[Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama

[joekc at roadrunner.com]

What got under my skin was the cartoon you posted on the Courtney blog.

Again, stop directing letters to me. I have no intention of a serious exchange with you unless and 
until you use your name. I have not read a single one of your posts other than taking a quick and 
casual glance, so the point is wasted -- unless your point is to harass me, which it seems to be.

--
Joe Campbell

---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Dr. Campbell,
> 
> In all my posts, I have refrained from name-calling and partisanship.
> I have limited my content to one subject — legitimate questions
> lingering around Barack Hussein Obama. I have not endorsed McCain and
> I have not argued for any political agenda — conservative or liberal.
> Rather, I have remained on point, despite some irresponsible rhetoric
> from you, a man who knows better, because for all you know I may be
> among the 18 million PUMAs whose general concerns I have specifically
> advanced.
> 
> If you take a moment to re-read our exchanges, you'll see that you
> took liberties in interpreting my posts that neither my words nor my
> intent allowed, and after apparently satisfying yourself with these
> inferences you proceeded to advance abusive ad hominem arguments
> against me, which most logicians, such as yourself, understand as
> fallacious arguments. I defer to you judgment.
> 
> Therefore, let me state it again, for the record, so that there is no
> misunderstanding. When I wrote that I do not believe you are a
> hypocrite, I really meant it. When I expressed appreciation for your
> contribution to our community, I really meant it. And when I said I
> didn't buy your line about not reading the whole email, I really meant
> it. The shift in my position does not mean that I now think you're a
> hypocrite; it means what it says, that is, if you take my words at
> face value, which you have not done since my first post — the very
> place where this ridiculous cycle began.
> 
> Your over-the-top response to me indicated that I got under your skin
> when that was never my intent. I have followed this list for years and
> have never seen you go gonzo with such a hair trigger. You usually
> approach things much more clinically, like a trained thinker. But in
> this case you inferred conclusions that defy logic and you have not
> changed positions since then. It's as though you have out-of-focus
> tunnel vision and you can't remove the tunnel from your forehead.
> 
> The same goes for some of the folks on this list. It's like a tribal
> form of groupthink has overcome their otherwise rational selves. I
> touched one nerve — Obama's shady background — and a handful of Obama
> supporters lost their critical thinking skills, like Pavlov's dogs
> salivating at the bell, and immediately turned hostile.
> 
> I really do not mean ill will to anyone on this list or in this
> community, including the folks at Christ Church, though you may not
> believe me. I would like this conversation to remain on point as much
> as possible and have yet to see an answer to the first concern I
> expressed: Does Barrack Hussein Obama have an absolute moral
> obligation to repudiate his personal and professional relationship
> with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?
> 
> It's a fair question when you consider his position in the following
> Boston Globe article where it states:
> 
> "After Rezko's assistance in Obama's home purchase became a campaign
> issue, at a time when the developer was awaiting trial in an unrelated
> bribery case, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration
> of Rezmar's buildings never came to his attention. He said he would
> have distanced himself from Rezko if he had known."
> 
> If Obama felt compelled to distance himself from slumlord-felon Rezko,
> how much more should he feel compelled to distance himself from Ayers?
> And why doesn't his long-standing friendship with the terrorist bother
> some of the more vocal Obama supporters?
> 
> Here's the complete article:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/
> 
> Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
> The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build
> low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many
> projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair.
> By Binyamin Appelbaum, Globe Staff  |  June 27, 2008
> 
> CHICAGO — The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense
> neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state
> senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for
> people who can't afford to live anywhere else.
> 
> But it's not safe to live here.
> 
> About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by
> unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice
> scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs
> up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the
> condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale — a score so bad
> the buildings now face demolition.
> 
> Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader
> failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and
> manage affordable housing — an approach strongly backed by Obama as
> the best replacement for public housing.
> 
> As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee
> coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for
> developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal
> subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a
> promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give
> developers an estimated $500 million a year.
> 
> But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago
> that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies —
> including several hundred in Obama's former district — deteriorated so
> completely that they were no longer habitable.
> 
> Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and
> managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those
> people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's
> constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding
> neighborhoods were blighted.
> 
> Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did
> not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of
> Obama's state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his
> constituents for more than a decade.
> 
> "No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about
> it," said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.
> 
> Obama's campaign, in a written response to Globe questions, affirmed
> the candidate's support of public-private partnerships as an
> alternative to public housing, saying that Obama has "consistently
> fought to make livable, affordable housing in mixed-income
> neighborhoods available to all."
> 
> The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was
> aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time
> as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people
> connected to the senator.
> 
> Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:
> 
> ·	Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign
> and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive
> of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this
> winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago
> that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city
> inspectors found widespread problems.
> 
> ·	Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama's US Senate campaign
> and a former lead partner at Obama's former law firm. Davis, a
> developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used
> government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago,
> including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year
> after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into
> several apartments.
> 
> ·	Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for
> Obama's early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas
> buy a home in 2005. Rezko's company used subsidies to rehabilitate
> more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama's district,
> then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to
> the point where many no longer were habitable.
> 
> Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers —
> including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko — collectively contributed more
> than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised
> hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at
> least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.
> 
> One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale
> Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was
> seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than
> 1,800 code violations.
> 
> Butler and Davis did not respond to messages. Rezko is in prison; his
> lawyer did not respond to inquiries.
> 
> Jarrett, a powerful figure in the Chicago development community,
> agreed to be interviewed but declined to answer questions about Grove
> Parc, citing what she called a continuing duty to Habitat's former
> business partners. She did, however, defend Obama's position that
> public-private partnerships are superior to public housing.
> 
> "Government is just not as good at owning and managing as the private
> sector because the incentives are not there," said Jarrett, whose
> company manages more than 23,000 apartments. "I would argue that
> someone living in a poor neighborhood that isn't 100 percent public
> housing is by definition better off."
> 
> In the middle of the 20th century, Chicago built some of the nation's
> largest public housing developments, culminating in Robert Taylor
> Homes: 4,415 apartments in 28 high-rise buildings stretching for 2
> miles along an interstate highway.
> 
> By the late 1980s, however, Robert Taylor Homes and the rest of the
> Chicago developments had become American bywords for urban misery. The
> roughly 30 developments operated for poor families by the Chicago
> Housing Authority were plagued by crime and mired in poverty.
> 
> In Stateway Gardens, a large complex just north of Robert Taylor, a
> study of 1990 census data found the per-capita annual income was
> $1,650. And the projects were falling apart after decades of epic,
> sometimes criminal, mismanagement.
> 
> Similar problems plagued public housing in other cities, leading the
> federal government to greatly increase funding to address the
> problems. Many cities, including Boston, mostly used that money to
> rehabilitate their projects, maintaining public control.
> 
> Chicago chose a more dramatic approach. Under Mayor Richard M. Daley,
> who was elected in 1989, the city launched a massive plan to let
> private companies tear down the projects and build mixed-income
> communities on the same land.
