[Action Update] Victim of Ayers and Dohrn Appears on National Television, Describes His Entire Family’s Near Murder
By SusanUnPC on May 3, 2008 at 12:26 AM in Barack Obama, Bernardine Dohrn, Fox News, Greta Van Susteran, Weather Underground, William Ayers
ACTION UPDATE: I just checked Google News, and none of the media has picked up this excellent interview by Greta Van Susteran, let alone either of his op-eds (”here and here). Please contact media outlets on your usual lists, and pressure them to tell Mr. Murtagh’s story.
__________________
You first learned about John M. Murtagh this morning in Uppity Woman’s “When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home.”
The story was based on the devastating memories of Mr. Murtagh, described in his op-ed, “Barack Obama pal is an enemy, too,” in yesterday’s New York Daily News. In 1970, Mr. Murtagh’s entire family was targeted for murder by the Weather Underground because his father was a New York State Supreme Court justice who was presiding over the trial of the so-called “‘Panther 21′, members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores.” (The Weather Underground and Black Panthers were allies in their dedication to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.)
Mr. Murtagh is “an attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies and a member of the city council in Yonkers.” It is important to note that a longer version of his op-ed is available at CityJournal.org under the title, “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”
Tonight, in a two-part interview, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteran, an attorney and host of On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, interviewed John M. Murtagh, an educated, articulate and well-informed man. Mr. Murtagh is a Republican, and isn’t involved in either Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign. It is important to note that, in part two of the interview, Mr. Murtagh refers to the findings of Larry Johnson about Barack Obama’s eight years of employment by William Ayers, reported in “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”
Part Two is below:
It is in this portion — part two — that Mr. Murtagh refers to the findings of Larry Johnson about Barack Obama’s eight years of employment by William Ayers, reported in “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”
Below is a short excerpt from Mr. Murtagh’s April 30 op-ed in the New York Daily News — which is an abbreviated version of his full op-ed at CityJournal.org, titled “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”
During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers’ Weathermen tried to murder me.
In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.
I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs. …
Read all of “Barack Obama pal is an enemy, too,” the abbreviated version of “Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family.”
:::::::::::
In “The Game of Expedience,” I posed some ETHICAL questions about Barack Obama’s associations with an unrepentant terrorist who — besides trying to MURDER an entire family — also brags about having bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, NYPD police stations, and more:
Then there is the example of William Ayers, who helped jumpstart Obama’s political career by hosting an early fundraiser in 1995, who donated to his campaigns, who served with him on a board for eight years. Then, the other day, Larry Johnson reports to us that Barack Obama was an employee of William Ayers’ foundation for EIGHT YEARS.
Obama’s excuse for his relationship with an unrepentant terrorist is that the bombings of the Pentagon and Capitol building, NYPD offices, and more all occurred when he was eight years old. But the CORE problem with “dusting off his shoulder” the issue of the relationship is that, well into their business and personal relationship — at least six to seven years or more into that relationship — William Ayers told the New York Times that he didn’t regret setting those bombs, that he wishes he’d set off more bombs, and that he feels he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists didn’t do enough.
Didn’t Obama READ that account? Hasn’t he heard about the Ayers interview? Wouldn’t such remarks — even if we were children when the violence occurred — be enough to end a relationship for you or me with someone with such a history of violence? That not only does Ayers have no regrets but he wishes he’d done more?
That’d be a deal-breaker for almost all of us, I am sure. Even if our associate had led an exemplary life since, such suggestions that violence was warranted, that more violence had been needed, and that such violence may be needed again would do it for us. But not for Obama. Because, apparently, it is not politically expedient to do so. (And I have a lot of questions about why Obama does not find it politically expedient to also disown that man as well as his terrorist wife, Bernardine Dorhn.) …
And, if you’ve not, please read Larry Johnson’s “Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money.”
::::::::::::::::
Special thanks to V for the fast video uploads.
5-2-08) Texas Caucus Fraud (myDD)
——————————————————————————–
A first hand account of the fraud by Obama supporters in El Paso.
