaire Republican philanthropists give millions of dollars to a program that was working with William Ayers? Why would George W., Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and all those other Republicans accept money from the people who were funding this William Ayers-associated group? Why won't McCain discuss these connections between the Republican Party and Ayers?
Here's the icing on the cake: just yesterday, the McCain campaign put out a press release bragging about the fact that Leonore Annenberg has endorsed him for president. Yes, you heard it-- a McCain backer bankrolled William Ayers with millions of dollars.
How about some commercials claiming that McCain is accepting donations and endorsements from people who are known to fund domestic terrorists? Look, I do think Obama deserves a little heat over his association with Ayers. But the Republicans have made such an exaggerated and ridiculous argument that it applies perfectly well to themselves as well.
Comments
Look, I do think Obama deserves a little heat over his association with Obama.
Second "Obama" in that sentence should be Ayers.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 15, 2008 9:42 AM
"Look, I do think Obama deserves a little heat over his association with Obama."
For what possible reason?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 15, 2008 9:54 AM
And he deserves heat because? That seems to be the common method of operation: imply dealings were somehow unethical and nasty, but never supply any details.
I have a question: We've been hearing for some time that, after September 11, 2001, Ayers' commented "there should have been more bombing" (this allegation comes from the Republicans around this portion of Michigan).
Where, exactly, is that quote to be found? I've exhausted my limited searching ability and haven't found it. I am NOT saying it isn't true, just that I may not be talented enough to find it.
Posted by: dean | October 15, 2008 9:56 AM
Dean,
The quote was from the New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63
I think being on the same board as Ayers is something Obama should not really have to explain. The event at Ayers house that was a get-to-know your candidate could merit some questions for Obama. It's not a big deal to me, associating with anyone does not mean that your ideals are formed by them or closely associated with them. It's only when a pattern of mutual support for each other's agendas appears that it becomes a problem. I don't think there's anything to that with Obama and Ayers.
The time McCain spends beating this issue into the ground is reflective of his campaign to date - be outraged at things your opponent has done even if you do the same things.
Posted by: Odie | October 15, 2008 10:09 AM
Let's compare: the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon (how many perished in that? how come we don't hear the numbers included in the smears? what were the moral motivations behind the attack?) and this is called "terrorism." The Pentagon, simulataneously, was busy bombing various villages in South and North Vietnam, with untold numbers murdered as a result, because they might have had the wrong political and/or economic opinions? And somehow this activity is not called "terrorism?"
Posted by: jws | October 15, 2008 10:09 AM
I'm just curious, why? Why should a young Obama, working as an attorney and part time professor, take the additional time to run background checks on everyone who serves on the board he is serving on? That seems more than a bit paranoid. Also, how/why would he even know who Ayers is? I mean really, I teach history and had to be reminded of his role in the 60s/70s. The guy was a fellow academic serving on a committee, a rather respected member of Chicago education reform.
I've served on a variety of committees. To be honest, I'd have a hard time telling you the names of some of the people that I served with, let alone what they did 20 years before. I did a "who has my name search," over 600 people in the US have the name "William Ayers." Just for comparison, I searched my own name, there are 15, there are 14 Edward Braytons, only one listed as "Ed Brayton." It seems a bit of a stretch to expect someone to recognize that the guy is famous, first of all; then to recognize for what he is famous; 20 years after the fact.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Dean - this is Ayers response to the Times article of 9/11/01:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/clarifying-the-facts-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/
Posted by: jalexei | October 15, 2008 10:11 AM
If I understand correctly, all charges against Ayers were dropped, which means he's never been convicted of a crime. Has "innocent until proven guilty" become another of those quaint notions like the Geneva Conventions?
Posted by: uzza | October 15, 2008 10:28 AM
McCain's assertion that he'll bring Ayers up in the debate (or maybe he'll wait for the moderator to do it), makes me interested in how Obama will choose to address this. I think there are several options for him, but the "I didn't know who he was" option is the most likely to hurt him. There's just too much left open there for people to go back and make a case that he did.
