If Walter Annenberg is worthy of "castigation," then so is the conservative Pew family whose charitable foundation has supported many a left wing group, including Tides and ACORN.

Whether Ayers name has appeared on any Pew applications, who knows? But if it did, I hardly think it would turn its founder J. Howard Pew (who was, amazingly, a John Birch Society supporter) into some kind of pinko.

I'm glad to see that you agree that it is incredibly intellectually dishonest to try and turn tangential relationships like this into an issue worthy of substantive discussion.

Dr. Nobel, I'm glad to see you agree that the long-time association of Ayers with Obama is too important to be mucked up with these other uninvolved people.

Tim

I respectfully suggest that you are misapplying the logic of the post. The same logic (with which I agree) that makes it ridiculous to use Ayers to smear the reputation of Annenberg makes it ridiculous to use Ayers to smear the reputation of Obama.

Is this really the only thing Republicans have at this point? Is there not a single substantive issue on which they can defeat Obama? By all appearance, it looks that way.

"The same logic (with which I agree) that makes it ridiculous to use Ayers to smear the reputation of Annenberg makes it ridiculous to use Ayers to smear the reputation of Obama."

What logic is that?

That Annenberg never knew Ayers?

That Annenberg's political career was not launched at Ayer's house?

That Annenberg never sat on symposiums and panels with Ayers?

That Annenberg never wrote a glowing review of Ayers' book?

All true, but none of them apply to Obama.

Eric

Leaving aside for the moment that your series of declarative statements doesn't really amount to "logic," I was referring to the underlying logic of the post that it is ridiculous to assume anyone who had tangential connections to William Ayers necessarily approves of his past actions.

Again I will ask, are Republicans so lacking in substantive arguments against Obama that this is all they have to work with? Are you so scared to debate the merits of Obama's policy proposals that you have to resort to this?

"tangential connections"?

Obama and Ayers?

You must not be reading the posts here.

I think Obama's collaboration with Ayers is the single worst aspect of his candidacy, and I have thought so for a long time.

Annenberg has no such history, and besides, he's not running for president.

Eric

At the end of the day, all you have are the same handful of bullet points, and simply repeating them ad nauseum does not deepen the "collaboration" between Obama and Ayers, or make it any more relevant to the election.

The fact remains, as the logic of your initial post demonstrates, that if you apply the same guilt-by-association logic necessary to use Ayers to smear Obama, there is just no end to the silliness that ensues.

And, frankly, I don't believe that you "think Obama's collaboration with Ayers is the single worst aspect of his candidacy[.]" To think that such an issue supersedes a candidate's positions on things like health care, foreign policy, energy, and the economy would be ridiculous in the extreme. I do not believe you are that ridiculous.

I do not believe you are that ridiculous.

Then you don't know me! Because, ridiculous as it may seem, I think Obama's collaboration with Ayers does supersede his positions on health care, foreign policy, energy, and the economy, because Ayers was and still is a sworn enemy of the United States. That Obama would work with such a man closely for years makes him unfit to hold office -- no matter what his policies or positions.

The fact he has been covering it up makes me suspect there's a lot more, too.

Eric

I think Obama's collaboration with Ayers does supersede his positions on health care, foreign policy, energy, and the economy

And McCain fervently hopes that enough people are like you and willing (if not eager) to ignore the substantive issues that profoundly affect hundreds of millions of lives every day.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to rely on such an approach, but I suppose when you are as ideologically bankrupt as John McCain, you only have so many options left.

Yes, and I will systematically "ignore the substantive issues that profoundly affect hundreds of millions of lives every day," as I have for the past five years in this blog.

:)

Bear in mind that while I happen to be especially horrified by Obama's close ties to Ayers and his wife and think that is more important than his positions on other issues, I do think would be possible to believe that the Ayers issue is the "single worst aspect of his candidacy" even while agreeing with Obama and thinking he is better than McCain on most issues.

Saying it is the "single worst aspect of his candidacy" is entirely consistent with maintaining that everything else about his candidacy is great.

(Not that I think that, of course. But I can see how someone might.)

