Just a guy in my neighborhood…

That’s how the Prophet Barack described William Ayers, a radical Leftist University of Illinois professor of Education and former (and unrepentant) Weather Underground terrorist. Obama has been severely criticized from the Right for his association with Ayers, which, regardless of Obama’s denials, has been deep and extensive. The mainstream media has mostly ignored the Ayers connection in their quest to make Obama president.

Luckily the New York Times has come along with a hard-hitting investigative piece that rips the lid off Obama’s relations with Ayers.

Um…well…not really. It’s actually a complete whitewash, something that could have been written by Obama’s own staff. (Come to think of it, I wonder if the Obama campaign has to report this as an in-kind donation.) Journalist Scott Shane’s headline encapsulates the spin: Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths.

At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.

Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.

Rather than go into a point-by-point deconstruction of this marketing brochure masquerading as journalism, click the links above, and follow the chain from there. (Also look here.) It’s worth your time, believe me. Not only has Barack Obama had a long working relationship with a man dedicated first to fighting everything America stands for and then inculcating children with his hard Left garbage, not only did he see no problem with that relationship, but he lied about it.

Knowing what we know just about the Obama-Ayers connection, in what way is the junior Senator from Illinois fit to be President of the United States?

Anyone? 

LINKS: Sister Toldjah, Tigerhawk, Power Line, Ed Morrissey, The Belmont Club, Classical Values, Fausta, Steve Diamond on how the NYT ignored evidence critical of Obama, Stanley Kurtz responds to the Times article.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, William Ayers, Scott Shane, New York Times, whitewash

Party first

I said in the last post that the Democrats have a habit of putting their parochial electoral needs ahead of the interests of the nation. They shown that in their serial opposition to regulatory reform of corrupt practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they did it for years in their opposition to the war in Iraq. Jennifer Rubin notices something similar. Citing a history of superficially bizarre actions such as Pelosi’s failure to whip her own caucus to support the first bailout proposal, Chuck Schumer’s role in the failure of IndyMac bank, and Harry Reid’s ability to singlehandedly induce panic in the insurance markets, Rubin wonders if it isn’t part of a deliberate strategy, or a case of collective and massive shortsightedness:

All of this raises the question: are they trying to make things worse in the hopes of furthering their party’s election prospects? Similar suspicions were raised when Nancy Pelosi seemed to inflame her partisan opponents and resist any effort to whip her own caucus on the first failed bailout bill vote. Certainly as the financial crisis has intensified their electoral prospects have brightened.

But if we assume that they “meant no harm” we are left with an equally troubling conclusion: they are reckless and ignorant about the ways in which their words and actions may impact a fragile economy. Or to put it differently, their first consideration is invariably “How do we maximize the public’s perception that things are rotten?” rather than “What can we do to contain the conflagration?”

It does remind one of their attitude on the Iraq war: every set back was gleefully trumpeted and every minor advance was dismissed. They never much cared how their rhetoric or votes might embolden the enemy or unnerve our ally. The sole consideration was domestic political gain. If they didn’t want to lose they certainly gave every indication it was low on their list of priorities. Bashing the President, rallying their base and positioning themselves for the next election was clearly more critical.

Count me as part of the “incredibly and dangerously shortsighted” school. I don’t believe there was a conspiracy hatched in the bowels of the House. No cabal of Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and Frank plotting to destroy America so that the people will turn to them for salvation.

Besides, if it were a movie, Hollywood would cast conservatives in the villains’ roles.

No, instead I’m convinced these twits see individual chances to gamble with disaster for the opportunity to “stick it” to the Republicans, knowing that the public tends to blame the party that holds the White House. As long as it hurts Republicans, it’s good. No grand strategy, just taking self-serving opportunities when they see them, regardless of the risks involved.

When you think about it, it’s stunningly immature and irresponsible. And the voting public should take it as a massive warning sign.

 

Technorati tags: Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, financial crisis, insurance crisis, party first, country first, maturity, shortsighted, Iraq