He'll probably downplay the idea that working with Ayers has anything to do with condoning his past and point out that it was a republican funded committee they both worked on. (Basically how he has responded to this point)
But I get the sense that Obama has baited McCain into saying something tonight because he has something stronger to say. Maybe Obama shoots back with a list of associations McCain has had with shady individuals. I'm interested to find out.
Posted by: Odie | October 15, 2008 10:30 AM
The most recent NYTs/CBS poll has some interesting results relative to McCain's attacks on Obama, including the McCain campaign's frequent rhetorical question, "Who is Obama?" The poll results were collected from 10/10 to 10/13.
Only 6% claim they haven't paid close attention to the campaign. Only 2% claim they haven't heard enough to form an opinion about Obama. 15% remain undecided on whether they favor or do not favor Obama.
Only 7% of those polled state their opinion of Obama has worsened over the past several weeks, too small of a result to pareto out factors on why. 17% state it's changed for the better with 75% noting no change. McCain's results were 21% worse, 7% better, and 72% didn't change, the two biggest reasons pollees stated changed for the worse on McCain were attacks on Obama (23%) and nominating Palin (22%).
56% don't have a problem with Obama's background or past associations. Of those who are bothered, 11% on Jeremiah Wright, 9% on Ayres, and 4% on their believing he's a Muslim. These results are in the context that 66% have either heard a lot (33%) or some (31%) about Ayres.
MY CONCLUSION
The American people appear to be much more savvy than McCain, Palin, and Steve Schmidt take them for; therefore the attacks on Obama, at least so far, are a wasted effort on McCain's part to move Obama supporters and undecideds over to the McCain camp.
It appears all they are doing is inflaming their constituency already predisposed to voting for McCain. The other risk, which is much more concerning to me, is that they threaten Obama's ability to pull the country together post-inauguration if Obama were to win, this is further evidence that McCain lacks integrity and puts personal ambition way ahead of the national interest.
The reason I believe this could develop into a threat contrary to the data is that the main-stream and conservative media pound this message much more frequently than it is represented in the American mind-set. I would bet because it makes for entertaining drama; my concern is that at some point it should have more of an affect on the conservative pysche as conservatives become the dissenting voice to power, which always gets a disproportionate voice in the media (which I actually favor minorities getting, though I want it to be honest, and here we know that is not the case).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2008 10:35 AM
What are the odds McCain or his Senate staff have met with various members of the Militia movement? I know I met with lots of unsavory folks during my years as a House staffer.
Part of my job was to engage those types to keep them from engaging with my boss, but that's the whole point: Someone has to engage them.
Now I don't give a rat's patooie who either Senator has met with. It's their job to meet with their constituents, including some bad people and the odd crazy person. But I would hope the Obama campaign has been researching this angle. I would suggest they find one of the splinter Minutemen groups that's on the outs with McCain and has dirt on some of the others who might be closer.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 15, 2008 10:44 AM
Odie,
Possibly--but I for one, admittedly not an expert, can't conjure up a very sexy list. There's the scoundrel Keating, of course--but in a game of guilt-by-association that just doesn't have the zing of domestic terrorist Ayers, Rezko and the mob, "G-D America" J. Wright, and most recently the racist, anti-Semite Rev. Jackson. Tonight could be really, really, ugly. I doubt that Obama is "baiting" him, though no doubt he has readied a defense. But I suspect he prefers that this game doesn't even get started.
The format of this debate might help to keep things under control.
Posted by: heddle | October 15, 2008 10:53 AM
Heddle,
I don't think Obama is going to pull out a picture of McCain high-fiving Saddam Hussein, but I do think that Obama wants this to come up for some reason. If he doesn't, it was pointless for him and Biden to use the "say it to my face" line. I'm sure he has a defense ready, and that is pretty much the only thing that can make tonight's debate interesting to me.
Posted by: Odie | October 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Obama is prepared for this like he has been for every other "accusation" the republicans and hillary have thrown at him in the past. The only question is will he attack back or stay on the high road he has been on the last couple of weeks. Personally I would like to see it thrown back in McCains face but Obama doesn't gain much by doing it.