Quote:
I need to point out that I am not on the Hillary for President campaign staff, and that the campaign has gone to significant lengths to keep this dirty laundry out of the press. However, it is my strong feeling that we should not withhold evidence of crime, particularly since it is inconsistent with the public Obama image of being above “anything it takes to win,” and it sheds significant light onto the otherwise puzzling difference between the popular vote and caucus results.
Quote:
Although affidavits have not been made public, I have copies and records of the voter complaints for which I did interviews. Although the Hillary campaign has not gone public with evidence of fraud, the national legal team has approximately 200 such affidavits and 2000 voter complaints. The campaign intends to win the popular vote without airing these charges in public
Quote:
I would be happy to share records in my position with appropriate authorities.
It is true that elements of the Obama campaign appeal to our better angels, but, in the moment of truth when the Obama campaign echoed Republican Tom Bordonaro’s, I made the personal decision that Sen. Obama cannot be our nominee.
I am positive that any Democrat who witnessed what I did would stand against Sen. Obama now, and I have faith that some endorsements like Rep. Capps’s are temporary. This is wrenching for a Democratic activist like me who has served on county and Assembly District committees, but I cannot support a candidate with a criminal campaign.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/2/22818/72392
____________________________________________
..Just one more reason adults don’t let children and radicals elect presidents.
…and another reason why General Elections aren’t caucuses. More shades of ‘72.
This is what they teach at Camp Obama. Is this where the old radicals come in? Are they reintroducing their skills of mayhem and rabble rousing woven together with Chicago bully boy politics? This is really just a hostile takeover of the Democratic party.
This is true, but like the last hostile takeover, involving some of the same old hippies still on the bong, they will not succeed in the end. People just don’t put up with these nutcases when it comes to elections.
Now you understand the constant referencing to ‘68 we see sprinkled throughout that camp. Wright’s theology was invented in 68. Recreate68 is a call to do at the convention what they did in 1968. This is all ludicrous blasting back to the past by people who smoke too much weed and the children they have snagged with the thought of “excitement” of the late 60s and early 70s. Nobody is telling them people died then too. 1968 gave us Richard Nixon thanks to these nutcases. And 1972 gave us Nixon again thanks to these radical nutcases. And today is IDENTICAL, with the exception that McGovern actually had some knowledge and useful experience. And because of these nutballs and the children who turned into brain-fried zombies for them, he lost with 38% of the vote. Barack Obama and his affiliations will NEVER be president. And I didn’t even get into his obvious ties to the middle east.
please dont compare obama to mcgovern. 1968 was a year in which a principled but doomed stand was needed, a year which saw the election of richard nixon who went on to confirm all of our worst fears. this is merely a takeover of our party by an empty suit backed by ruthless thugs to no purpose other than to lose.
it happened before in 1968. the difference is that humphry and mcgovern, both former presidential candidates, were both decent men and had long well documented political careers. and as for as i know neither has ties to home grown political terrorism.
Incidentally, there were Texas irregularities at their convention as well.
http://www.jhvonline.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=89&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=4409&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1291&hn=jhvonline&he=.com
Quote: “I am positive that any Democrat who witnessed what I did would stand against Sen. Obama now…”
Actually, having spoken to several Obamabots in person, and seeing Sean Hannity interview them on TV in New York last night, I disagree. Obamabots do not let facts sway them. And what’s really scary is that they all sound the same when they’re confronted with all BO’s bad news. They just bluster and roll their eyes, and say, “That’s nothing,” or “It doesn’t mean anything,” or “Who cares if his friend tried to blow up an innocent family?” Well, they don’t actually say that last one, but that’s how deep their feeling goes - skin deep.
very true, but there enough of us that pretty well makes the annonited’s desire assent to the presidentcy null and void. i get this argument that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two and then i look at this. yeah, there is a lot of difference. the aa’s may very well push obama for reparations and what is he to do is they indeed elected him to the presidency? he’ll want their vote again. think about that and all the other things that might be demanded from different groups like the insurance companies. it is not a pretty picture.
