After the debate last night, I noted a whole lot of traffic… all asking questions about Obama and Ayers, apparently following up on Hillary Clinton’s questions during the debate itself. (Yes, I know it was Stephy who asked the questions, but who did Stephy work for?) They came across the whole gambit of Obama posts, mentioning Ayers, but mostly due to Google PLacement, they found this post from last February. [1]
McQ notes [2]:
Question:
George STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.
And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough. An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are friendly.
Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
Answer:
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.
The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.
So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.
Now is it just me or does anyone else find the reference to Coburn a very poor analogy? Coburn’s a member of Congress. Obama didn’t choose to have to associate with him, so no one expects him to “answer for” anything Coburn might say, even though the job they both have requires they associate.
Not so with William Ayers. That’s an association Obama chooses to continue.
Well, there’s that, but perhaps more importantly, Coburn has never bombed the federal government, nor publicly called for us to:
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents…
And perhaps of greater import; Relationships like this keep popping up. This is not, as Obama likes to say, a loose relationship. There’s lots of political connection between these two. As I said at the time this first came up:
The damage that is inflicted on Obama [3] by this association is decidedly not that he is stupid enough to directly support terrorism, but that he is willing to suborn the radical leftist politics which lead to it. This in fact is the elephant in the room, where Democrats are concerned.
…
…look closely at the politics being espoused by both Hillary Clinton [4] and Barrack [5]Obama [3], and in fact, the bulk of the Democratic Party today. Explain to me how the proposals they’ve been pushing.. tax the rich, et al, is really so much different. The only difference that I can see between this idiot Ayers, and the Democratic presidential candidates, is the latter have a tendency to use a weapon that is far more powerful than the explosives Ayers used: They use the more destructive weapon we call “Good Government”.
The goal in the end, is the same.
…
Oh… I should note that Ayers is not the only link to radicalism. Go look up the name Bernardine Dohrn. Look also at Ben Smith’s column [6] of the other day. This isn’t going away anytime soon.
Larry Johnson [7] a few weeks ago, suggested that Ayers will be Obama [3]‘s Willie Horton, given the age of Terrorism. And I think he’s right. The American people are going to question, I think, if someone who associates with such an individual, and shares similar goals, if not the exact methods used, is what we really want in charge of our nation’s security.
Now that the press has finally, finally, finally decided to start paying attention to Obama’s questionable history, in these matters, one could logically ask, what took them so long? Too bad it had to be a Clintonista who did the asking, because there will always be the questions of credibility on the topic in the minds of some.
Addendum:(Bit)
This post made the Chicago Sun Times. [8] Thanks.