> 
> The city also hired private companies to manage the remaining public
> housing. And it subsidized private companies to create and manage new
> affordable housing, some of which was used to accommodate tenants
> displaced from public housing.
> 
> Chicago's plans drew critics from the start. They asked why the
> government should pay developers to perform a basic public service —
> one successfully performed by governments in other cities. And they
> noted that privately managed projects had a history of deteriorating
> because guaranteed government rent subsidies left companies with
> little incentive to spend money on maintenance.
> 
> Most of all, they alleged that Chicago was interested primarily in
> redeveloping projects close to the Loop, the downtown area that was
> seeing a surge of private development activity, shunting poor families
> to neighborhoods farther from the city center. Only about one in three
> residents was able to return to the redeveloped projects.
> 
> "They are rapidly displacing poor people, and these companies are
> profiting from this displacement," said Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of
> Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community group that seeks
> to help tenants stay in the same neighborhoods.
> 
> "The same exact people who ran these places into the ground," the
> private companies paid to build and manage the city's affordable
> housing, "now are profiting by redeveloping them."
> 
> Barack Obama was among the many Chicago residents who shared Daley's
> conviction that private companies would make better landlords than the
> Chicago Housing Authority.
> 
> He had seen the failure of the public projects in the mid-1980s as a
> community organizer at Altgeld Gardens, a large public housing complex
> on the far South Side.
> 
> He once told the Chicago Tribune that he had briefly considered
> becoming a developer of affordable housing. But after graduating from
> Harvard Law School in 1991, he turned down a job with Tony Rezko's
> development company, Rezmar, choosing instead to work at the civil
> rights law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, then led by Allison
> Davis.
> 
> The firm represented a number of nonprofit companies that were
> partnering with private developers to build affordable housing with
> government subsidies.
> 
> Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he
> represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn
> Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for
> failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.
> 
> Shortly after becoming a state senator in 1997, Obama told the Chicago
> Daily Law Bulletin that his experience working with the development
> industry had reinforced his belief in subsidizing private developers
> of affordable housing.
> 
> "That's an example of a smart policy," the paper quoted Obama as
> saying. "The developers were thinking in market terms and operating
> under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had
> government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."
> 
> Obama translated that belief into legislative action as a state
> senator. In 2001, Obama and a Republican colleague, William Peterson,
> sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private
> developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to
> $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For
> each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his
> taxable income by 50 cents.
> 
> Obama also cosponsored the original version of a bill creating an
> annual fund to subsidize rents for extremely low-income tenants,
> although it did not pass until 2005, after he had left the state
> Senate.
> 
> "He was very passionate about the issues," said Julie Dworkin of the
> Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, who worked with Obama on
> affordable housing issues. "He was someone we could go to and count on
> him to be there."
> 
> The developers gave Obama their financial support. Jarrett, Davis, and
> Rezko all served on Obama's campaign finance committee when he won a
> seat in the US Senate in 2004.
> 
> Obama has continued to support increased subsidies as a presidential
> candidate, calling for the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust
> Fund, which could distribute an estimated $500 million a year to
> developers. The money would be siphoned from the profits of two
> mortgage companies created and supervised by the federal government,
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> "I will restore the federal government's commitment to low-income
> housing," Obama wrote last September in a letter to the Granite State
> Organizing Project, an umbrella group for several dozen New Hampshire
> religious, community, and political organizations. He added, "Our
> nation's low-income families are facing an affordable housing crisis,
> and it is our responsibility to ensure this crisis does not get worse
> by ineffective replacement of existing public-housing units."
> 
> One of the earliest public-private partnerships of the type supported
> by Daley and Obama took place in the Woodlawn neighborhood, a
> checkerboard of battered apartment buildings and vacant lots just
> south of the University of Chicago.
> 
> Grove Parc Plaza opened there in 1990 as a redevelopment of an older
> housing complex. The buildings had a new owner and a major renovation
> funded by the federal government. Even the name Grove Parc Plaza was
> new.
> 
> The owner, a local nonprofit company called Woodlawn Preservation and
> Investment Corp., was led by two of the neighborhood's most powerful
> ministers, Arthur Brazier and Leon Finney. Obama had relationships
> with both men. In 1999, he donated $500 of his campaign funds to
> another of their community groups, The Woodlawn Organization.
> 
> Woodlawn Preservation hired a private management firm, William
> Moorehead and Associates, to oversee the complex. In 2001, the company
> lost that contract and a contract to manage several public housing
> projects for allegedly failing to do its job. The company's head,
> William Moorehead, was subsequently convicted of embezzling almost $1
> million in management fees.
> 
> Woodlawn Preservation hired a new property manager, Habitat Co. At the
> time, the company was headed by its founder, Daniel Levin, also a
> major contributor to Obama's campaigns. Valerie Jarrett was executive
> vice president.
> 
> Residents say the complex deteriorated under Moorehead's management
> and continued to decline after Habitat took over. A maintenance worker
> at the complex says money often wasn't even available for steel wool
> to plug rat holes. But as late as 2003, a routine federal inspection
> still gave conditions at Grove Parc a score of 82 on a 100-point
> scale.
> 
> When inspectors returned in 2005, they found conditions were
> significantly worse. Inspectors gave the complex a score of 56 and
> warned that improvements were necessary. They returned the following
> year and found things had reached a new low. Grove Parc got a score of
> 11 and a final warning. Three months later, inspectors found there had
> been insufficient improvements and moved to seize the complex from
> Woodlawn Preservation.
> 
> After negotiations with tenants, the government agreed to allow a new
> company, Preservation of Affordable Housing, a Boston-based firm, to
> replace Habitat as the manager of Grove Parc. The company is
> negotiating to buy the development, which would then be demolished and
> replaced with new housing.
> 
> Officials at Woodlawn Preservation say the government didn't give them
> enough money to properly maintain Grove Parc. Habitat's Jarrett
> declined to comment on Grove Parc in particular but said it is hard to
> manage something you don't own.
> 
> But other Chicago developers and housing activists say federal
> subsidies can be adequate if managed properly. They say Grove Parc
> stands apart for how badly it fell into disrepair.
> 
> Preservation of Affordable Housing has assumed responsibility for
> numerous subsidized complexes across the country.
> 
> "Grove Parc is quite an exception to what we've normally done because
> it's in such bad shape," said the nonprofit's chief executive, Amy
> Anthony. "These complexes are often tired, they're always denser than
> today's philosophy, but they're not usually anywhere near as
> deteriorated."
> 
> Similar problems also plagued the next generation of affordable
> housing development in Obama's district, created as part of the Daley
> administration's efforts to subsidize smaller apartment buildings
> scattered throughout neighborhoods.
> 
> One of the largest recipients of the subsidies was Rezmar Corp.,
> founded in 1989 by Tony Rezko, who ran a company that sold snacks at
> city beaches, and Daniel Mahru, who ran a company that sold ice to
> Rezko. Neither man had development experience.
