If McCain Mentiones Ayers Tonight......

[Phred42]

OK Last time - because of the Debate tonight
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the Republican "Ayers smear" of Obama

The Board that Ayers and Obama were on at the same time was The Annenberg Foundation http://www.annenbergfoundation.org /

There are, and always have been, a lot of Republicans on that board (can we get their names and spread that around?)

Walter Annenberg was good friends with Ronald Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

Obama had nothing to do with Ayers being on that board - The Annenberg Foundation invited Ayers to be on that board.

The The Annenberg Foundation has done some good work over the years

HOW DO THE ANNENBERGS FEEL ABOUT BEING LINKED TO TERRORISM?

So why do Republican friends of Ronald Regan hire Terrorists?

Put the Anenbergs on the spot and let them drive a stake through the heart of this bullshit. They haven't bothered to step up to the plate on this crap yet so they are fair game.

The other interesting thing is that Ayers was not one of the "founding board members" of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project.

Founding members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board were: Susan Crown, vice president, Henry Crown Company; Patricia Graham, president, The Spencer Foundation, and former dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Stanley Ikenberry, president-emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, executive director, Field Foundation; Barack Obama; Arnold Weber, former president, Northwestern University, and president, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, executive director, Community Workshop on Economic Development.


The Chicago Annenberg Challenge has no record of providing any salary for William Ayers.

Ayers was one of the three people who got the Chicago Annenburg Project going. Here is a pdf that has some letters to and from Ayers regarding the beginning of the project. http://globallabor.info/Annenberg%20Documents/CAC%20Fir...

[AndyA]

1. I'm sure Barack is prepared to address Ayers if McSame brings it up.

And I don't really think it will make a difference one way or the other. At this point, I think most people have already made up their minds, and a lot of people have already voted. This will just show how desperate McSame is to keep his base satisfied, and the more "normal" Republicans (if there is such a thing) are terrified by McSame's base, because they are very different from the mainstream Repug.

[Howler]

2. I'm curious to see if he does.

I don't think he has the courage.
I think the reason mcCain can't look Obama in the eyes is he feels shame.
Which McCain,Palin and the republican party should. I mean trying to win an election by stoking racial hatred and fears is as low as it gets.

[occe]

3. If he does,

Obama will fight back

[louis-t]

4. Walter Annenberg is dead.

His wife is alive, but I assume she's not in the best of health. In her 90's I think.

[City Lights]

7. Is wife, Lenore, donated $2300 to McCain's presidential campaign, and

formally endorsed McCain last week.

[Blaq Dem]

5. It would be interesting to hear Annenberg's response

It was Annenberg who put Ayers on the board. Not Obama. No one fails to mention it. I would also like to hear what other members of the board thinks. They should speak out.

[Overseas]

6. The question is-- Have you discussed your concerns with the Annenberg Family, prominent Republicans

who have supported Ayers projects with millions of dollars?

Have you urged your Republican colleagues to return campaign donations they've gotten from the Annenbergs?

[City Lights]

8. FactCheck.org is also an Annenberg Foundation project. nt

[Overseas]

9. Do you think that since Todd Palin resigned from the Alaska Independence Party

in 2002, and Sarah just gave a welcome address at one of their conventions, that their connection to the pro-secessionist party is nothing to worry about?

Do you think advocating secession from the union is equivalent to treason?

[Phred42]

10. The big question is WHY haven't they stepped up or been interviewed?

[Overseas]

11. G, Gordon LIddy held a fundraiser for you, and you called him a good friend

when you appeared on his radio show.

Some people call him a domestic terrorist because he has advocated kidnapping and other illegal actions. And he was convicted of burglary as part of Nixon's dirty tricks team.

Did you feel okay about being his friend, having him do a fundraiser for you and appearing on his radio show because he has served his time already?

[kennetha]

12. McCain won't spontaneously bring it up

But Schieffer will, I think, given all the press about it in the last week.


I still think Obama needs a stronger response to this if it does come up.

Consider an analogy. Suppose that McCain had held an early fundraiser in the home of a former KKK member. Suppose, though, that Mr. KKK KKK days were long behind him and that he had gained an air of respectability ina Republican dominated town. But then suppose that in Mr. KKK's recently published autobiography, he declared himself unrepentant for his actions of trying to rid the South of the black menace and that his only regret was that he hadn't done enough back in the day.

We would go ballistic and demand that McCain denouce Mr. KKK. But that still wouldn't be enough, we'd wonder what he was doing hanging out with Mr. KKK in the first place and we'd wonder what to make of a Republican elite that lent an air of respectability to him in the first place.

There's one huge difference, though. In saying he regrets not having done enough to rid the South of the black demon, Mr, KKK would probably and rightly be taken as expressing ongoing racism and hostility to blacks.

Ayers in saying that hadn't done enough, etc, can be taken as commenting on the turbulent sixties only. That was a time when all hell broke loose, when everything was in upheaval, etc and people did crazy things. For some reason, we boomers keep fighting over who did what to whom during those times -- even though they are long gone. One good thing about Obama is that he had no part in those weird and crazy days.

And that's what I think his response should be. He should condemn Ayers actions and distance himself from him as he already has. But he should say something about not wanting to revisit the social turmoil of the sixties. He should stress again that he was not part of all that and that he is focused on the future.

He shouldn't try to take the "you Republicans were connected to Ayers too" approach. And he shouldn't try to soft-peddle his condemnation of Ayer's statements about not having done enough or try to make Ayers seem like an acceptable guy.

He should just say this is about the past -- the distant past -- during which many people were driven to do regrettable things. But he is about the future not the past.


Or so it seems to me. But what do I know?