Oct 08, 2008
Anderson Cooper on Obama-Ayers Connection
I really hadn’t given this much creedence until just recently. While I disagree with Obama politically, I didn’t think that the connection to Bill Ayers would actually be true. I figured it was just political mud slinging during a nasty election.
But, according to CNN, turns out the connections ARE true. Disturbingly true. Watch for yourself.
This is just one more example of how Obama will say anything to get elected. Want more examples?
- Running against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader in the Republican lead congress, Obama played himself off as a centrist and someone willing to reach across the aisle. He did this to differentiate himself from Pelosi who, as we all know, is extremely liberal.
- Running against Hillary in the primary, Obama played himself as the liberal choice and being more with the spirit of the Democratic party than Clinton was.
- Now, during the election, he is playing himself as the centrist again, trying to appeal to voters on both sides of the fence.
So Barack, which is it? Centrist or Liberal? Oh, depends upon the situation, right… In selling, we call that the “spin” - the truth is as you “spin” it.
The sad thing is that this could have been so much simpler for Obama. All he needed to say was, “Yes, I was associated with Bill Ayers. He and I did a lot of good work together in Chicago. I disagree with a lot of his philosophies, and certainly deplore the violence that he espoused, but also know that the man has done a lot of good in his life. In politics, you don’t always have the luxury of choosing who you have to work with. A lot of times, you end up working with folks that you disagree with. That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Ultimately what matters though, is how you handle that situation, and how you work to get something done DESPITE your differences. I think my record shows that we did some good things there. I disagree with a lot of my fellow legislators as well, but I’m willing to work together to get something done. Next question…”
Why didn’t you just say that Barack? If it was true, I’d think that he’d just say that.
The only other options are that he was actually very aware of Ayer’s background and agreed with more of his philosophies than he disagreed with them. Or, the last possibility is that he just didn’t CARE about them.
My opinion is that it is the latter. Obama is human and, like most people, he will overlook a lot in the face of his own personal gain. Obama just didn’t care about Ayer’s past. If Ayers could help him climb the ladder of success, it really didn’t really matter who he was or what he did. The ends simply justifies the means. Yup, that would be in keeping with his “say whatever it takes” to win attitude.
I’d bet that the truth of the matter simply kept them from being able to see a better way to spin the issue.
Another thing that disturbs me about this new information is the realization that the majority of Obama’s limited leadership role experience primarily consists of handing out other people’s money. Oh great.
So, there is ample proof that Obama will say anything to get elected. His past is riddled with very unsavory characters - first Jeremiah Wright, now Bill Ayers. And, he’s tremendously inexperienced - even more so than SarahPalin. The experience he HAS had, he’s been responsible for spending other pepole money.
Really? This is who half of America (maybe more???) wants as president? What the hell is wrong with us?
Ayers, Obama, CNN, Anderson Cooper 
13 comments
Hey old friend - I lost you for a while. Glad I found you again!
Scary, the stuff they’re saying about Obama. Like you, I find a lot of it hard to believe. But the more I hear, the more frightened I am that he might actually win this election.
Hello! Good to hear from you again!
Yes, well… The one thing that Mr. Obama is VERY good at is getting elected. It is amazing to me that this untested, untried man is potentially going to be leading our country through some of its toughest times in nearly 100 years.
What are we thinking?
I just wonder if Palin’s connection to the secessionist Alaskan Party similarly bothers you?
Hi! Thanks for stopping by…
Actually, I was just made aware of those connections recently, and my take on them is that there is little to no connection there.
Certainly whatever connection it is much less so than the connection between Obama and Ayers. These folks did not lauch Palin’s political career.
Also, calling them a secessionist party is not correct, as even stated by the head of that group. Also, I don’t believe there has ever been any allegations that these folks have wanted to bomb anything.
You can see her addressing them directly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
In my opinion, that was a very closely worded political statement. She was being gracious to a rival political party, finding common ground, and wishing them well. I don’t see harm in that.
Also, you can read this article that does more digging into the issue:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
Doesn’t seem like a lot of connection to me.
Obama and Ayers? That’s real.
Oh! Forgot to ask if you have any links showing more of a connection… I always like to check things on both sides!
Thanks again for dropping a note!
Cheers,
A
I have a few thoughts in response. But it might help if you have a little of my background. I’m a Republican and originally from Alaska. My politics are somewhere between Sen. McCain’s and Gov. Palin’s (probably closer to Gov. Palin, but that’s neither here nor there). I will not be voting for the Republican ticket this year, however, because I have a number of friends still in Alaska who have had direct experience with the Govenor, and from the experiences they shared, it was frightening at best.