I can definitely understand the reparations thing. I think a lot of us might like to vote for Barack, if he had exactly the same qualifications as Hillary. That would be a very hard choice to make! But, luckily, they are as different, no pun intended, as night and day. Barack’s background is full of hate and deceit and anti-Americanism, and Hillary’s is full of helping people and learning as much as she can about as much as she can. There’s absolutely no comparison between the two.
There were many accounts on hillaryis44 after each of these caucuses from individual participants starting with Iowa — that was also the time Carville warned on CNN that Chicago style politics were entering the national picture. There was grassroots group trying to collect stories — don’t kow what happened to them. But this is the first time a credible party volunteer has spoken up (with affidavits and other proof). So hoping it goes somewhere. This was one of the things that permanently turned me off against that fraud.
I read this on mydd and found it very disturbing. However, I have to ask:
- why is the national media NOT highlighting this and asking the super delegates if this factors into their decision or not?
- does the fact that they are not doing this indicate that this sort of thing happens all the time? (which does not speak well for the democratic party at all)
- why has Obama or his campaign been asked (to my knowledge) even ONE question re. this on the public record?
- or are people writing this off as acceptable organizational mishaps/chaos that is inevitable?
Personally speaking, I really wish we can get rid of this caucus system — it just seems to have too many faults that are tailor-made for people who wish to manipulate it.
Over 2000 complaints of voter fraud and intimidation in the Texas caucuses and the state party did nothing. The whole thing was rigged whih is not surprising in Texas ( noted for Political Corruption ). After all in Texas the new math states that 40% is a majority why count results further.
Barack Obama has been blasting the temporary lifting of gas taxes as political gamesmanship and bad economic sense. He didn’t always. While in the Illinois Senate, he woted for it.
Available on Lexis.com: Chicago Defender July 1, 2000,
While Gov. George H. Ryan signed legislation suspending Illinois’ five percent sales tax on gasoline for six months and issued an executive order creating state monitoring teams, Mayor Richard M. Daley Thursday vowed to keep an eagle eye on gas prices in Chicago.
Some people opposed it. Among their arguments:
Dr. Quentin Young, chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, who said those funds are earmarked for health, education, and human services.
He called the passage of the state’s six-month gas tax reduction nothing more than a “pre-November election states-manship” saying this will only force the legislature to compensate in other ways while “compromising the health of Illinois residents with future raids of the tobacco settlement funds and other state-funded programs.”
Where was Obama on the issue?
Senators Kimberly A. Lightford (D-4th) and Barack Obama (D-13th) said the bill gives customers needed temporary relief from high gas prices. “Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas,” said Obama.
Perhaps now he is trying to protect Big Oil from taxation of windfall profits…I wonder how much they’ve donated to his campaign?
and where or where are the rest of the prominent obama supporters. kennedy? i am listening. oh i see, he is in seclusion on cape cod right now. kerry, he is pontificating to the help in the kitchen. hmmm, oprah, oh she is talking to another precious. the big difference there is he actually has talent.
after this sorry spectacle is over, i’ll be interested in reading a well done book on it though it might make my ulcer come back by reading it.
the anger in this country is churning. bush is at a higher level of diapproval of any president in history. and precious won’t have any anwers or help. just more of the same meaning screw you and hooray for me.
Let them eat arugula.
Barack Obama (D-13th) said the bill gives customers needed temporary relief from high gas prices.
Too funny! Well, funny in a stupid way. Thanks for posting this, sonia. All your hard work posting information here is much appreciated.
See how much play that gets in the MSM … only Fox will see the truthiness.
True dat. I think I’ll go ahead and send this on over to FOX and the other news outlets. Couldn’t hoit!
Sonia, can you post about the topic of the story? We’re planning on posting a story on the Texas fraud, and we have many stories up on the gas tax issue. Please post in the relevant stories.
Susan I live in Texas I can’t wait for your story…..
5-2-08) Vote Greta
——————————————————————————–
Who cause more damage to the Democratic Party?
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/
Thanks, Sonia. I voted and saw the results. At this point, 78 percent(!) peg Baby-O as the damage source. Go and vote, peeps!
