Obama and the 'Tangential' Bill Ayers

Ayers: Part of a Pattern
Another Piece of the "Who's Obama?" Puzzle
The 'tangential' Bill Ayers




Barack Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, is not a topic for polite MSM or liberal conversation.

We're neither liberal or polite.

LBG discussed the issue yesterday [Obama’s Ties to 1970’s Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers: Disassociation and Little Condemnation]. Today, we'll discuss it again.

No San Francisco cocktail party invites for us.

Democrats insist that any discussion of Obama and Bill Ayers is a "smear".

Is it?

A "smear" is defined as a "vilifying or slanderous remark". While Obama's friendship with Ayers is certainly "injurious to [his] reputation--especially now that Obama's running for president--there's absolutely nothing slanderous about it.

Generally, the truth is an absolute defense in any suit for slander or libel, and the truth is: the Barack Obama-Bill Ayers association goes back years.

The following observations, from comments at Free Republic helps put that association in perspective.

Q: What does Obama and Osama have in common?
A: They BOTH have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

This from stockstrader at Free Republic:

I wish someone would ask [Obama] just once: "Then tell me, would it be ok for a child who was eight years old on 9/11--to then have a friendship with Osama bin Laden later in life as an adult"?

We might add "running for president in 2020 or beyond" to the description of that eight-year-old child.

Mark Steyn's comment on the Obama-Ayers connection:

"Well, why shouldn't they vote on "character"? Barack Obama has no accomplishments, no legislative record, no nuthin'. So if you don't want to vote on character (ie, his condescension to crackers too boorish to understand how sophisticatedly nuanced it is to have a terrorist pal and a racist pastor), what else is left?"

[h/t: What's the Rumpus?]



Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers' house. Ayers' has had fund-raisers for the Democrat presidential candidate. Obama chaired the foundation that Ayers wrote the grant for. Obama and Ayers served on the same boards.

This is not, as Obama told Bill O'Reilly this week, a "tangential" acquaintance. This is not "one of the thousands of people that I know".

That Obama didn't see anything wrong with Ayers until it became a campaign issue reveals something about Obama: his actions and past associations somehow seem to center around "change": as in, 'the USA is not a good place' and needs to be changed.

Ayers tried bombing his way to change--regardless of what the voters and the rest of the community had decided.

To discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers isn't to claim that Obama wants to blow things up (Obama's "Barack the bomb-thrower" remark). But it may help reveal the mindset of a man who wants to become president--before he became nationally-known.

That his campaign continues to downplay this--disingenuously, we think--is evidence that Obama's handlers feel this is a damaging issue. As LBG stated:

barrackobama.com's FACT CHECK section on Ayers cites various MSM sources which claim the Ayers-Obama connection is “phony”, ‘tennous”, and a “stretch”.


DBKP FACT:

Barack Obama held his first fundraiser at Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine’s home in 1995.

“Obama claims Ayers was just a “guy in the neighborhood,” but clearly he was more than that. Obama misrepresents his relationship with the man in whose home his first fundraiser was held.”
–Investors Business Daily

Here's how the Chicago Sun-Times, in a bit of WTF-ery, puts it:

Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower.

Individually, those Obama actions may not raise eyebrows at the Sun-Times; collectively, might they seem to suggest, to the uninterested observer, an Obama pattern?

In the O'Reilly interview, Obama was allowed to skate away from the questions on Ayers by saying that Ayers was "tangential": Bill O'Reilly didn't hone in on the follow-up. That's understandable: O'Reilly would like to land another rating-boosting Obama appearance on his show at some point in the future.

The Obama campaign will not, just as understandably, bring up the issue of Ayers unless pressed. The Mainstream Media will not, just as understandably, press the issue with a candidate that 90% of their reporters will likely vote for in 2008.

Which, once more, leaves it up to the blogosphere to press the issue.

We intend on doing that, along with others. To those on the right, there's a lot more to discuss about Obama and Ayers and we'll get around to that. To those on the left, "sticks and stones..."

As for the "smear" talk?

We're not asking about Obama's kids or whether he's their father: we're asking about a man from whose house Barack Obama announced his Illinois Senate bid:

The 'tangential' Bill Ayers.


by Mondoreb
images; dbkp file

York, Media Matters, Limbaugh, VoteVets:Who Do You Believe?

by Mondoreb
[photos:WashintonPost & Random House]

Byron York's accurate take on Media Matters, the front group for all things Hillary, sparked a bit of a feud in cyberspace. Media Matters which masquerades as a 'media watchdog' instead of a PR-issuing liberal poodle, cut-and-pasted comments on Rush Limbaugh's show last week, and--voila! One manufactured "phony" controversy, fit for left wing media consumption, coming right up.

From Byron York at National Review Online
Editor’s note: The controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” remark has brought new prominence to Media Matters for America, the left-wing media watchdog founded by former right-wing media star David Brock. Media Matters is an avowedly political institution, part of a group of institutionsthe Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, and others ­ that have become increasingly important in Democratic politics. In 2004, Byron York revealed the origins of Media Matters and the big Democratic party donors who helped Brock bring it to life.

The reprinted article got MM's panties in a bunch and they did what they excel at: they issued a press release.

MM replied:
Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, “an avowedly political institution,” but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.

As Daily Pundit puts it: My ribs are sore…

Byron York responded:
That's good to know. It should be pointed out that Media Matters is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible. That is, by one of the true perversities of our tax code that also benefits some conservative groups, a contribution to Media Matters is as tax deductible as a contribution to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross. It's a great relief to know they're not political.