In any event, while I am a registered Republican, I value honesty and fair-dealing over partisan posturing. From what I’ve seen about the Bill Ayers situation, Ayers was a despicable fellow but Obama didn’t support his (Ayer’s) politics. They were on a board together. They worked toward a common goal (which wasn’t, itself, bad). So the problem here seems to be built by association. A case in point: I am on a town school board with left leaning liberals - have I assumed their politics? I hope not. If one of them had a despicable past but now works toward a goal that I share, have I somehow compromised my integrity? If you say “yes”, what you’ll quickly find is that you can have absolutely no involvement in any state or local politics in any blue state. Not a good option. So I think where I end up on the Ayers thing is that it smacks of desparation, and it doesn’t help the McCain camp (at least it didn’t in the polls - it lowered both of their favorables). If I were advising him, I’d drop it.
Now, on your second exampe (the Pelosi-Obama-Hillary comparison), you have to remember that labels in politics are relative. In fact, he’s actually probably right: he’s probably to the right of Pelosi and to the left of Hillary. So… where’s the problem there?
If you’re going to have issues with the guy, as I do, I think it’s much more meaningful to go after things like policies and positions (trade is a great example). But, of course, the Ayers thing makes for the soundbite, which unfortunately is all this campaign has devolved into…
Again, thanks very much for dropping a note! I appreciate the time and effort it takes for people to have a thoughtful, real discussion of the issues.
I have a few thoughts about what you wrote.
On the Ayers situation – I agree with you partly, and disagree partly. I wholeheartedly agree and acknowledge that simply because you are associated with a person doesn’t mean that you have assumed their politics. That isn’t fair to sling on anybody.
I think it is another matter entirely, however, to have your political coming out party orchestrated and sponsored by a person with whom you have deep disagreement. It makes me 1) either question the disagreement, or 2) question the judgment of accepting this persons blessing. The point that I was attempting to make was that I believe it was the latter. I do not think that Obama shares Ayer’s views. What I do think is that Obama had no problem disregarding these things because it benefited him. He knowingly politically tied himself with a former terrorist, simply because it benefited him in local circles. I didn’t think that was the truth, but the CNN report was pretty telling. Do you have issues with any of their fact finding?
Surely you must see a difference in a) working with someone on a board or committee and b) accepting the person’s political clout and using that as a springboard toward your own agenda?
On to the second point – your mention that labels in politics are relative. Actually, labels in politics are meaningless without proof. I’m accusing Obama of the same thing here, as I did previously. He will “spin” himself into what he feels will win the election. The reality is that, based on voting record, overall, Clinton is the most liberal, followed by Obama and THEN Pelosi. Though, in 2007, Obama was listed as the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. The point here, is that most people don’t bother to look at this stuff. Obama can say anything, and as long as it sounds good, people will believe it. When you can get away with so much, it takes character to remain steady. I don’t see Obama having that – I see him spinning everything to his own victory.
In the interest of honesty and character, I actually need to reveal my own gaffe here – Obama never campaigned against Pelosi for House Minority Whip, as she is in the House and him in the Senate. In researching your statements about where the three fall in voting record, I realized that my memory could not have been correct as stated. I have been wracking by brain trying to figure out the context that the memory comes from. It was my first introduction to Barack Obama, and I listened to him thinking “This Dem sounds great – he sounds very conservative.” It might have actually been Feinstein or Boxer and be related to a position in the senate. I wish I could recall – if I come up with it, I’ll repost here.
The question is, does this mistake revoke or make moot the point? It certainly makes it impossible to use it as a concrete example. I don’t think it changes the fact that Obama gets by on his star power, not his actual contributory role. Even a publication like the NYTimes admits that Obama (as a freshman senator) has done little in the way of anything remarkable in his time in Washington (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html) . How does someone who is all flash and no substance get by? Spin. That was my original point.
You raise a good point – why not discuss his policies and positions? I do certainly take exception to many of those - but, the reality is that I’ll have issues with nearly any Democratic candidate. I don’t think those are unique. The issues are ideological and have been debated in many other, better, more qualified forums than my humble blog. While I am a voice in that debate in other circles, I haven’t yet found the need or desire to bring it here.
What I have talked about several times is my complete amazement that Obama is actually the democratic candidate. I cannot believe that an untried junior senator with such little accomplishment to his name is very likely going to be our next president. I’m even more amazed that the Republican’s can’t seem to field a candidate who can beat him. That’s what I’ve been writing about because it is what is foremost on my mind. If Clinton was running against McCain, I wouldn’t be saying these things. I disagree with her on policy (often more than with Obama), but at least she is qualified.
