Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Two guys walk into a board meeting

Stanley Kurtz wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal today called "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools." Now, I don't usually blame writers for headlines, because they don't usually write them, but Stan seems fine with this one, so it's his problem now.

So, I read the thing and find that the only thing that's lacking is, you know, any evidence that Obama and Ayers pushed radicalism on schools. Instead, Kurtz--obviously stung by the fact he found no smoking guns in the "treasure trove of documentary evidence" he recently whined out of the hands of the University of Illinois at Chicago--just says, for the umpteenth time, that Obama was on a board with Ayers. Whoop. Te. Do.

Then Kurtz has either the lack of self-awareness or the cojones to end like this:
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle.
However, since Kurtz can't actually point to anything in which Obama and Ayers participated together which could remotely be considered "pushing radicalism," then the whole point of the column becomes the continuation of the guilt by association smears Kurtz has been pushing.

But don't just take my word for it. Here's conservative blogger Marc Ambinder's take on Kurtz's sorry showing.
What specific projects -- "radical" projects -- did Obama work on with Ayres? Is there evidence that they collaborated and schemed to ... do anything "radical" together? Ever?

Or just that they served on a board of a fairly well-respected liberal charity at the same time? And that left-leaning charities tend to give money to left-leaning organizations, a la ACORN?

Is the real story here that Obama once served on the board of a liberal education charity?


Post a Comment

<< Home