Posted by: yoshi | October 15, 2008 11:15 AM
"Well, I'd heard about his past, Senator, but I saw that he had millions of dollars of support from the Annenbergs, one of YOUR supporters, Senator, so how bad could he be?"
Posted by: gwangung | October 15, 2008 11:15 AM
I don't think Obama was so much "baiting" him, as just projecting the type of macho image that Democrats usually have trouble projecting. Basically what he said is, if you've got some shit to say, say it to my face or shut up, punk. I don't think he needs to do anything big to defend himself against this charge - as the recent polls suggest, other then extreme right wingers, nobody really gives a damn right now about some 60's radical. Hopefully the right keeps pushing this crap, because it's not working.
And really heddle? You think with the recent collapse in the markets and the desire on the part of pretty much everyone to blame it on rich wallstreet fatcats, Keating isn't even worse, politically? Especially since it was a crisis related to lending, which is close enough to our current crisis (at least in the eyes of most people)?
Personally, I find both attacks to be stupid and demeaning. But when it comes to playing well politically these days, whining about 60's radicals doesn't have the zing of whining about a corrupt wallstreet fatcat. Especially because Mccain got into actual trouble with the senate ethics committee over his association. He was of course exonerated pretty much completely of any real wrongdoing, but when has that ever mattered?
Oh and uzza, from what I understand, Ayers was actually a fugitive, and only escaped persecution because of the statute of limitation (someone correct me if I'm wrong). It's not as if he was found innocent.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 15, 2008 11:17 AM
Heddle:
Shall we deal the cards and play out the hand? You lead Rev. Wright -- a marine who fought for his country, and used the "God Damn America" phrase only in relation to its racist past -- 'damning' the country for failing to live up to its ideals. I play Joe Vogler, who stated he hated everything America stood for, and swore he'd never be buried under the American flag. (Trick to Prup.)
You lead with Ayers -- named Citizen of the Year by Chicago long after his radical youth, and before he was connected with Obama. I play Gordon Liddy, who offered to kill people for Richard Nixon, and has supported terror tactics and similar things, and follow it with the speaker at the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, a true 'domestic terrorist' who supported killing abortion doctors -- and whose ,eeting McCain attended despite his (Republican) Oregon Senatorial colleague warning him that this was the 'invitation from hell.' (Trick to Prup.)
You lead Tony Rezko, who had a slight involvement with Obama in Chicago, with no criminal charges implicating Obama. I play Kemper Marley and Cindy McCain's father (McCain's 'role model') and the murder of Don Bolles and the felony conviction of Hensley. (And, btw, he was a role model in one way -- both came back from the war, dumped the wife who had been waiting for them, and married someone else.) And it was Marley who set up Cindy's father in the beer distribution business that was the base of the fortune McCain has run on. (Trick to Prup.)
You lead Jesse Jackson, and I play John Hagee, Rod Parsley and Rev. Muthee, and their "Christianism' and anti-Semitism (except in the last for Parsley). (Trick to Prup, Game to Prup.)
As a couple of commenters on the other blogs I comment on say, "Better Trolls, Please."
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | October 15, 2008 11:18 AM
Re Heddle
How about McCains' association with Reverend Moon? This was commented on just yesterday by Mr. Brayton.
Posted by: SLC | October 15, 2008 11:19 AM
Odie stated:
To properly frame the past associations attack, Obama could respond by stressing the importance that a proper analysis would be to analyze the candidate's positions, and actual decisions or promises relevant to those associations to see if it's a worthy factor of consideration.
Obama could present an argument that the Ayres meet-up was a one-time event when he was young and there has been zero subsequent formal associations with Ayres with his campaigns and being a State and national Senator with a quick poo poo of the past association the charity board given Ayres is now an established local politico everyone in Chicago is forced to deal with.