Also - and this is where we may disagree - I think that the Ayers thing is not just a sound bite. It is a real issue. It shows what kind of person Obama is – not because he worked with Ayers (we all have to work with scum bags from time to time), but rather because of what Obama allowed Ayers to do for him. That isn’t a sound bite. That’s reality. Why is this important? Because Obama doesn’t have a track record to show how he handles things. As such, we have to look at the little there is to analyze and just based on that. I judge his character to be self serving, and a validated Ayers connection supports that.
I’m very curious about something, and the simple asking may require an apology up front. You say you aren’t going to vote for McCain. As a republican, do you find enough value in Obama that you cast your vote there? Unfortunately, the realities of our two-party system are such that a vote in a non-standard direction is completely wasted, so should I conjecture that you will be voting democratic this election? I disagree with McCain on a lot of issues too, but recognize that he is much closer to my beliefs than Obama. If you are not voting mainstream, I’d beg you to reconsider. I know our system very often makes it hard to have a choice that reflects our individual views, but that is the system we have. Our populace is confused enough with 2 candidates – at this point in time, I don’t think we are cut out for more. Voting outside of the “real” choices, while symbolic, is detrimental to the candidate that is closest to your beliefs. Anyway, please forgive me if I’m too forward with my question.
Another point - you mention that dealings with Palin have been “frightening at best”. I’ll take that at face value, but admit that I can’t give it much credence without further information. I would welcome any facts / accounts that support that view. You obviously have a square head on your shoulders, so I’m assuming that you’ve looked into these dealings to substantiate their validity.
Lastly, I have to say that I’m a bit confused by why you brought up the AIP / Palin connection in your initial response to my post, if your general feeling is that the election has degraded into nothing but sound bites. No attack here, just curious. That tie simply has no substance to it. Again, I’d welcome facts to the contrary.
Thanks again for dropping by and participating. And, a small “sorry” on the length of my reply to your message!
All the best,
Andy
This is an interesting read…
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Hi Chuck!
Thanks for stopping by and dropping a note!
Nice to meet you!
Thanks also for the article - I’ve been on factcheck.org many times, though this is my first time reading that article. FactCheck is a great idea, but one whose purpose is quite difficult to achieve. Its funny how two people can read the same facts and come up with different interpretations. Its even harder when the people writing the article jump off of just checking facts and start making conclusions about those facts.
While I agree with most of the article, I raise my hackles at their pseudo-conclusions. I concur that all of the facts that I have researched would agree with the FactCheck account of what happened when. I disagree however, with their intermediate and final conclusions. In fact, in their final conclusion, they contradict themselves many times.
To begin with, they start their conclusion by saying: “Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters.” Yet, in the very next sentence, they bash McCain and Palin for voicing their opinion, calling it an “attempt to sway voters” and then call McCain’s statements about the interactions “false and misleading”. Were they? The McCain add says that they worked together for years, that Obama’s political campaign was started in the guys living room. None of that is false. McCain objects to Obama dismissing the relationship as “a guy in my neighborhood” I think McCain is right on these points. While Ayers IS in his neighborhood, there is more to it than that. According to CNN, Obama’s political career was launched at Ayers’ house! Until pressed on it, Obama seemed to be playing it as “oh, yeah, that crazy guy down the street from me..” Hey, we all have one of those! But, in this case, there is a lot more than that.
The only thing in the McCain add that I would disagree with is them calling the Chicago Annenberg Challenge “radical”. I think that is a bit overboard. Though, Ayers had a lot to do with its beginnings and he and the foundation had very radical opinions about education compared to the general thought in Chicago at the time. So, overboard yes, but not 100% baseless.
Furthermore, despite stating that they will make “no judgement calls on those matters”, FactCheck DOES make a judgement call on their relationship saying that they were “never very close”.
I disagree. The facts are there. Obama worked with this guy for many, many years – maybe not every day, but often enough. For example, if they wrote the bylaws of the Challenge together, they were in contact more often that the 7 meetings they attended together. They also served on another board together as well. Obama also read Ayers’ book, showing that he respects his opinion enough to read a full account of his analysis. I know, reading a book by someone doesn’t mean that you agree with him, but according to Obama, he did agree with Ayers’ position. I’m not saying that he read it is damning, but it is another point of interaction and idea exchange. Ayers wrote the book about education – the field that both of them were working in simultaneously. They must have discussed it with each other.