> 
> Over the next nine years, Rezmar used more than $87 million in
> government grants, loans, and tax credits to renovate about 1,000
> apartments in 30 Chicago buildings. Companies run by the partners also
> managed many of the buildings, collecting government rent subsidies.
> 
> Rezmar collected millions in development fees but fell behind on
> mortgage payments almost immediately. On its first project, the city
> government agreed to reduce the company's monthly payments from almost
> $3,000 to less than $500.
> 
> By the time Obama entered the state Senate in 1997, the buildings were
> beginning to deteriorate. In January 1997, the city sued Rezmar for
> failing to provide adequate heat in a South Side building in the
> middle of an unusually cold winter. It was one of more than two dozen
> housing-complaint suits filed by the city against Rezmar for
> violations at its properties.
> 
> People who lived in some of the Rezmar buildings say trash was not
> picked up and maintenance problems were ignored. Roofs leaked, windows
> whistled, insects moved in.
> 
> "In the winter I can feel the cold air coming through the walls and
> the sockets," said Anthony Frizzell, 57, who has lived for almost two
> decades in a Rezmar building on South Greenwood Avenue. "They didn't
> insulate it or nothing."
> 
> Sharee Jones, who lives in another former Rezko building one block
> away, said her apartment was rat-infested for years.
> 
> "You could hear them under the floor and in the walls, and they didn't
> do nothing about it," Jones said.
> 
> By the time Rezmar asked Chicago's city government for a loan on its
> final subsidized development, in 1998, the city's housing commissioner
> was describing the company in a memo as being in "bad shape." The
> Daley administration still made the $3.1 million loan.
> 
> Shortly thereafter, Rezmar switched from subsidized housing to
> high-end development, fueled by the money it had made in subsidized
> work. Rezko's companies also stopped managing the subsidized
> complexes.
> 
> "Affordable housing run by private companies just doesn't work,"
> Mahru, who no longer works with Rezko, said in an interview with the
> Globe. "It's difficult, if not impossible, for a private company to
> maintain affordable housing for low-income tenants."
> 
> Responsibility for several buildings fell to the Chicago Equity Fund,
> which had purchased government tax credits from Rezmar to help finance
> the projects. After Rezko walked away, the fund was obliged to
> maintain the buildings as affordable housing. If it did not, it would
> have to repay the government for the tax credits.
> 
> The fund found the buildings in terrible condition. In a 2001 plea to
> the state to temporarily suspend payments on its mortgages, a fund
> executive wrote that heating problems, lapsed maintenance, and
> uncollected rent made the buildings almost impossible to manage.
> 
> Most of the buildings have since been foreclosed upon, forcing the
> tenants to find new housing.
> 
> All the while, Tony Rezko was forging a close friendship with Barack
> Obama. When Obama opened his campaign for state Senate in 1995,
> Rezko's companies gave Obama $2,000 on the first day of fund-raising.
> Save for a $500 contribution from another lawyer, Obama didn't raise
> another penny for six weeks. Rezko had essentially seeded the start of
> Obama's political career.
> 
> As Obama ascended, Rezko became one of his largest fund-raisers. And
> in 2005, Rezko and his wife helped the Obamas purchase the house where
> they now live.
> 
> Eleven of Rezmar's buildings were located in the district represented
> by Obama, containing 258 apartments. The building without heat in
> January 1997, the month Obama entered the state Senate, was in his
> district. So was Jones's building with rats in the walls and
> Frizzell's building that lacked insulation. And a redistricting after
> the 2000 Census added another 350 Rezmar apartments to the area
> represented by Obama.
> 
> But Obama has contended that he knew nothing about any problems in
> Rezmar's buildings.
> 
> After Rezko's assistance in Obama's home purchase became a campaign
> issue, at a time when the developer was awaiting trial in an unrelated
> bribery case, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration
> of Rezmar's buildings never came to his attention. He said he would
> have distanced himself from Rezko if he had known.
> 
> Other local politicians say they knew of the problems.
> 
> "I started getting complaints from police officers about particular
> properties that turned out to be Rezko properties," said Toni
> Preckwinkle, a Chicago alderman.
> 
> She had previously received campaign contributions from Rezmar and
> said she had regarded the company as a model, one of the city's best
> affordable housing developers.
> 
> But in the early 2000s, she called Rezko to ask for an explanation for
> the declining conditions. He told her Rezmar was "getting out of the
> business," she said — walking away from its responsibility for
> managing the developments.
> 
> "I didn't see him nor have anything to do with him after that," she said.
> 
> Preckwinkle, who will be an Obama delegate at the Democratic National
> Convention, said she would not answer any questions about Obama's role
> in her district, nor his relationship with Rezko.
> 
> Allison Davis, Obama's former law firm boss, dabbled in development
> for years while he worked primarily as a lawyer. He participated in
> the development of Grove Parc Plaza. And in 1996, Davis left his law
> firm to pursue a full-time career as an affordable housing developer,
> fueled by the subsidies from the Daley administration and aided, on
> occasion, by Obama himself.
> 
> Over roughly the past decade, Davis's companies have received more
> than $100 million in subsidies to renovate and build more than 1,500
> apartments in Chicago, according to a Chicago Sun-Times tally. In
> several cases, Davis partnered with Tony Rezko. In 1998 the two men
> created a limited partnership to build an apartment building for
> seniors on Chicago's South Side. Obama wrote letters on state Senate
> stationery supporting city and state loans for the project.
> 
> In 2000 Davis asked the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago for a $1
> million investment in a new development partnership, Neighborhood
> Rejuvenation Partners. Obama, a member of the board, voted in favor,
> helping Davis secure the investment.
> 
> The following year, Davis assembled another partnership to create New
> Evergreen/Sedgwick, a $10.7 million renovation of five walk-up
> buildings in a gentrifying neighborhood. The project, a model of
> small-scale, mixed-income development, was subsidized by almost $6
> million in state loans and federal tax credits.
> 
> Conditions deteriorated quickly. Chronic plumbing failures consumed
> the project's financial reserves while leaving undrained sewage in
> some of the apartments. In October, after repeated complaints from
> building residents, the city government sued the owners, and a judge
> imposed a $5,500 fine.
> 
> New Evergreen/Sedgwick is managed by a company run by Cullen Davis,
> Allison Davis's son and also a contributor to Obama's campaigns.
> Cullen Davis said the problems were rooted in the way New
> Evergreen/Sedgwick was financed. Like most new projects, it is owned
> by a company created to own one building. That company determined how
> much to spend on renovations, how much to set aside for maintenance —
> and how much to keep as profit. When the maintenance funds ran out,
> there was no other source of money.
> 
> "All these deals are set up as islands," Cullen Davis acknowledged. In
> this case, "The margin of error at Sedgwick was a little too close to
> begin with."
> 
> Chicago's struggles with the deterioration of its subsidized private
> developments seemed to reach a new height in 2006, when the federal
> government foreclosed on Lawndale Restoration, the city's largest
> subsidized-housing complex. City inspectors found more than 1,800 code
> violations, including roof leaks, exposed wiring, and pools of sewage.