Obama could then contrast the fact that Ayres has absolutely zilch to do with his approach to politics, his campaigns, or in the decisions he made as a senator and the evidence validates his position. McCain's past associations on the other hand have had an enormous affect on McCain's positions, past results that affected all Americans, and his campaign promises with these anecdotal examples:
1) McCain being an advocate of deregulating the banking industry and desire to do the same to the health insurance industry given his associations with people like Charles Keating and Phil Gramm and his current economic advisors. Here he could lay-out the S&L impact and McCain having learned nothing from this even though he defended the biggest crook in the entire fiasco.
2) McCain has already conceded he'll allow social conservatives to determine the worthiness of SCOTUS justices (Dobson is now on-board officially, surprised Brayton hasn't posted on this recent event given his prediction) and delineate how oppossed these types of judicial ideologues are to our founding ideals and the original meaning of the Constitution, including the 9th, which I would paraphrase if I were Obama.
3) McCain picked a perfectly incapable and possibly dangerous VP pick merely to satisfy his new associations, associations he previously vilified until it lost him the 2000 primary.
I wish Obama would go on the attack like this, however I think it would work only in the debate given that the mainstream media absolutely does not like attacking social conservative positions. Therefore, I bet he won't. Obama's pretty good at seeing the end game and he probably wouldn't get the type of support in the media following up on this train of arguments I would like to see exposed in the pubic square.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2008 11:24 AM
Jim Benton - you are truly qualified to go toe-to-toe with Steve Schmidt (McCain's Rove) and I mean that in a good way, though I'd probably use this ammunition only if I were behind rather than ahead and distancing myself from McCain.
BTW, what does "Prup" mean?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2008 11:35 AM
Coriolis said:
"Mccain got into actual trouble with the senate ethics committee over his association. He was of course exonerated pretty much completely of any real wrongdoing, but when has that ever mattered?"
Your recollection is much more generous to McCain than mine.
McCain's despicable actions for and relationship with Keating is the very definition of corruption. That he received less than expulsion from Congress is a sad commentary on the Ethics Committee, not an absolution of his sins. IMO, of course. :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 15, 2008 11:36 AM
SLC,
Yes, I forgot about Rev. Moon. That'd be a good one to counterpunch with.
Coriolis,
Yes, that's what I think, because for those who might be affected by guilt-by-association negative attacks, Ayers, Wright, Jackson, and Rezko are more incendiary than Keating. But maybe I'm wrong.
I have no actual hope for the debate tonight, because I think both of them have developed horrible positions on just about everything. I just tend to agree with Michael Heath, that a dirty debate will be bad for the country.
Prup aka Jim Benton,
Rarely has a comment I made been so misunderstood. Were you born stupid, or are you just playing the ignorant bumpkin for fun?
Posted by: heddle | October 15, 2008 11:39 AM
Michael:
There were a lot of Jim Bentons when i first got back on line. I use Prup because it is an acronym from one of my favorite Gilbert & Sullivan lines -- which i used as a theme song back in my college radio days
"This
Particularly Rapid Unintelligible Patter..."
Similarly my long-abandoned blog was called "If It Is It Doesn't Matter" from the same verse.
And thanks for the compliment.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | October 15, 2008 11:39 AM
Heddle-
Just curious then, how would you explain McCain's relationship with the financier of a fringe-left domestic terror program?
How does McCain explain these ties? Do we really know who he is? Does he really love America?
Posted by: Michael | October 15, 2008 11:57 AM
Jim Benton - I feel ya. While there aren't many Michael Heath's on-line, one that is the Maine Michael Heath (I live in Northern Michigan). The Maine version is an extremely strident social conservative whose niche is his being the administrator of a group that focuses its energies on opposing gay people's rights and even being out of the closet; he argues extensively that we shouldn't acknowledge their existence and acceptance as fellow human beings, let alone Americans deserving of equal rights and protections. A real authentic hater and an example of why I left the GOP after 29 years.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Michael,
There is no onus on me to explain anyone's associations. I don't even like McCain. But I'll comment anyway.