I agree with Eric. I think that part of what Eric is getting at is that if Obama is/was so closely associated with someone who is, as Eric put it. "a sworn enemy of the United States" (and everything about Ayers screams that he is in fact so) then Obama shares, not so openly, many of the same underlying assumptions. It is as if we were to allow a top leader of Al-Qaeda to be elected president.

The calculus is very simple, and it's obvious that you (and McCain) have accepted it: if voters cast their ballot based on who has the better ability to address the economy, health care, foreign policy, and energy, McCain will lose 99 times out of 100 to Obama. McCain's *only* chance in this election is to distract enough voters away from these issues, and folks such as yourself apparently agree.

Honestly, don't you find it embarrassing to support a candidate who thinks that William Ayers is more important than the fact that our economy is collapsing in front of our eyes? More important to the next generation(s) of Americans than a sustainable energy policy? More important than fixing a broken health care system? More important than reclaiming the United State's status as the leader of the free world?

It is as if we were to allow a top leader of Al-Qaeda to be elected president.

Wow. That's exactly the level of discourse and critical thinking that McCain and Palin are praying for. People like you, Joe, are Republicans' last best hope.

Dr. Nobel Dynamite will blow himself up: he's allowed Obama to convince him that their interests are the same. Bill Clinton did that to his feckless supporters--to their detriment. He got to keep the office he should have resigned, and his supporter's party lost the next election.

Don't do this to yourselves, lefties. Let a bad man go--he'll only blot your causes and yourselves.

Point of order:

Dr. Nobel, it's "ad nauseam." Feminine case.

If you expect to be taken seriously anywhere in this world, get your Latin right. I'm not kidding. Why would I trust you now?

That's all I have to say.

comatus

Clearly you are also interested in substantive issues. I sincerely apologize for the use of the improper case.

As an obviously learned person, what do you think of the intellectual mettle of Mrs. Palin, who has a not-insubstantial chance of becoming president should McCain be elected?

Dr. ND

Repeatedly claiming that Republicans will not contest Senator Obama on substantive issues is absurd. This site, and the entire right blogosphere, is chockablock full of discussions of issues. I don't know if you are using the accusation as a rhetorical device to distract from the issue at hand, or simply refusing to acknowledge uncomfortable data.

At a superficial level, any association between two people is equal. That Obama has some connection to Ayers and Ayers has some connection to Annenberg initially has only mild significance. All of us have "connections" in that sense that are not really very important in our lives.

That is why we look deeper, and attempt to discern what such relationships mean, and how much influence they have. You are resisting the looking deeper, trying to keep all the evaluations at the superficial level. Because relationship A is unimportant implies nothing about relationship B. Repeating yourself that Republicans can't count B because they don't count A is sophistical.

One's associations may or may not be important to one's fitness to be president. Many presidents have had seamy associates. Many good people have suspect associations. Covering up associations, lying about them, and changing one's story about them, however, is definitely a cause for concern.

Obama has changed positions on a number of issues. That could be a good thing, if he were articulating persuasive reasons for changing his mind. He has not. He just changes.

That's what Change means in an Obama context: Chameleon.

Repeatedly claiming that Republicans will not contest Senator Obama on substantive issues is absurd. This site, and the entire right blogosphere, is chockablock full of discussions of issues. I don't know if you are using the accusation as a rhetorical device to distract from the issue at hand, or simply refusing to acknowledge uncomfortable data.

I believe Republicans are well aware of the fact that if the electorate focuses on issues like the economy, foreign policy, energy policy, and health care, Rebublicans will lose handily.

That is the reality of the election. McCain and Palin have recognize that reality and that is why they have effectively abandoned any pretense of campaigning on those issues, and instead chosen to attempt to turn the election into a referendum on William Ayers.

The real "uncomfortable data" in this scenario is the fact that McCain's only hope of winning the election is for voters to *ignore* the most important issues facing our nation. I would hate to support a candidate in that position.

McCain's only hope of winning the election is for voters to *ignore* the most important issues facing our nation.

Isn't there an assumption there that if the election is all about the economy, the voters would necessarily be "ignoring" it if they voted for McCain?

Is it not possible that there are voters who think that the economy might not depend on who is elected president? Or that even McCain might be a better president than Obama?