Will someone please explain to me in rational terms how Senator Obama has not been asked to drop out of this race with associations like these.
How can you not walk away from a man who is an unrepentant terrorist?
More of Sen. Obama’s sterling judgment, I suppose.
I am disgusted that the mainstream media refused to do its job for so long — this nominating contest would have bene over a long time ago. Even now, this is basically only being reported on FOX news — when will CNN/NBC/MSNBC (otherwise known as the U.S. of General Electric et al.) finally do its job?
The Republicans will fry him in the press for this if he is the nominee. Leave it to the Democrats to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
SDs — please wake up!!!
I’m afraid it’s simple math. Too many Democrats of all backgrounds rely on a signed, sealed, and delivered Black vote to win their offices. Obama’s 90% Black vote, coupled with unusually high turnout, has made them afraid to not support Obama.
Remember, they’d rather risk losing to McCain than losing their elected position. The stark reality of what Obamatross might mean to their re-election is just starting to hit them. Many feel they are in a lose-lose situation. Support Hillary , lose the Black vote (maybe forever) and the election. Support Obama and maybe lose the election, but not the Black vote.
They are having cold sweats in the night, I promise you They are also hoping Obama bows out gracefully somehow, but they think it’s too late.
Thanks, PMS, for that explanation. I’d never heard it and wasn’t aware.
I think they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Someone need to remind them that it was the white female vote that threw 2004 to Bush.
That doesn’t explain someone like Jeff Bingaman.
Down ticket democrats and the dnc are having trouble raising money, the Presidential primaries have sucked alot of money out and now alot of nonpresidential candidates are finding themselves in trouble. The Obama campaign has been throwing money at down ticket dems and the party establishment with the understanding there is more in the pipe for them. The Clinton campaign is not flushed with the kind of money the Obama campaign has and are not players. I think this explains the thinking of a lot of party regulars support for Obama despite running a lackluster campaign. The signs are on the wall for an Obama defeat in the general election and the party for the sake of money is allowing this to happen because of the need for money.
when will CNN/NBC/MSNBC (otherwise known as the U.S. of General Electric et al.) finally do its job?
I would venture to say…never?
Here’s a humorous analogy, and I think it has to do with “time” coupled with “Blink”. Let me explain: In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell explains how people make judgements very rapidly, and uses the case of New Coke — to explain. In the 70’s taste tests that just involved a sip — consistently favored Pepsi (which was sweeter) over Coke. In response, Coca Cola engineered the New Coke formula — which was sweeter, expecting it would be a runaway success. Interestingly, in taste tests it did very well against Pepsi. But when released.. you may all remember what happened. There was a massive, consumer driven uprising against NewCoke that derailed one of the most expensive marketing campaigns and new product launches until then. What that case study showed was that in taste tests you are rarely asked to drink the entire can :-). I believe Barack Obama is like New Coke — formulated to satisfy sippers, but not really drinkers. You may want to listen to one of his speeches — but you may not choose to take the six-pack home.
The time argument is that unfortunately, the Democratic party, and the supers especially, are like Coca-cola management. They have concocted this New Coke formula, at enormous expense, and now have the product sitting on the shelves. Whether they recognize this mistake, and recall this in time is anybody’s guess.
For the sake of this country, I sorely hope they do. But politicians are not like CEO’s — it may take a few of them to lose in November to realize that perhaps an antidote for “time” is “courage”. What will help is if AA’s in NC send the signal that they are not taking home those six-packs either.
well, it is cool don’t you know to be liberal and support obama. it was cool to be a weathie in the 70s too. that is what cool people do who don’t worry about money and paying mortgages. instead of playing golf or volunteering for something worthwhile, they support precious.
Wow! that Murtagh was excellent. Even that last comment, Greta saying we should give Obama an opportunity to talk about Ayers and Murtagh saying that he was given one at the ABC debate and Obama dodged it. Great interview! He also squarely identifies the problem — it is Obama who should be held accountable for his choices and judgment.
Well, it’s clear. Obama should come oann Greta’s show and answer these questions. If he doesn’t, then we have our answer, don’t we?