I assume you are talking about this post and Annenberg? (Which was news to me.) It was going to be my original comment to this thread, but I decided "why bother?" As far as the guilt by association calculus go, I'm guessing that a second order effect McCain-to-Annenberg-to-Ayers will not be as effective, if that's the right word, as a direct connection.
Cue the less clever commenters on this thread, as evidenced by the replies to my first comment, who cannot form the simple abstraction: talking about something doesn't mean you endorse it. Don't y'all let me down.
Posted by: heddle | October 15, 2008 12:08 PM
One very close association of McCain's people seem to overlook is the one with his very own campaign manager -- Charles Black.
As was exposed a few months ago, Black is a long time lobbyist who has worked for some of the world's most corrupt, despicable tyrants this side of World War II. Lengthy details are in these two articles:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/judge-him-by-th.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/mccain-and-char.html
These clients of Black's are several orders of magnitude worse than anyone Obama has associated with, yet McCain seems quite happy to have the man who was the paid Washington shill for these despots at his right hand now and in his administration.
Posted by: tacitus | October 15, 2008 12:08 PM
Re Charles Keating
Just to be fair about this, the conviction of Mr. Keating was overturned on appeal due to alleged errors committed by the trial judge. I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall that Mr. Keating was never retried. By the way, the trial judge in Mr. Keatings' trial was one Lancelot Ito, of O. J. Simpson infamy.
Posted by: SLC | October 15, 2008 12:09 PM
Charlie Black is a good one. I believe he's a disciple of Rev. Moonie as well.
How about Fred Malek? He was the guy who helped Nixon keep Jewish people from political power. He was McCain's national finance co-chairman, a difficult association to dismiss.
Posted by: Michael | October 15, 2008 12:15 PM
So not being found guilty is an excuse?
Well, then, I guess Obama doesn't have to worry about Ayers.
Posted by: Tulse | October 15, 2008 12:28 PM
Re Fred Malek
Interestingly enough, Mr. Malek was one of the bidders for the Washington Nationals baseball team. His antisemitic associations apparently didn't sit well with baseball commissioner Bud Selig who is Jewish and quite possibly lead to another bid being accepted. Just goes to show that what goes around often time comes around.
Posted by: SLC | October 15, 2008 12:54 PM
If knowing a prominent political mover and shaker in Chicago is a crime then we should arrest the whole city. Has it really come down to this? Are we really debating the fine details of another man's history, one who has nothing whatsoever to do with the election? Another emperor without clothes...
jh
http://www.bodaweightloss.com
Posted by: jh | October 15, 2008 1:03 PM
Unless, of course, you're a mixed race Democratic candidate for president. In that case, you clearly endorse every stupid thing everyone you've always known has ever said, no matter how badly the context is presented.
And of course, replying to the notion that McCain's list of shady associates is not very damning with a very damning list of shady associates is countered with "Rarely has a comment I made been so misunderstood. Were you born stupid, or are you just playing the ignorant bumpkin for fun?"
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Posted by: Dan L. | October 15, 2008 2:17 PM
Sure.
Knowing Ayers is obviously a MUCH bigger crime than having a lobbyist for Sadaam Hussein heading up your transition team, or having the chief lobbyist for Fannie Mae managing your campaign or....
Posted by: gwangung | October 15, 2008 2:26 PM
SLC:
"Just to be fair about this, the conviction of Mr. Keating was overturned on appeal due to alleged errors committed by the trial judge."
It was? Then he spent five years in the pokey for what?
Posted by: democommie | October 15, 2008 3:06 PM
William Timmons. He will be heading up the transition team for McCain, should John pull the miracle upset win. Mr. Timmons lobbied FOR Saddam Hussein.
Will that connection cause right-wing heads to explode?
Posted by: JimNorth | October 15, 2008 3:53 PM
I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall that Mr. Keating was never retried.
In 1996 on the eve of the retrial, Keating plead guilty to the charges in exchange for time served. Here's the press release.
He plead guilty to three counts of wire fraud and one count of bankruptcy fraud.