So Media Matters is a watchdog for the media; that's soothing to know. If it just pointed out media bias like NewsBusters or Accuracy in Media, it's doubtful anyone would question their mission, their organizational status or their sincerity. But MM is not satisfied with only "watching" news, it wants to manufacture its own, too. And there's the beef.

Back to Byron York's 2004 story. Launched in early May [2004], the organization says its purpose is to keep an eye on “conservative misinformation” in the American media. While in its first few weeks of operation Media Matters published attacks on the usual targets — Fox News, for example — Brock seems to be devoting particular energy to what he calls an “aggressive ad campaign” against radio host Rush Limbaugh.

York delves into a bit of Media Matters maven, David Brock:

Brock has received far less attention for his new project than he received in 2002 when he published Blinded by the Right, the book in which he confessed to having lied in some of the stories he wrote for conservative publications in the 1990s.

The book did what many — even those on the left who share Brock’s contempt for conservatives — consider fatal damage to Brock’s credibility. When Blinded by the Right appeared, Timothy Noah, the liberal “Chatterbox” columnist for Slate, wrote that “Chatterbox yields to no one in his eagerness to believe the awful things Brock is now saying about himself and the conservative movement in America. But the more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar.”

David Brock, Media Matters, not truthful? Conducting an "aggressive" campaign against his old target, Limbaugh?

Heavens.

Which brings us to the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" non-story. We're doing Death by 1000 Papercuts version of the 'Pepsi Challenge'. Blindfold yourself, have the following two versions read to you and decide which is "full of flavor".

HERE's WHAT Media Matters SAID LIMBAUGH SAID:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

HERE'S WHAT LIMBAUGH ACTUALLY SAID:

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

The reader can be the judge as to whether Media Matters is a "not, as the National Review claims, 'an avowedly political institution,' but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate." The reader can also be the judge as to what was actually said.

As if it were somehow coordinated by an unseen hand, another group, VoteVets, immediately jumped on the "Rush is Evil" bandwagon. The leader/spokesman for VoteVets.org, another liberal front group, appeared on the Rusty Humphries talk show Thursday and here's the transcript .

HUMPHRIES: Okay, so it's not what Rush said, it's who Rush supports, and because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down, is that --

FRIEDMAN: No, it's a pattern of what he does. I mean, this guy has a voice, and he affects people.

Rush goes on to say: The guy, ladies and gentlemen, a leading spokesman for VoteVets.org admitting publicly that the reason the liberal hit squad is attacking me is because they don't agree with my position on the war and that I'm influential.

Elected Democrats couldn't resist the 'call of the wild'. Again, as if by magic, a resolution appeared in Congress condemning Rush. Michelle Malkin points out:

Democrat Rep. Mark Udall is spearheading the resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh. It apparently has 19 co-sponsors now.

So, at the end of the day, there's a media watchdog's doghouse-full of questions. Who's more accurate here: Byron York and National Review or David Brock and Media Matters? Does Media Matters link to anyone else but it's own PR releases for reference? Was Rush demeaning the military? Was he talking about "phony soldiers"? Did Media Matters get it right? Can they ever hope to get anything right? Is this an orchestrated campaign by the Left/liberal/Democrats? Or, is it merely a cosmic confluence of coincidences?

Again, take the Death by 1000 Papercuts Challenge: Who do you believe?




Back to Front Page

Limbaugh, Craig & The Left:Fighting the "Phony" MediaWars on the Liberal's Terms

by Mondoreb

"Occupy such [high] terrain first and wait for the enemy to come."

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu, the famed Chinese general, had many things to say about fighting on enemy terrain. Conservatives in general would do well to pay heed to the good general's advice.

Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, with the professed aim of wiping the only democratic country in the Middle East off the face of the earth. The number of would-be assassins stopped with pipe bombs, instructions for making bombs, or issuing 'how-to' videos showing the construction of bombs, makes one think he is in Gaza instead of Miami.

September provided an almost unbroken parade of encouraging news concerning the fortunes of war in Iraq. So let's take a look at the latest non-stories the media and the Left wanted to talk about.

Rush Limbaugh and "phony" Soldiers. Take one popular conservative talk show host. Add a Hillary Clinton-spawned PR firm masquerading as a 'media watchdog', a dash of Rush saying the phrase "phony" and a 55-gallon drum of 'outraged Liberal' soundbites from the usual suspects. Stir. And stir. And stir.

Limbaugh played transcripts of the on-air conversation in question refuting the Liberal Big Lie, but let it be said: there is no live tape the Left can't spin into an outrageous Kodak Moment. Hopefully Limbaugh, ever the entrepreneur, will look at all this as a case of "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."

The Larry Craig Show. It's hard to deny that Craig, the hapless Senate wide-stanced bathroom foot-tapper, was great comic relief. The endless "Craig Watch" clocks, faux-outrage pieces and non-stop coverage of "Will-he-resign-won't-he?", was understandable on the Left. But the Conservative ink and pixels--in this case Michelle Malkin--devoted to this sad simpering man were baffling. If he were a Democrat, there'd be a non-binding resolution already on the Senate floor praising the Idaho Stall Stalker for his "courage" and condemning the "hypocrisy" of any Republicans even thinking to raise an issue.

There were other examples, all equally inane, the Bill O'Reilly "racist restauranteur" remark from Hillary Matters the most glaring. Liberal Democrats know they've kept bad cards: on any issue important to the U.S. and American interests, they've insisted on playing a losing hand. It's not hard to believe they'd resort to the top two options in their limited play book of ideas: 'change the subject' and 'don't answer opponents, smear them'.

What's puzzling is the conservative position of spending time answering this pettifoggery. Hammer on ideas. Point out the ridiculousness of losing Liberal Leftcant. Remember Sun Tzu. Set up camp on high ground. It's a winner.




Back to Front Page