Truth is, Obama is too cowardly (chicken) to answer questions not planned in advance with answers fed into a teleprompter. If I’m wrong, he’ll show up for Greta’s show, won’t he?
Watch this. They are assessing the chicken in the waffleman.
Joe: A poliical athlete at the top of her game.
Hillary Clinton - O’Reilly Reaction - Morning Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhVICkeedF8
..And how many of us women have witnessed situations where the superior woman is tossed aside for the mediocre man. That is what is happening here. And we also have witnessed plenty of times where she goes in for the cleanup after he screws up. These guys are right. There will be 4 years of McCain. 2012 is a Hillary cleanup. Obama is a bust and under ordinary circumstances, he would be under the bus so they could win. The purpose of the superdelegates was to avoid ‘72 again, I know I have posted that interview with McGovern about it. That was the reason superdelegates were created. And they are woeful cowards in not carrying out their duty, because their sole reason at this point is he is black and they are afraid. Thanks to this, we are losers in November just like in 72. 2012 is the cleanup and it won’t be Barack Obama. By then there will be plenty more everyone will know about him thanks to swiftboats.
Jeralyn wrote about the split in SDs as well — elected officials going for him in their own self-interest (and greed) without thinking about winning in Nov and the non-elected SDs going to Clinton. I hope GoP runs more ads down ticket so these people realize he is not necessarily helping them.
” To be conceited is to tend to boast of one’s own excellences , to pity or ridicule the deficiencies of others , to daydream about imaginary triumphs , to reminisce about actual triumphs , to weary quickly of conversations whch reflect unfavorably upon oneslf , to lavish one’s society upon distinguished persons and to economize in association with the undistinguished….” Gilbert Ryle ,The Concept of the Mind.
I think this aptly describes Sen. Obama. His conceit will bring down the party…..No ?
Send that vid to every SD in the country. Joe S is the only news guy out there that was in politics and he’s not kidding around here
I heard chicken and waffles go together!
Talktruth writes: I heard chicken and waffles go together!
Most definitely.
Thanks for that link pm317 !! Wow, that was an awesome clip.
Stanley Fish in the NYT wrote some garbage ‘brush-off’ post about Ayers that I saw over at the Times’ site tonight. I made sure to mention that I disagreed with it strongly.
I am so excited for Tuesday, but there is much work to be done between now and then. It’s time for that sprint mode.
We are so close now. If we can somehow get a win in NC, the whole world is going to turn upside-down for The One.
Can’t wait.
*
On a related note concerning another person who is in the tank for Obama, much as Fish was in his last piece:
VS got a lot of feedback on this, and we have finally capitulated to the will of our readership over at my site. Whether that decision was a wise one I’ll leave up to you.
First ever “Worst Blogger on the Planet” award has been doled out over at VillarrealSports.com. See for yourself:
VillarrealSports.com
People are VERY unhappy with many in the blogosphere tanking it for Obama. Who knew, right?
The hardest part of the whole enterprise was having to go back to the nether regions of sites I can’t stomach any more. Oh well, you do what you have to do.
Paul F. Villarreal
I totally agree with your choice. He is as bad, if not worse than Kos. The guy is a real ass.
Loved it Paul V.!!
Obama should have Ayers and Dohrn tied around his goddamned neck for the rest of his useless life. These creatures are terrorists just as surely as McVey, Kaczinski and any other home-grown nut you can name.
Just reading this brings back memories of the terrorism my family experienced during the Sixties. Like Murtagh, we, too, had to flee our home when lunatics tried to firebomb it in the night. For years I had nightmares of waking to flames outside my bedroom window, running barefoot across a field and watching in terror as my grandfather shot at the would-be killers. It was the Klan that tried to kill us, not those idiotic “radicals,” but the terror and pain they left in their wake was identical.
There is no difference between these various monsters, all of whom did their damnedest to kill innocent children to prove some insane point. I am certain that Ayers and Dohrn would have been just as happy to have killed the then-9 year old Murtagh and his family as the Klansmen would have been to murder me and my siblings. Their supposedly wonderful motivation doesn’t matter; it’s their vicious intent and destructiveness that unites them in purpose.