Posted by: Greg | October 15, 2008 4:10 PM
"...There's the scoundrel Keating, of course--but in a game of guilt-by-association that just doesn't have the zing of domestic terrorist Ayers..."
Might want to ask the tens of thousands of elderly folks who lost their life savings to the con artist William Keating whether they think the scandal has any "zing" left in it.
And if they harbor any resentment against John McCain, who pulled strings behind closed doors to protect this same campaign donor and drinking buddy from rightful prosecution.
As opposed to Obama being invited to a party by the Chicago Person of the Year.
Hmmmm... which might be framed as worse....
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Yeah, I'm not seeing how Obama deserves "heat" at all for working with an educational board and not doing a background search of everybody associated with the board. Even if he did do such a thing, isn't there a couple decade gap between the activities of the Weather Underground and the work of the education board?
The Ayers who thought using violence to stop violence is not the same Ayers who is now working in education. If G Gordon Liddy can be a pal of McCain's even though he broke into Watergate (a purely partisan act bereft of any good intentions like 'trying to stop the Vietnam War'), then I think that Ayers should be viewed as a far less controversial figure than the McCain camp would have you believe.
I saw some case for Obama being linked to Rev. Wright. I'm not seeing any case at all for any smearing based on his association with Ayers. It's not like he went to any kind of meeting that was remotely related to the activities of the Weather Underground.
Ayers has something to offer society, it seems, in terms of his contributions to the field of education. Should people working in education today shun the man because of a past that is four decades old?
I'm not seeing the logic.
And, you know what? I don't think any swing voters care at all. The only people who care about Ayers are the people who had already decided that they disliked Obama.
Posted by: RickD | October 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Gingerbaker ,
I don't rightly know. But, alas, I suspect we are about to find out.
Posted by: heddle | October 15, 2008 5:51 PM
And, you know what? I don't think any swing voters care at all. The only people who care about Ayers are the people who had already decided that they disliked Obama.
And the people who minimize Ayers are the ones that will adore Obama no matter what. Ayers is a dirtbag, and he admires slime balls, including that murdering tyrant Che Guevara and convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. What role would Ayers play in an Obama administration and what kind of thinking would he bring to it? I think that is a valid question. Any man that admires Che has something wrong with them.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/15/chi-trib-ayers-university-door-decorated-convicted-cop-killer-che-gu
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 6:01 PM
Re mroberts
Just as any man who associates with the Reverend Sun Yun Moon, who is also a dirtbag, and who, unlike Mr. Ayres spent time in the slammer is also suspect. What role would the good reverend play in a McCain administration? Mr. Brayton has commented many times about the scuminess of the good reverend.
Re democommie
That's one of the problems with the US justice system. Appeals take a long time and the system was not about to let Mr. Keating out on bail pending them. You can bet that O. J. Simpson will not be allowed bail while the appeals grind on, even though there is a fair chance of the kidnapping charge, which will bring the longest sentence, being overturned.
Re Greg
That was probably recommended by his attorney as a way to put the mess behind him. Had he gone to trial and been convicted again, he probably would have spent a lot more time in the slammer.
Posted by: SLC | October 15, 2008 6:40 PM
Just as any man who associates with the Reverend Sun Yun Moon, who is also a dirtbag, and who, unlike Mr. Ayres spent time in the slammer is also suspect. What role would the good reverend play in a McCain administration? Mr. Brayton has commented many times about the scuminess of the good reverend.
I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder why Obama gets a pass on this. Ayers seems to be a pretty scummy guy, but Obama seems to get a pass when it comes to his past associations with him. A person's friends DO matter because it says a lot about the person.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 6:47 PM
mroberts - there is absolutely zero evidence that Ayres is a friend of Obama's as you state above. Where I come from, we call that lying.
I mean really, one event that lasted one evening years ago at the start of Obama's campaign when he was a political neophyte and newcomer to Chicago politics. An event not held by Ayres because he was an Obama supporter, but because he was a supporter of the person who staged the event to introduce Obama to her local financial constituents. The fact that Obama did not make Ayres a part of his campaigns after that one evening speaks to Obama's good judgment.
