Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Another Republican Clears Obama on the Ayers Nonsense

From a wonderful diary up on Daily Kos:

This NPR piece speaks to the Republican funded cause that Obama and Ayers worked on together. And that:


"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."


First, Obama began working with Ayers and others (Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Well, what is the Anneberg Challenge? Who is Annenberg? Well according to NPR,



The Obama campaign says he first met Ayers in 1995, when Obama became chair of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million fund that awarded grants to groups trying to implement new programs to improve inner city education in Chicago.


Walter Annenberg, a lifelong Republican and former ambassador who was appointed by Presidents Nixon and Reagan, funded an ambitious program to reform urban education in many cities in the mid 1990s. Ayers was an important member of the group that developed and wrote the grant proposal to the Annenberg Foundation.


Second, there were people of all political persuasions working on this effort with this "terrorist" Ayers and who saw him as acceptable and Obama was no closer than any of the others.



...no one on the board or on the Annenberg Challenge staff remembers Obama being any closer to Ayers than to any other member of the board. The Annenberg board also included several civic, business and education leaders, many of them Republicans...


In fact one person close to the issue states:



"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.


Oh, really?!


So not only was Obama working on a Republican funded initiative, but prominent Republicans were involved on the board with Ayers. Do they all hate America so much that they are "palling" around with terrorist? He had been in their midst for years, why did not the republican's run him out of town.


Obama was new to Chicago. He hadn't been elected to anything. He really did even know where the bodies where truly buried in Chicago (evidenced by the thumping he received when he ran for the state senate). He just wanted to serve the community and do good work. However, Ayers had been there for years, building a reputation that was so mainstream that a life long Republican, who was a former Ambassador appointed by Nixon and Regan, allowed the release of $50 Million to let him, prominent Republicans, corporate, civic leaders, and a Harvard trained community organizer form a board to oversee the disbursement of these funds related to school reform.


And finally, the author notes:



Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, "a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous."


And as noted earlier a former Illinois Republican state representative states:



"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."


I don't have a transcript. However the article provides the link to the audio.


Comments (25)

I knew about this already from the radio, but you can't expect that the truth is going to change anything in the minds of the numskulls . . .

All we can hope to do is spread the truth far and wide.

When will we start the investigations of Stanley O. Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois and former senior vice president of Pennsylvania State University? What about Arnold R. Weber, former president of Northwestern University and the University of Colorado? Or Ray Romero, vice president/general counsel of Ameritech, Illinois congressman?!

What about Wanda White, former deputy commissioner of economic development, and former policy director of the Women's Self-Employment Project -- and Connie Evans, founder of that same organization?! Victoria Chou, dean of the College of Education at U of I - Chicago?!! Or Scott C. Smith, CEO of the Chicago Tribute?!

These people are all party to terror, serving at various times on the 9-member board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge! How DARE we let them walk free! How DARE we allow them to DEFILE OUR COUNTRY with their DANGEROUS IDEAS?!

Don't even GET ME STARTED on the 20+ member collective that called themselves the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, headed by WILLIAM AYERS, terrorist, and including such despicable figures as Sullivan High School principal Patricia Anderson! And Jessica Clarke, education director for the Chicago Urban League!! Dolores Cross, president of Chicago State University -- you make me sick!!! Sokoni Karanja, 1993 MacArthur Fellow and founder of Centers for New Horizons, you even SOUND foreign! THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

WE SHOULD BE RIOTING OUTSIDE THE HEADQUARTERS OF CPEF, the CHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND, an entity BIRTHED FROM THE FOUL LOINS OF THE ABOVE TERROR ORGANIZATION.

WE ARE NOT SAFE UNTIL THE ABOVE MENTIONED AND THEIR ASSOCIATES ARE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE FOR THEIR DISGUSTING, IMPRUDENT, UN-AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM PROJECTS.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US. I CHOOSE TO CONDEMN THEM!! I CHOOSE AMERICA!!!!!

Bravo!

You know, I think you are being snarky, but the sad fact is that I've spent too much time in academe for this to be funny to me. To the "kill him" crowd, we're all a bunch of no-good commies, trying to fill the heads of their unsuspecting children with our evil, Christ-hating, America-defiling, pro-reason agenda.

And we must be stopped.

When I first saw it floating around the internets last winter, I thought the Ayers "charge" was ridiculous and easily dismissed. I was amazed that it actually made it into the so-called "debate" moderated by Gibstephanofoxnews. I really hoped we'd seen the last of it then. But I've come to realize since that the real "danger" of William Ayers may lie less in his "terrorism" than in his elitist intellectual associations.

If he had just bombed buildings and planned a revolution, that would be one thing -- perhaps even allowed to remain safely out of reach in the hazy shade of collective American nostalgia permanently and uncritically ensconced as "the Sixties." Instead, Ayers committed himself to a much more insidious form of anti-American activism, namely, engaging in the practice and encouragement of education. Here, Obama not only sanctioned these activities of Ayers's, but was party to them.

The "Ayers connection" may be less about what Ayers did as a Weatherman and more about another kind of guilt by association. By bringing Obama's early Chicago history to the foreground, it serves serves to highlight the fact that Obama himself has engaged in the worst kind of domestic terrorism: he, too, was once a teacher.

I agree with most of your post except for the part about Ayers being involved in "unAmerican" activities - is being against the beliefs and deeds of the State or a particular authority in the seat of American government "unAmerican"? Isn't the 2nd Amendment - the Right to bear arms - a clear statement that the State may be challenged? I am not defending the ownership of guns per se - the 2nd Amendment has been degenerated and degraded and rendered meaningless with the advent of the modern army - but the idea that being against a particular American government at any one time and actively plotting acts of subversion is naturally "unAmerican" and "unpatriotic". Historically, many repressive governments and regimes have been overthrown - some peacefully, some violently. Ayers' acts were criminal, and he has paid for them in jail time, but was he "unAmerican"? I would think that it is never "unAmerican" to question your government, it is the extreme and violent form of the protest taken that is the issue.