> 
> Lawndale Restoration was a collection of more than 1,200 apartments in
> 97 buildings spread across 300 blocks of west Chicago. It was owned by
> a company controlled by Cecil Butler, a former civil rights activist
> who came to be reviled as a slumlord by a younger generation of
> activists.
> 
> Lawndale Restoration was created in the early 1980s, when the federal
> government helped Butler take control of a group of old buildings,
> including lending $22 million to his company to redevelop the
> buildings and agreeing to subsidize tenant rents. In 1995, Butler's
> company got a $51 million loan from the state to fund additional
> renovations at Lawndale Restoration. In 2000 Butler's company brought
> in Habitat Co. to help manage the complex.
> 
> Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to
> public attention in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility
> vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to buy drugs struck one of
> the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the
> ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city
> officials to urge the federal government to seize the complex.
> 
> In the midst of the uproar, a small group of Lawndale residents
> gathered to rally against the Democratic candidate for the US Senate,
> Barack Obama.
> 
> Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, trailed badly in the polls
> and was not seen as a serious challenger. But the organizers had a
> simple message: Cecil Butler had donated $3,000 to Obama's campaign.
> Habitat had close ties to Obama. And Obama had remained silent about
> Lawndale's plight.
> 
> Paul Johnson, who helped to organize the protest, said Obama must have
> known about the problems.
> 
> "How didn't he know?" said Johnson. "Of course he knew. He just didn't care."
> 
> Butler did not return messages but in the past has said the government
> did not give him enough money to maintain the project. Habitat
> emphasized in a statement that its role at Lawndale was restricted to
> tasks that included financial oversight and management.
> 
> In 2006, following the foreclosure, the federal government sold the
> buildings to the city for $10. The city has since parceled out the
> buildings among two dozen developers, who are rebuilding Lawndale for
> the fourth time with yet another round of government loans and
> subsidies.
> 
> Even as Lawndale Restoration and Rezmar's buildings were foreclosed
> upon, and Grove Parc and other subsidized developments fell deeper
> into disrepair, Obama has remained a steadfast supporter of
> subsidizing private development.
> 
> And although he has distanced himself from Rezko, Obama has remained
> close to others in the development community. Jarrett participates in
> the campaign's senior staff meetings. And Obama chose another close
> friend, Martin Nesbitt, as his campaign treasurer. Nesbitt is chairman
> of the Chicago Housing Authority, one of the key overseers of the
> shift toward private management and development.
> 
> "Throughout his career in public service, Barack Obama has advocated
> for the development of mixed-income housing and public-private
> partnerships to create affordable housing as an alternative to
> publicly subsidized, concentrated, low-income housing," the Obama
> campaign said in a statement provided to the Globe.
> 
> As a result, some people in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods are torn
> between a natural inclination to support Obama and a concern about his
> relationships with the developers they hold responsible for Chicago's
> affordable housing failures. Some housing advocates worry that Obama
> has not learned from those failures.
> 
> "I'm not against Barack Obama," said Willie J.R. Fleming, an organizer
> with the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and a former public
> housing resident. "What I am against is some of the people around
> him."
> 
> Jamie Kalven, a longtime Chicago housing activist, put it this way: "I
> hope there is not much predictive value in his history and in his
> involvement with that community."
> 
> 
> On 9/27/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > Dr. No,
> >
> >  This is my last post. A few things.
> >
> >  First, just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. You said in the previous post that
> >  you were not accusing me of being a hypocrite but it is pretty clear from what you have below
> >  that you did make this accusation. It is hard for me to tell whether you are merely lacking in
> >  critical thinking skills, deliberately lying and misleading, or merely psychotic. Although I don't
> >  know who you are, Chris, if you are who I think you are, my guess is a combination of the three.
> >
> >  Second, sometimes I wish that the kind of guilt by association that you fling in all your posts was
> >  not fallacious. Because then the Republican party would be sunk. After all, McCain wasted a VP
> >  spot just to get the religious right vote and with that comes having radical nuts like you in their
> >  corner. There is a lot of association going on there and a lot of guilt if you're reasoning is correct.
> >  But that is not a reason not to vote for McCain. Poor judgment, on the other hand, is.
> >
> >  And don't get me started on Obama's presumed connection to a "racist" church. The only reason
> >  that you can make that claim is that you don't put your name on the bottom, which is the real
> >  answer to Paul's question. For even if I don't know who you are for certain, I'm pretty damn sure
> >  about the church to which you are affiliated. If not, prove me wrong and use your real name.
> >  There is no other reason why you don't. Of course, you will likely make one up!
> >
> >  Which is why our conversation has ended.
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Joe Campbell
> >
> >  ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > Dr. Campbell,
> >  >
> >  > I don't buy your statement that you didn't read the whole post. You
> >  > obviously read looking for a "gotcha" and you found one — I didn't
> >  > quote the exact words of Dylan correctly. Thank you for pointing that
> >  > out. Perhaps we can call it the fallacy of majoring on the minors, or
> >  > harping on the irrelevant, because my misstatement did not affect the
> >  > content of the post. But that's all right, if it makes you feel
> >  > better, because you didn't misquote me — you merely fabricated
> >  > statements and imputed them to me. The logical error you're committing
> >  > is seeing words that don't exist. I rely upon your expertise to find
> >  > the name for this fallacy.
> >  >
> >  > For example, I never used the word McCain and I never said Obama is
> >  > "bad" or that you shouldn't "vote" for him, etc., just as I never
> >  > suggested, implied, or concluded that "it is OK to circumvent the
> >  > democratic process and cheat in getting a president elected as long as
> >  > your side wins." I never tried to justify Liddy's actions; in fact, I
> >  > wrote just the opposite. But these are all words and ideas that you
> >  > imputed to me. And just in case you're tempted to hurl a few more
> >  > personal insults at me, saying you could not understand the meaning of
> >  > my post, please note that Keely followed my point as did Tom and the
> >  > few folks who contacted me offlist. Therefore, I will try it one more
> >  > time.
> >  >
> >  > In my first post I applied your standard of disassociation to Barack
> >  > Hussein Obama and his longtime friend Bill Ayers. I segued to get the
> >  > subject back on point, which seems to be where you lost me. I tried to
> >  > confront you with facts that no liberal wants to address. These are
> >  > facts that no one in the msm has covered, probably for the same reason
> >  > no liberal wants to address them.
> >  >
> >  > 1. My first point was that Obama has a long-standing personal and
> >  > professional relationship with Bill Ayers.
> >  >
> >  > 2. My second point was that msm refuses to cover this fact and other
> >  > disturbing facts about Obama.