The whole Ayres issue is much ado about nothing meant to distract gullible sheep away from the issues, the fact that only 11% of the public bit on this issue and the fact that its actually harmed McCain's reputation more than Obama's with the public by a 3:1 margin is evidence that people aren't the sheeple McCain thinks they are, beyond Palin's base that is.
Obviously you bit, color me unsurprised.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2008 7:19 PM
Posted by: Taz | October 15, 2008 8:33 PM
....are people like the Annenbergs, who supported Ayers' efforts to the tune of millions of dollars.
You know, the Annennbergs? Donor to Nixon, Reagan, Bush and.....McCain? Why should Obama in 1995 even think twice about associating with Ayers when he's getting the seal of approval from big time Republican donors?
mroberts, dim bulb stuff like this just shows that you deserve all the abuse you get around here.
Posted by: gwangung | October 15, 2008 10:29 PM
SLC:
I see what you're saying about the conviction being overturned. Whether he plead guilty or was found guilty on the other counts, he's guilty in the eyes of the law, correct?
What I found even more interesting was his past as an anti-gay (he thought that BEING gay should be a crime) and anti-pornography crusader.
Posted by: democommie | October 16, 2008 6:20 AM
Obama senior advisor last night said that the election party with Ayers never happened - "a myth".
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 16, 2008 9:31 AM
Obama seems to get a pass when it comes to his past associations with him.
Seriously? There was a time when "people who Obama used to be friends with" was threatening to become the primary issue of the whole damn election - if that's a pass, I'd hate to see him being really hammered. The reason why so many people don't seem to care about it any more is because the McCain campaign overplayed it to the point where even those who thinks Obama made a serious lapse of judgement with Ayers are agreeing that the whole thing has been blown wildly out of proportion.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | October 16, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted by: llewelly | October 16, 2008 11:48 AM
"Obama senior advisor last night said that the election party with Ayers never happened - "a myth"."
Hmmm... Seems the Obama campaign was telling the truth:
from Huffington Post article ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/30-lies-refuted-about-aye_b_132109.html?page=2&show_comment_id=16517128#comment_16517128)
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.
Less and less "heat" needed to be taken by Obama. Entropy cooling the universe of the rabidly pro McCain contingent.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 16, 2008 12:19 PM
You need to re-acquire a sense of irony.
Posted by: gwangung | October 16, 2008 12:29 PM
Ed: You may also want to look into McCain's chumminess with REAL terrorists -- you know, people who actually caused injury to innocent people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lovato/mccain-campaign-palling-a_b_133288.html
Oh, wait, these were anti-Castro terrorists. That makes everything they do justifiable, right? I mean, we had to scrap basic family law to keep a kid out of Castro's clutches, so why not scrap our basic homicide laws as well?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2008 3:34 PM
Re democommie
Whether he plead guilty or was found guilty on the other counts, he's guilty in the eyes of the law, correct?
That's correct. By pleading guilty to a reduced charge (known as plea bargaining), he is admitting to guilt for the crime he plead to.
However, it should be made clear that all too often, defendants accept plea bargains for crimes they didn't commit because the consequences of not doing so may well be a long stretch in the slammer if found guilty as charged. This is particularly true if the plea bargain results in probation or a suspended sentence. The courts are overburdened, trials are costly, and judges tend to throw the book at defendants who roll the dice by rejecting a plea bargain and lose.
Mr. Keating, I believe, is originally from Cincinnati where his anti-porn activities took place. I seem to recall that he was a frequent guest in the Nixon White House where he pushed his anti-porn campaign.
Posted by: SLC | October 16, 2008 7:35 PM
SLC:
I'm not sure about the plea bargains thing, not to argue, I'm just not sure about how often it works that way.
As to Keating's prior involvement as a KKKristian KKKrusader, based on what I read, you're on the money.
Posted by: democommie | October 16, 2008 7:51 PM