That Obama is a friend to these animals proves that he doesn’t belong in the senate, much less in the White House. A president who is intimate with terrorists would be a grotesque mockery of everything this country has gone through in its long history. But then, that’s Obama’s stock in trade isn’t it — making a mockery of our political process for his own disgustingly selfish ends.
Animals is the right word for them.
No, they’re pretty uniquely human … I can’t imagine a wolf or a tiger doing anything like that. They kill to live.
Xeno, I know it doesn’t help, but I am so sorry you had to go throught that. Your pain and anger is still palpable and I honestly wish I could hug you right now.
Thank you, Uppity. I think what really outrages me about this is that these people have left a string of victims behind them for whom they have no regard whatsoever. In fact, they feel justified in what they did to the Murtagh family and all the others they targeted for terrorism. While I have no delusions that the Klansmen who came so many times to intimidate our family repented in the last 40 years, it’s galling to read of their spiritual brethren still glorying in violence. Even worse is the thought of a presidential candidate who has a “warm” relationship with monsters like these.
So well said. And I’m sorry for what you and your family went through. As for their “wonderful” motivations, I seriously doubt it. The most charitable I would be is “neurotic.”
This needs to be a post of its own — I’ve always said that the Klan is nothing but a damned terrorist group for all its whining about its constitutional protection. THIS NAILS IT. No, it’s not a damned constitutionally protected group, it a bunch of terrorists who murder people.
The legacy of hate of the KKK has been a bane for Blacks and Whites in America and especially the South. There is NO EXSCUSE WHATSOEVER for FASCISM of any kind anywhere. Our survival depends on the constant struggle to eradicate all foms doctrinal and philosophical justifications for the elevation of one group over another.
Yes, those attacks by the Klan were domestic terrorism. The reason they tried to blow up our house was simple: My parents and grandparents had the audacity to own property and build a new home on it. It was 1967, a time when racial tensions were at their height (and Ayers and Dohrn were getting their terrorist street cred). The men in that mob wanted to make an example of us, so that other Black people would be too terrified to own or build homes in the area. The fact that my father was overseas serving in the military was just an added bonus to them because it left my mom and six kids without a man in the house to defend us.
Punishment and terror was the ultimate goal of the Klan that night, just as it was for Ayers and Dohrn when they bombed the Murtagh’s house. There is absolutely no difference between these groups. None. So Obama should answer the question: Would he be friends with unrepentent Klansmen who stated publicly that their only regret was that they didn’t commit more terrorist acts? If not, then how can he justify befriending the Weather Underground terrorists? He can’t answer that question because there is no decent answer.
What a haunting story, and so terrible. Violence is violence. And it is shameful that Obama is incapable of seeing the ethical problem with associating with such people.
All I can say after watching these videos is WOW!
I hate to agree with republicans but this guy is exactly right. Obama was given a chance to account for his relationship with Ayers and in typical Obama fashion he dodged the question and gave a bullshit excuse.
I don’t see this relationship question going away. In fact it shouldn’t. I sure as hell don’t want anyone with direct terrorist ties as the nominee of the party I have supported for so many years. The point Greta made about Ayers disputing what was written in the New York Times is ridiculous. His book, Fugitive days recounts that what he did he was proud of. It’s in print and anyone willing to do the slightest amount of research would find it.
Also, Dohrn was entirely unrepentant when she gave herself up. There are videos that recount her statement upon giving herself up that demonstrate very clearly that she not only believed in what she had done but that she was not in any way repentant. She also hints that the war will continue.
In a sane world this individual(obamalamadingdong) with his EXSTENSIVE involvement with known criminals, domestic terrorists and hate America radicals couldn’t get a security clearance to clean the TOILETS in the White House let alone be it’s occupant!
If these criminals were repentant I think most Americans would be willing to give them a break. But they are not. They are proud of the terror they unleashed in this country. And I still don’t understand why anyone that thinks some Muslim who just might be guilty of consorting with a terrorist should be locked up at Guantanamo while these criminals, these homegrown American terrorists are allowed to run free. I don’t get it. I really truly do not get it.