> >  >
> >  > For example, it's a simple historical fact that Bill Ayers is a
> >  > notorious domestic terrorist who intended to overthrow the US
> >  > government by violent force and it's a simple fact that Bill Ayers
> >  > launched Barrack Hussein Obama's political career from his living
> >  > room. It's a fact that Obama has written two memoirs and neither one
> >  > of them mentions his first and primary executive experience at CAC,
> >  > which raises honest questions about his role at CAC but apparently
> >  > doesn't register with you or any other liberal on this list. It's a
> >  > fact that a prominent member of the Democratic Party is challenging
> >  > Obama's legal standing to run for POTUS because of his citizenships in
> >  > other countries, but some people are satisfied with a jpg image file
> >  > on the worldwide web. Maybe they're still stuck on the bridge to
> >  > nowhere.
> >  >
> >  > Let me give you a different kind of example. Let's say that you and I
> >  > both agree with candidate X across the board on every position except
> >  > for one minor point — he's a member in good standing of the KKK and he
> >  > proudly dons his robe in public. You can cry "guilt by association"
> >  > all you want, but I'm not going to vote for that man because this is
> >  > where you're wrong. As Kurtz said, it's not guilt by association; it's
> >  > guilt by participation. HE VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATES IN A RACIST
> >  > ORGANIZATION.
> >  >
> >  > This is the sad reality of Barrack Hussein Obama that no one on the
> >  > left wants to acknowledge — especially the msm and not a few folks on
> >  > this list. Obama was a member in good standing of a virulent
> >  > anti-Semitic, anti-American church for 20 years, yet everyone gives
> >  > him a pass when he claims he never heard any of the toxic vitriol
> >  > spewing from Rev. Wright.
> >  >
> >  > Obama served side by side on CAC's board of directors with its
> >  > founder, Bill Ayers, who just happens to be a domestic terrorist, yet
> >  > everyone gives him a pass when he claims, "he's just a guy who lives
> >  > in my neighborhood."
> >  >
> >  > Obama blew millions of dollars on school reform when he served on
> >  > CAC's board of directors, yet everyone gives him a pass, which is
> >  > especially disturbing given the number of people on this list who are
> >  > education oriented. If Obama's opponent had thrown millions down a rat
> >  > hole in a failed school-reform program, this list would go sideways
> >  > with criticism. But no one says anything, as though it never happened.
> >  >
> >  > The list of Obama's failures is staggering and the list of questions
> >  > surrounding his background is equally staggering, yet few people on
> >  > this list appear to care and none of the msm care.
> >  >
> >  > Tell me Dr. Campbell, how do you account for this apparent black hole
> >  > in the political universe?
> >  >
> >  > I ask this question remembering the words of Dylan:
> >  >
> >  > "We live in a political world
> >  > The one we can see and feel
> >  > But there's no one to check
> >  > It's all a stacked deck
> >  > We all know for sure that it's real." ("Political World")
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > On 9/27/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > > Dr. No,
> >  > >
> >  > >  A while back I had an exchange with another nameless, radical conservative who claimed to be
> >  > >  a former student of mine. It occurs to me that you, too, might be a former student and if you
> >  > >  are I urge you to contact me offlist so we can see if we can try to get your money back. Apparently
> >  > >  you have not learned a damn thing.
> >  > >
> >  > >  As far as I could tell from your rambling, psychotic previous post, your point was that (a) you
> >  > >  thought that I was suggesting that McCain distance himself from Liddy, or that somehow McCain
> >  > >  was bad, or that you shouldn't vote for McCain because of the Liddy connection, and that your
> >  > >  response to my post was that Obama distance himself from Ayers, or that Obama is bad, or (more
> >  > >  likely) that you shouldn't vote for Obama because of his "connection" to Ayers and other "radical"
> >  > >  stuff. That, my friend, is the fallacy of tu quoque.
> >  > >
> >  > >  But I was careful to say I wasn't sure. After all, it was a rambling, psychotic post and I have no
> >  > >  real clue what the point was. It might be that you were merely committing the fallacy of guilt by
> >  > >  association. Maybe it was a mere bad argument or some kind of new wave bad argument that
> >  > >  folks on the cutting edge of the kind of rhetoric you favor invent, a fallacy that is so new that it
> >  > >  doesn't yet have a name. I'm not sure because I didn't really read the whole post. If you want me
> >  > >  to read your whole post, I'm sorry but you're going to have to use your real name.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Just to make my own views on this issue clear, I've cut and pasted my summary below.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >  1. Ayers is bad and Liddy is bad. (I'm not suggesting that Ayers is good.)
> >  > >  2. Liddy is worse than Ayers (one blew up buildings; the other was part of a team that succeeded
> >  > >  in winning a presidential election, in part, by cheating).
> >  > >  3. Neither is an issue in the recent election, for guilt by association is a  fallacy.
> >  > >  4. If Ayers is an issue (and Republicans have made it an issue), then Liddy is a bigger issue.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > One last thing. You tried to justify Liddy's action by saying that he was at war. But if he was at
> >  > >  war, then who was he fighting? Folks like the Weatherman. And if he was fighting a war with
> >  > >  them, it shouldn't be too surprising that they blew things up. Isn't that what you do in a war, blow
> >  > >  things up. The problem with this justification of Liddy's action is that it is the same justification
> >  > >  that the Weatherman would give. Your bad reasoning is justifying their bad actions. So stop.
> >  > >
> >  > >  And, just for the record, the line from the Dylan song is "You don't need a weatherman to know
> >  > >  which way the wind blows," not the one you quoted below.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >  --
> >  > >  Joe Campbell
> >  > >
> >  > >  ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > > Dr. Campbell,
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > Au contraire! my point is not "it is OK to circumvent the democratic
> >  > >  > process and cheat in getting a president elected as long as your side
> >  > >  > wins," and I am rather disappointed with you for your failure to
> >  > >  > realize my point, which I repeated, replicated, and reasserted ad
> >  > >  > nauseam. But since you missed it, I shall say it again. Barack Hussein
> >  > >  > Obama has an absolute moral obligation to divorce himself completely
> >  > >  > from Bill Ayers and his ilk, if for no other reason than to reassure
> >  > >  > the American people that he and the self-admitted domestic terrorist
> >  > >  > do not share the same ideological agenda.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > That was the point of my post.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > I am not calling you a hypocrite and the thought never crossed my
> >  > >  > mind. I am not suspicious of your reasoning either. I know you are a
> >  > >  > trained logician. I have the utmost respect for you and appreciate
> >  > >  > your contribution to our community. I applied the standard you
> >  > >  > espoused to Barack Obama's longstanding relationship with domestic
> >  > >  > terrorist Bill Ayers. Therefore, please allow me to enlarge upon my
> >  > >  > point.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > Not only has Barack Hussein Obama not distanced himself from domestic
> >  > >  > terrorist Bill Ayers, he worked closely with him seeking to reform the
> >  > >  > Chicago school system. Consequently he cannot distance himself from
> >  > >  > Ayers without rewriting history, or else ignoring it as he did in his
> >  > >  > two memoirs.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > And the msm has been complicit in helping Obama ignore his past by
> >  > >  > refusing to vet him. We have seen the msm agonize over every minute
> >  > >  > detail of Sarah Palin's life, to the point that I fully expect an
> >  > >  > interview with her kindergarten teacher so that America may learn that
> >  > >  > she spilled paste in the classroom. But we don't know boo about Barack
> >  > >  > Hussein Obama's so-called "missing years":
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obamas_missing_years.html
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > He jumped from the Daley Machine to the Daily Kos overnight without
> >  > >  > the fourth branch of our government asking any of the hard questions
> >  > >  > regarding his relationship with Ayers or how he skyrocketed through
> >  > >  > the Chicago system. And the very few people that have asked the hard
> >  > >  > questions were met with Chicago-style intimidation tactics:
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRhYmE3NzFlMTljNTdmZGQ3MjhkYTVjNzdmMjVhMzE=
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > File that one under "Free Speech."