Finally, and most damagingly, Obama’s “political coming out party” was hosted by Ayers and held in his home. FactCheck doesn’t spend much time there – simply calling it a “meet and greet”. In the CNN report, they talk more about that event, and really I see it as the key point in all of this. Obama let a former terrorist launch his political career. I’m sorry, that’s just wrong. As I said previously, the only conclusions I can make about that is that Obama either 1) agreed with the guy (I don’t think that’s the case) or 2) didn’t care. I go with option 2, as it seems to be in line with Obama’s modus operandi – do anything to get elected.
So, to recap – the Obama / Ayers relationship was two guys who worked together for years on multiple projects, who lived in the same neighborhood as each other, who shared similar opinions on education and who knew each other well enough to have one host the others political coming out party. They lived near each other, worked together and politiced together. If that isn’t a friend, I don’t know what is.
Yes, Obama DID lie by saying Ayers was simply a “guy in his neighborhood”. He also was trying to mislead us when he said that Ayers wasn’t involved “in his campaign”. Maybe not this one Barack, but you should have said, he WAS involved in your state senate campaign, even if it was brief.
FactCheck doesn’t say that though – they just bash McCain for voicing his opinion on the matter, even when they acknowledge that people should make their own conclusions about the interactions. Maybe FactCheck only wants people to hear THEIR take on the story?
Another interesting thing about the FactCheck article – and, this is nitpicking to be sure, but I think it gives you the mindset of the person writing this supposedly unbiased article. They say that Ayers “is more than a former ‘terrorist’ – he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education”. Why did they put quotes around the word “terrorist” – do they disagree that Ayers was a terrorist? The guy bombed public buildings. That’s not being a terrorist?
While some of the FactCheck work is good, I find this particular article to be fairly shoddy and biased. Despite their mission statement that they want to just evaluate statements against fact, they couldn’t help but judge the entire situation. Frankly it seems like there was a predetermined verdict from the beginning. It also seemed like they don’t think Ayers is that bad of a guy. I don’t care what he’s done for education. He still thinks they should have killed more people. They also didn’t fully explore some obvious bad points for Obama (the political launching) and didn’t weigh the sum of things as much as they did some of the individual things. They had every right to do so, but not under the banner of being unbiased. They should have stuck to the facts, and if McCain’s statements in the ad were false. None of them were. Some people may interpret them differently, but none of the statements made in the ad were wrong. But, rather than be unbiased, FactCheck issued a verdict despite giving lip service to the fact that they shouldn’t. They say Obama didn’t lie, calling McCain’s statement that he did, “groundless”. I happen to disagree with that verdict for the many reasons stated above.
To me a half truth is a lie, and Obama gave us a ¼ truth at best.
In reverse order:
I brought up the AIP issue because I give it the same credence as the Ayers matter. Thus, I was trying to see if you were - in my personal opinion - being fair and balanced on the issue. You clearly feel that it has more relevance than I do. I think we just have a difference of opinion on that.
I am not sure that there’s much in the way of a meaningful difference between Hillary and Obama on many of the issues, but - like you - where there are, I’m closer to Hillary than his. But given what we saw from eight years of Bill Clinton, I’m not sure I’d want more of that. In this case, the experience (eight years of Bill Clinton) isn’t a positive, in my book. However, it’s moot - he’s the nominee on that ticket.
As for Gov. Palin, I am not going into details because doing so would compromise one of my friends who is still in Alaskan state government, although the Branchflower report (worth reading) hints at the issue.
I’m also not trying to persuade you to not vote for her. I’m simply explaining (to the extent I can), why I am not voting for her. So, you’re going to vote as you please - and I’m not trying to talk you out of that. I just can’t, in good conscience, support her. Had there been anyone else as VP nominee, I would have held my nose and voted for Sen. McCain and his running mate. But here, I can’t. I will either stay home or vote for Bob Barr.
And I agree - that’s a sad statement on the state of where we are.
Thanks for blogging. It’s been nice chatting with you.
Best regards,
S
Why is Todd Palin’s connection to some Alaskan secessionist movement supposed to be some big deal (first of all, not even the VP nominee directly, but her husband) when both Obama and Biden (see, they actually ARE on the ticket) voted in favor of a bill that could lead to Hawaii secession?
The hypocritical talking points in this election cycle are astounding.
Were this wikipedia, I would say [needs citation].
I looked it up, though. Unfortunately, you’re a little mistaken: S.310 has not been voted on (see http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s310/show ) .
Also, take a look at some of the co-sponsors… Ted Stevens…. Lisa Murkowski… Gordon Smith… Norm Coleman… Republican luminaries (well, Stevens WAS)…
>> The hypocritical talking points in this election cycle are astounding.
So true…
Leave a Comment