And so far as Obama supporters and the media are concerned he could show up with a hooker on either arm and a dead puppy his neck and they would find some excuse.
I used to think those words were only for dimwitted conservatives. My bad.
Not only are they free, but Ayers is a professor at a supposedly respectable university. Well, I don’t respect it, or him, or BO, or anyone who thinks BO deserves to be president. It’s just too obvious he doesn’t.
For the past few months we’ve known about the dangers of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Hamas, Auchi, Exelon etc. and we democrats have known all along that republicans would use that against him rightfully and without swiftboating the issues.
And we also knew we could only nod our heads and agree with Fox, something hithertofore unthinkable.
ABC had Joe Andrew on with McAuliffe. How come the superduperdelegates don’t see what we see?
Andrew said hope and change over and over, made me wanna hurl. But worse than that he actually said Obama is the Bill Clinton of 92 this year, the candidate of hope not fear.
Hillary Clinton apparently isn’t tied to Bill and Obama is! A whole new level of spin but it doesn’t surprise me coming from anyone who is parroting Howard the Dean of deflecting blame.
Mi and Fl don’t count but superdelegates must choose before the voters have their say. ugh.
And we are to ignore all of Obama’s elephants in the living room of his life while the elephant party stomps them out as they rightfully should be?
I can’t ignore his cesspool. He is unelectable.
I refuse to give up my country to a man who is clearly not presidential or to a party that is trying to railroad him into office by not counting Mi and Fl or giving weight to democratic states and core democratic voters.
Vote smart NC and IN, vote Hillary.
Thanks to Larry and the bloggers here and at Taylor and Jeralyn’s site for making me remember there are 15 million voters who voted for her and we are not in this viscious attack on sanity without allies.
Thank you all.
Are all the other former DNC heads who came out for Hillary getting any press other than McAuliffe? I wish they would because McAuliffe is part of the Clinton group that is being tarred and feathered…
This is off-topic I know, but I wanted to post a comment I made on Taegan Goddard’s totally in the tank for Obama website. I’ve seen repeatedly over the past few days the argument that Hillary’s plan to reduce gas prices is bad because it would “encourage consumption and hurt the environment,” in my opinion a revolting straw man (is getting the price of milk and meat down bad too, because that ALSO damages the environment by encouraging consumption? Hey, maybe high food prices are a GOOD thing- less obesity!) The Washington Post gratuitously included a comment by an “environmentalist” arguing against the plan (and, it must be assumed, ANY plan that drops the price of gasoline.) Anyway, here it is:
This is the third or fourth time in the last 24 hours I’ve seen the opinion that cutting the gas tax is a bad idea because it would encourage the use of gasoline and hurt the environment. I wish one of you guys would get Obama to say something like this, because it would destroy his campaign in a heartbeat.
What you are saying is, screw the bluecollar workers out there who are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of gasoline. Screw the truckers who have to stay on the road for 20 hours at a time instead of 12 or 14 to make enough money to cover the cost of gas. High prices are GOOD because they discourage consumption.
I’m sure vegetarians celebrate the rising cost of meat for the same reason. Yay, people can’t afford to buy meat and milk! What’s the price of soy these days?
Of course, your theory means that ANY plan that reduces the cost of gasoline is a bad plan. Apparently you think that the only people who are suffering are people who drive around in SUVs and Humvees. Or maybe the price of gasoline is inconsequential to you. I drive a five-year old Honda Civic 2-door. I have to drive 30 miles roundtrip to work every day and live as close as I possibly can to my school. Over the last two years, my modest raises have been virtually wiped out by the rising cost of gasoline.
Your response to my situation, and the situations faced my millions of struggling, hard-working Americans, is “tough, you shouldn’t be using so much gasoline anyway.”
Yeah, that’s an argument that is REALLY going to appeal to voters in the fall.
The DNC is mistaking their priorities of the AA vote. It is a party of many people including a majority of women. They are also not counting the potential cross over of Republican women voters to Hillary.