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  > > > Obama's background is so vague that one US citizen has sought a
> >  > >  > declaratory judgement against him because he has not established his
> >  > >  > qualification as a US citizen to run for president:
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  > > > http://obamacrimes.com/
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > This guy's probably just another right-wing nut job, Democratic Party
> >  > >  > bona fides notwithstanding. He's a former Deputy Attorney General of
> >  > >  > Pennsylvania and former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery
> >  > >  > County, Pennsylvania.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > I'm sure there's nothing to it, just as I'm sure Obama never heard any
> >  > >  > of Rev. Wright's disgusting rants.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > On 9/24/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > > So your point, Mr. No, if I understand it correctly, is: it is OK to circumvent the democratic
> >  > >  > >  process and cheat in getting a president elected as long as your side wins. Is that it?
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  I might be wrong but my guess is that the fallacy in this post -- apart from the obvious appeal to fear -- is the tu quoque fallacy. Here is a description from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  The fallacy of tu quoque is committed if we conclude that someone's argument not to perform
> >  > >  > >  some act must be faulty because the arguer himself or herself has performed it. Similarly, when
> >  > >  > >  we point out that the arguer doesn't practice what he preaches, we may be therefore suppose that
> >  > >  > >  there must be an error in the preaching, but we are reasoning fallaciously and creating a tu
> >  > >  > >  quoque. This is a kind of ad hominem fallacy.
> >  > >  > >  ...
> >  > >  > >  Discovering that a speaker is a hypocrite is a reason to be suspicious of the speaker's reasoning, but it is not a sufficient reason to discount it.
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  Let me know if anyone thinks otherwise.
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  --
> >  > >  > >  Joe Campbell
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but to be fair, if you
> >  > >  > >  > read Liddy's biography, as I have, and if you listen to him on the
> >  > >  > >  > radio, as I do, then you'd know that Liddy justifies his illegal
> >  > >  > >  > activities by arguing that America was fighting a two-front war at the
> >  > >  > >  > time — one in Nam and the other on the streets of the US.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > You don't have to agree with his argument, but it has its merits. For
> >  > >  > >  > example, the Weather Underground (known as the Weathermen at that
> >  > >  > >  > time) had declared war on America, ostensibly because of the Vietnam
> >  > >  > >  > War, and they served notice to the media that they intended to
> >  > >  > >  > detonate bombs at key strategic targets to make their point. Obviously
> >  > >  > >  > this does not justify Liddy's illegal activities, but it substantiates
> >  > >  > >  > his point. America was fighting two wars though not everyone
> >  > >  > >  > recognized it. (On a side note, I wonder how the Weathermen justified
> >  > >  > >  > committing illegal activities to prosecute a war against the citizens
> >  > >  > >  > of the US in order to terminate another war that they deemed illegal.
> >  > >  > >  > Somehow this strikes me as problematic.)
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > Regardless, I agree with Dr. Campbell's point. Barack Hussein Obama
> >  > >  > >  > has an absolute moral obligation to divorce himself completely from
> >  > >  > >  > Bill Ayers and his ilk, if for no other reason than to reassure the
> >  > >  > >  > American people that he and the self-admitted domestic terrorist do
> >  > >  > >  > not share the same ideological agenda.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > For example, Mr. Obama threw Rev. Wright under the bus when he
> >  > >  > >  > realized that Main Street USA would have none of the "God damn
> >  > >  > >  > America" stuff, but it took a few weeks of public teeth-pulling for
> >  > >  > >  > him to finally drop the hammer on the GD preacher. And I'm sure it was
> >  > >  > >  > sincere, because I for one genuinely believe that Mr. Obama attended
> >  > >  > >  > that church for 20 years, calling Wright a "father-like figure" all
> >  > >  > >  > the while, and never once heard him utter any of his well-documented
> >  > >  > >  > profanities. That's comparable to someone attending Christ Church for
> >  > >  > >  > the last 20 years and denying that they ever heard Wilson advocate on
> >  > >  > >  > behalf of the Lost Cause. Or Southern slavery. Or something like that.
> >  > >  > >  > As I said, it's entirely believable. But that Mr. Obama has thus far
> >  > >  > >  > refused to banish Bill Ayers to a Wright-like fate should trouble
> >  > >  > >  > everyone.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > Yes, Dr. Campbell makes an excellent point when he writes, "Here is
> >  > >  > >  > another analogy. Should Barry Bonds be elected to the Baseball Hall of
> >  > >  > >  > Fame? After all, he has more homeruns than anyone in baseball history.
> >  > >  > >  > Surely he would have hit enough homeruns to gain membership in the
> >  > >  > >  > Hall even if he didn't cheat. Does that matter? Were you Commissioner
> >  > >  > >  > of Baseball, would it be appropriate for you to associate with one of
> >  > >  > >  > the guys who sold him steroids? Or should you, would you, distance
> >  > >  > >  > yourself from him?"
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > So what reason does presidential candidate Barack Obama give for not
> >  > >  > >  > distancing himself from Bill Ayers? If you examine the Obama website,
> >  > >  > >  > you'll see a lot of whitewashing of Ayers' history but no
> >  > >  > >  > explanations. Moreover, you won't see any account for those missing
> >  > >  > >  > years when Obama served on the CAC board with Ayers. And as Stanley
> >  > >  > >  > Kurtz observed, "Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack
> >  > >  > >  > Obama has never written about his most important executive experience.
> >  > >  > >  > >From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago
> >  > >  > >  > Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The
> >  > >  > >  > group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community
> >  > >  > >  > organizers and radical education activists." (WSJ)
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > In fact, CAC is Mr. Obama's primary executive experience, which
> >  > >  > >  > probably explains why he cannot divorce himself from Ayers — he needs
> >  > >  > >  > him as a reference on his resume. But I wonder, is it acceptable that
> >  > >  > >  > Obama did not distance himself from Ayers? Was it appropriate for him
> >  > >  > >  > to obtain this experience by serving on the board of a so-called
> >  > >  > >  > educational foundation with its founder who happens to be a
> >  > >  > >  > braggadocios bomb-thrower?