"Isn't the 2nd Amendment - the Right to bear arms - a clear statement that the State may be challenged?"

No, it is not -- and I'm fed up with the uninformed -- such as you -- bringing it up as if it is.

In fact, the "purpose" of the Second Amendment was two-fold:

1. To persuade sufficient anti-Federalists -- those who OPPOSED ratification of the Constitution -- to support ratification, by,

2. Ensuring that the States -- GOV'TS -- could keep their militia.

So long as those militia were, as the Amendment states, Well REGULATED. Now go read Art. I. S. 8., Cls. 15 and 16 concering the purposes of the militia -- one of which is enforcing Federal law; one of which is SUPPRESSING insurrections -- and where the REGULATION -- which is done by means of LAW -- comes from: CONGRESS.

Moreover, if you'd READ the relevant clauses -- as cited above -- and the concomitant clauses in the state consitutions -- such as in your state's -- you'd discover that the Commander in Chief of the militia is the state's governor. Ask yourself: is the purpose of the militia, headed by the governor, to attack -- oops, "defend against" -- the gov't of which the governor is simultaneously the head?

Is it, in short, headed by the governor, to attack HIMSELF?

Further: when the militia is Federalized -- which is accomplished in accordance with law enacted by Congress -- the Commander in Chief is the president.

No: the purpose of the militia has never been and is not now to attack -- or "defend against" -- the gov't, as it is by design SUBORDINATE to the CIVILIAN gov't, and therefore an ARM of the gov't.

The issue was not militia v. gov't; it was militia v. standing army.

I'll believe that when you pry my ignorance from my cold dead brain cells.

Yes. It is a persistent meme from the right that academia has been infiltrated with leftist/terrorist-coddling/ blah, blah vitriol.

They have to discredit knowledge and intellect because only the stupid and uneducated would fall for the lies they're trying to spread. One thing a good college education does is teach people critical thinking skills. You learn to ask questions, to consider motives, to check the facts.

With the hate-speech and efforts to incite violence against those falsely smeared as being terrorists being fed to those who lack the critical faculties to distinguish between reality and lie, it is irresponsible to provide them a list of names.

Their names are public information, available in many more accessible places, and in much greater detail/complete form. If I can find it, so can anyone -- I don't have a secret in to the Annenberg project y'know. You're being extremely paranoid. :)

Thank you for this. It's a very good refutation of what should never have needed to be refuted.

Do you think Obama should hold a campaign event with some of these people coming forward to explain to the numbskulls how crazy these charges are? Or are the numbskulls such a lost cause that it's not worth calling more attention to the matter?

Yes, it would be an excellent idea, to have Ayers and the entire board involved to step forward to illuminate the context, to show how normal they are. I'd hate for this to take root and develop legs, it's sad but Americans have a visceral reaction to any suggestion of "activism" that isn't associated with the church.

avatar

you must be kidding me!!! so WHY IS IT THAT HIS FUKKED UP BITCH WIFE CANT PRACTICE LAW? beacuase she worked at the Broadway baby check cashing store on Broaway in Manhattan and provided fake ids so her pals....Obamas pals...Kathy Boudin and Donald Weems....and dont tell me Obama didnt knoiw Donald Weems...a leader of the Black Panthers....they murdered my cuz who worked for Brinks

avatar

investigate Dorhn she spent 7 months in the slammer coz she wouldnt spill the beans on herself for the Brinks robbery in the Bronx on June 2nd 1981

Gawd, is it Nov. 5th yet?

avatar

in one of those surreal moments, I was just reading the comment above, the one that states that Ayers' real crime is being a leftist, liberal thinker tinkering with education when lo and behold, one of McCain's campaign strategists is asked this question: (I paraphrase because it just happened and I don't have a transcript in front of me)

Should a candidate for the vice presidency stop and address inappropriate shouts from the audience?

The response was: The real issue should be whether a presidential candidate should be associating with a domestic terrorist who is by the way a radical thinker who is a part of academia, who had his hands in education reform and has radical ideas about educating children.

You called that one perfectly, thisniss

avatar

Can I give a bit of advice to bloggers who support Senator Obama.

Stop writing blogs which discuss what McCain/Palin wants us to focus on. You are taking their bait.

When you start blogs to rebut their smears, you are playing defense, and providing a platform for racist creeps to post their vile lies.

Let them do their own heavy lifting.

Read the title of this blog. Notice the name that jumps out at you. That is the name that McCain/Palin wants to keep putting out there. Why should we help them do so.

Taking your advice to its logical end I am ignoring you, Mr. l.

avatar

Your comment is clear logical evidence that you did the exact opposite of what you claim you are doing.

You took it to your own illogical conclusion, and did not ignore me. You comment is the proof of that.

Telling truth to lies is exactly the opposite of what McCain/Palin want us to be doing...so I respectfully disagree with you on this one, liam.

In case any of you haven't seen this post at the Swampland. The Annenbergs are McCain supporters, thus Michael Scherer asks "Is John McCain Supported By Terrorist Supporters? Nah."

Good catch!

This morning John McCain put out a list of 100 former ambassadors who are supporting his campaign. Number two is Leonore Annenberg, the wife of Ambassador William Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Institute of Reform, which funded the Annenberg Challenge, which once had two famous board members: former "domestic terrorist" William Ayers and Sen. Barack Obama.

So either we should all be outraged that John McCain is supported by a family who funded a foundation that hired a domestic terrorist, or this whole William Ayers thing is just plain silly. I choose the latter.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address