In my opinion, Rev. Wright is small potatoes compared to Ayers and Rezko. Rezko and Obama both profited by supporting the misery of the poor in Obama’s district. If that doesn’t point to the glaring problem with ethics…nothing else will.
Oh, women! who cares? They will come around and do as they are told. (That is what the DNC thinks.)
I guess they are looking at the poll results and discounting what they see and the fact that no money is coming into the party is just a coincidence?
I, for one, BO gets the nod, will work my ass off to get Hillary as a write-in. I will not vote for BO, nor will I regret it one bit.
Hahahaha! Surprise!!!!!
“The DNC is mistaking their priorities of the AA vote. ”
They are using this and the AA community as shield to cover their real motives: they don’t want Hillary and they want to take the Clintons down. Once this became a real opportunity, they believe they are too close to let it get by. And they have convinced themselves that they are serving the higher good of race relations by compelling people to confront their attitudes towards race so that we can all transcend them.
This is about the most self-righteous horseshit of hypocritical magnitude.
But the real key is this: They really believe, once Obama is the nominee, that they will be able to campaign their way out of the deep discontent that many Dems are feeling at the moment. They see us as children who will simmer down once we wear ourselves out from our tantrums. And that by November, they will have put the fear of God in us by dangling the spectre of 4 more years of Republican rule.
Arianna Huffington has already begun this campaign with the release of her new book detailing the horrors of Republican and rightwing ideology and how it is dooming our society into ruin and destruction. She’s moved beyond the Primary into GE strategy, since her overt Hillary-hatred was getting her nowhere. That’s their plan and they really believe thney can pull it off.
I can only vouch for myself. I will not come around. The only way I can make a statement is by digging my heels in and stomaching 4 more years of Repubs. Obama wants CHANGE? This is the change I intend to give the Democratic Party. Hopefully, in 4 years Democrats will come around to the reality that those nutjobs in the radical leftwing are not representative of the country. And they simply cannot FORCE their ideology down the throats of everyone else. And as long as they persist, then there will be Republican presidents.
If they wanted to take down the Clintons, they should have chosen a better/stronger candidate. John Edwards, anyone? I would have had no problem supporting him. It makes absolutely no sense for the Party leadership to engage in this suicide pact with Barack Obama given all of his questionable ties, and his inexperience, (which for me is still the greater problem).
I cannot get on board with the direction the Party is heading.
Obama will have to:
WIN WITHOUT ME!
Count me in. Obama won’t get my vote. I just showed the video (up thread of Joe and Pat) to my husband and I broke down. This is such a classic gender and age discrimination thing if he were to get nominated. All his lead is meaningless because we know all those caucus stories, we know that people did not know about Wright and hell, they still don’t enough about Ayers. He is a disaster but he may get the nod with his fake lead. They know it. Rove and GoP could not have asked for a better outcome even in their dreams.
The New Left Power Brokers would have never gone with Edwards as he turned into a kinda loose cannon ( INDEPENDENT THINKING ). He was a good boy and behaved earl on butwhen he ran this tme he ran as a populist progressive ( a big no-no to the power brokers ). These folks want to eradicate the centrists from the party in order to maintain their self interested strangle hold on power.
I don’t get how handing the nomination to a guy who not only has no chance to win, but has no chance to even come close, helps our party. I don’t get it at all.
i don’t approve of rev wright at all, but at least he stood up for what he believed. if he thinks obama is a thankless twit, he probably has darn good reason to think it. for the record so do i. it is such a shame to me to see mcclueless get the presidency, but i am honestly thinking he might do less harm. i think mccluless will be a one termer as well.
Please, no more talk about a “unity” ticket. Not only will Obama be used to drag down lower-on-the-ticket candidates (as the GOP is already starting to do), but Obama will become the flashpoint even if he is on the ticket as VP and will drag down Hillary as well if she is the nominee.
Obama said he didn’t want the VP post and that alone means that the nominee (if, please God, it ISN’T him!) is NOT OBLIGATED to choose him! Use HIS words to get out of this bind…