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > In asking these questions, I'm not implying that Obama wants to be
> >  > >  > >  > known as Obomba; I'm simply saying that something's amiss. Obama did
> >  > >  > >  > not separate himself from the founder of the Weathermen and he still
> >  > >  > >  > has not done so.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > And this makes me wonder why Bill Ayers targeted public education for
> >  > >  > >  > reform. After all, this is the street radical who called upon his
> >  > >  > >  > generation to "kill their parents," and if you peruse his blog
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > http://billayers.wordpress.com/
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > you'll see that time has done little to dull his edge (don't let the
> >  > >  > >  > Communist star bother you, I'm sure it's purely decorative). What
> >  > >  > >  > could this man possibly want to impart to youth and why did Obama
> >  > >  > >  > serve with him on his board 13 years ago? Do they share the same
> >  > >  > >  > worldview?
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > These are all fair questions but the question I want Mr. Obama to
> >  > >  > >  > answer is the one posed by Dr. Campbell: "Should you, would you,
> >  > >  > >  > distance yourself from him?"
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > But since Mr. Obama has not answered this question, and since the
> >  > >  > >  > Weathermen named themselves after Dylan's trademark line in the song
> >  > >  > >  > "Subterranean Homesick Blues," allow me to leave you with it: "You
> >  > >  > >  > don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowin'."
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > You can sing it with me or, if you prefer, you can sing along with the
> >  > >  > >  > Weather Underground on their recently released songbook, "Sing a
> >  > >  > >  > Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiqués of
> >  > >  > >  > the Weather Underground 1970–1974." Who knows — if Barack Obama has
> >  > >  > >  > his way, the public school near you may be teaching these words to
> >  > >  > >  > your children.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > http://www.amazon.com/Sing%20Battle%20Song%20Revolutionary%20Underground/dp/1583227261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221582294&sr=8%201
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > On 9/24/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > > Roger,
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  Watergate is significant not for the event itself but because it revealed a host of other illegal
> >  > >  > >  > >  activities performed by the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). I won't list these since
> >  > >  > >  > >  Andreas already mentioned many of those activities. Or you could just google "Watergate" and
> >  > >  > >  > >  find out the list for yourself. Again, it was not just Watergate. Liddy was part of a team that
> >  > >  > >  > >  performed numerous illegal activities to steal a presidential election.
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  Suppose that you were running for office and you found out that a group of Democrats rigged the
> >  > >  > >  > >  primary so that you would win (thinking you had the worse chance of winning in the main
> >  > >  > >  > >  election), stole and released private files indicating that your campaign manager had psychiatric
> >  > >  > >  > >  problems (I'm trying to find the closest analogy to a VP in your case), performed illegal wire taps,
> >  > >  > >  > >  and broke into your campaign headquarters. Later you are crushed in the election, loosing by a
> >  > >  > >  > >  landslide. Are you really going to tell me that you would shrug it off and say, "Oh, well, it doesn't
> >  > >  > >  > >  matter since the election wasn't even close!"
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  The fact is that we'll never know how close the election would have been were it not for the
> >  > >  > >  > >  actions of CREEP (including Liddy and others).
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  Here is another analogy. Should Barry Bonds be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? After all, he
> >  > >  > >  > >  has more homeruns than anyone in baseball history. Surely he would have hit enough homeruns to
> >  > >  > >  > >  gain membership in the Hall even if he didn't cheat. Does that matter? Were you Commissioner of
> >  > >  > >  > >  Baseball, would it be appropriate for you to associate with one of the guys who sold him steroids?
> >  > >  > >  > >  Or should you, would you, distance yourself from him?
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  --
> >  > >  > >  > >  Joe Campbell
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  ---- lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > Joe
> >  > >  > >  > >  > I dont condone the watergate group, but it did not change the election. Do you also condemn Linden Johnson and the Chicago Democratic machine who have stolen elections?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > Roger
> >  > >  > >  > >  > -----Original message-----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > From: joekc at roadrunner.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:25:01 -0700
> >  > >  > >  > >  > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > Roger,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > How can the destruction of property be worse, less democratic, than directly subverting an election?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > --
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > Joe Campbell
> >  > >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > ---- lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > Elections have been stolen  from the beginning of this county. Linden Johnson stole the election in his first run for congress (missing ballot boxes) and the chicago machine (dead people voting). None of this is right and the people responsible should have been prosecuted. The destruction of property (with it's implicit danger of killing people) to provoke a change is also a subversion of the democratic system and is much worse. Both should be roundly condemned.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > Roger
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > -----Original message-----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:48 -0700
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > To: joekc at roadrunner.com,  "g. crabtree" jampot at roadrunner.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Gary,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > You are factually incorrect here.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > "2. Ayers is worse than Liddy in that he recklessly endangered lives and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > property while Liddy orchestrated a failed break in. McGovern was never a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > viable candidate and what occurred at the Watergate hotel did not alter the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > outcome of the election in '72. Both men were attempting to "circumvent
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the democratic process" but only one was willing to risk the lives of those
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > who had nothing to do with his goals."
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Nixon was not after McGovern, he was after Muskie. Muskie was the leading candidate for the Democratic Nomination in 1972. McGovern was a dark horse who did well in caucuses. Muskie was a serious threat to Nixon. Nixon had established at Dirty Tricks Campaign against Muskie.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Subverting justice and attempting to rig a national election is a very serious crime.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Best Regards,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Donovan
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > --- On Sat, 9/20/08, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > To: joekc at roadrunner.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 7:20 AM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >  I disagree with your summary somewhat. I would modify it as follows:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 1. What Ayers did was bad and what Liddy did was bad.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 2. Ayers is worse than Liddy in that he recklessly endangered lives and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > property while Liddy orchestrated a failed break in. McGovern was never a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > viable candidate and what occurred at the Watergate hotel did not alter the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > outcome of the election in '72. Both men were attempting to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > "circumvent
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the democratic process" but only one was willing to risk the lives of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > those
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > who had nothing to do with his goals.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 3. Neither is a major issue in the upcoming election but, you are judged by
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the company you keep. Ayers is an unrepentant communist terrorist.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 4. If Liddy is an issue (and, as you pointed out, he's not) Ayers still is.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > He, along with Barry's other friends and mentors Frank Marshall Davis, Saul
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, etc. give us a major insight into what we can
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > expect from the anointed one and many, myself included, do not like what is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > revealed.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 7:32 PM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Gary (if I may),
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > I'm sorry for suggesting that you don't know anything about American
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > history. It was a sarcastic
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > comment, a failed attempt at humor: "If you think that Nixon resigned
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > because of a botched
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > burglary, then ..."
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Nonetheless, Liddy was not a "foot soldier." He was a chief
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > operative. Maybe
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > not a general (Nixon)
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > or a lieutenant (Dean) but not a private, more like a sergeant, like William
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Cally. Certainly others
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > were perhaps more responsible, but weren't Cally and Liddy also responsible
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > for their actions?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Lastly, I'm not trying to suggest that McCain should "disassociate
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > himself
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > from the man." I believe
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > in redemption. I can wrap my head around the idea that Liddy is reformed.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > I'm not asking McCain
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > to distance himself from Liddy (though were I running, I'd want to make it
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > clear that cheating is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > not the American way).
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > You've forgotten about the initial thread. The point is that
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Republican's
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > have been suggesting
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > that the Obama-Ayers connection is an issue. If you google "Obama Ayers
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > controversy" you get:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama–Ayers_controversy
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > But if you google "McCain Liddy controversy" there is no similar
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > wikipedia
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > listing. Or any listing
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > that deals with this "controversy" since it is not a controversy.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > That was
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the initial point of the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > post, namely. that if the former is a controversy, then so should be the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > latter.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > I'm happy to say that McCain-and-Liddy is fine (though I find it odd that
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > someone who is running
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > for the presidency of the US doesn't distance himself from someone who has
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > tried to circumvent
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the democratic process). But then what is all this hay about
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Obama-and-Ayers?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > To summarize:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 1. Ayers is bad and Liddy is bad. (I'm not suggesting that Ayers is good.)
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 2. Liddy is worse than Ayers (one blew up buildings; the other was part of a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > team that
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > succeeded in winning a presidential election, in part, by cheating).
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 3. Neither is an issue in the recent election, for guilt by association is a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > fallacy.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 4. If Ayers is an issue (and Republicans have made it an issue), then Liddy
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > is a bigger issue.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > All the best, Joe
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > I know a bit about American history and Watergate in particular. Are you
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > trying to tell me that Watergate was all about G. Gordon  Liddy? Liddy was
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > minor player in the Watergate scandal, a foot soldier who ended up bearing
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > the brunt of the punishment for people above him. John Dean, A Watergate
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > principal who has been held up on this forum as a man whose opinion is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > worthy of respectful consideration, had far more to do with Watergate and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > it's subsequent cover up  then Liddy ever did. Liddy readily admitted
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > that
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > he did the crime, he did the time, he paid his debt to society and has
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > gone
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > on to lead a decent life. That McCain should have to move heaven and earth
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > to disassociate himself from the man seems unreasonable.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:38 PM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > You are twisting the argument. No one is sticking up for Ayers. The
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > point
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > is that if Ayers matters
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > to Obama's reputation, Liddy should matter to McCain's.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Another point is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > that, relatively speaking,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Ayers is not worse than Liddy and Liddy is not better than Ayers. I
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > think
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Liddy is far worse.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Watergate revealed a much deeper threat to American democracy. The
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > simple
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > fact is that Nixon
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > cheated in a broad number of ways. Cheated in winning the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > presidential
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > election. Look up "Watergate," do a bit of research, and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > learn something
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > about American history. Are you trying to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > tell me that that Nixon resigned the presidency merely because of an
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > unsuccessful burglary?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > What does democracy stand for if not for fair elections for the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > presidency
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > of the US, where the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > people may be certain that the choice is the product of their will
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > not
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > the will of a select few?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Do you think that Barry Bonds deserves the home run king crown if it
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > turns
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > out that he took
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > steroids? No. He cheated. At the very least, Nixon cheated in his
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > second
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > presidential bid, cheated
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > in an election for the president of the US. He won unfairly and Liddy
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > helped.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > And Ayers did not get off scot free. The charges were dropped. Why?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Prosecutorial misconduct.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > --
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > Joe Campbell
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> I guess since the argument being put forward is that Ayers should
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > be
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> given a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> bye because he didn't really cause any harm, the same slack
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > needs to be
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> granted to Mr. Liddy. After all, the Watergate break in was
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> unsuccessful
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> the burglars (a fairly incompetent bunch) were all arrested. So,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > since
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> no
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> presidential campaign was hijacked and no vote was taken out of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> hands
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> the people it seems to me that you are holding G.Gordon to a much
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> higher
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> standard. At the very least Ayers committed an act of gross
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > vandalism
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> reckless endangerment and got off Scot free. Liddy was complicit
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > in a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> failed
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> break in and did five and a half years. He did the crime and he
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > did the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> time. Throwing in some silly disclaimer whenever his name comes
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > up
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> seems
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> as
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> daft and unnecessary as saying "setting off bombs designed
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > to maximize
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> injury and death in public places is a very, very bad thing.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:20 AM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > What would be worse: a terrorist from another land blowing
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > up some
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > buildings or a terrorist from
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > another land hijacking a presidential campaign and ensuring
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > that one
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > candidate wins over
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > another? I think that hijacking a presidential campaign is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > about the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > worst
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > thing that anyone can
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > do in a democracy. I'm a bit shocked that not everyone
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > sees it this
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > way.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > Like Donovan I'm no fan
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > of Ayers but to post anything on this topic without
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > condemning Liddy
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > seems
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > to be an insult to our
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > form of government. Why not at least throw in a "Oh, by
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the way
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > taking
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > vote for president out
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > of the people and putting it into the hands of a few is a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > very, very
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > bad
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > thing."
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > --
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > Joe Campbell
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Read what I wrote. I did not claim that he killed
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > anyone. I said
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> that
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> act of setting off explosives wrapped in nails in public
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > places is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> akin
> >  > >  > >  >; >  > > > > > >> >> to attempted murder. If I light your apartment building
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > on fire and,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> by
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> the grace of God, no one is injured or killed am I
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > mearly guilty of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> failure to obtain a permit for an open burn?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>   ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>   From: Donovan Arnold
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>   To: Andreas Schou ; vision2020 ; g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>   Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:46 PM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>         Gary,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>         I don't condone the actions of Ayers. But he
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > never killed
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> anyone.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> To say he did is an incorrect statement. If you can
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > demonstrate to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> me
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> (an
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> online article etc.) he killed someone, I will accept
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > your statement
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> as
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> fact. Otherwise, I say your judgment and understanding
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > on this
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> matter
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> is
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> deeply in question.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>         Best Regards,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>         Donovan
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>         --- On Wed, 9/17/08, g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           From: g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers &
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > "Andreas Schou"
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> <ophite at gmail.com>, "vision2020"
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 5:30 AM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           "Are you insinuating that Bill Ayers
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > tried to kill
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> people?"
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           No, I am not insinuating I am saying it flat
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > out. Placing
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> anti
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> personnel bombs in public places is attempted murder.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > When the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> vermin
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> in
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Baghdad or Sader City or Fallujah set of IED's they
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > don't know the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> names
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> of those they are attempting to murder and maim. Is it
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > your
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> contention
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> that they are not trying to kill people?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>             ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>; >>             From: Donovan Arnold
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>             To: Andreas Schou ; vision2020 ; g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>             Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:42 AM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>             Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers &
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   "No small accomplishment. Oh
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > yeah, he has never
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> attempted to slaughter soldiers and police via the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > cowardly practice
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> hiding and detonating explosives wrapped in nails."
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   Are you insinuating that Bill Ayers
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > tried to kill
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> people? I am no fan of Ayers. But I think you are off
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > base saying he
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> killed, or even attempted to kill people. If you think
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > this, please
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> provide us with the names of people Ayers attempted to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > kill, or who
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> he
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> killed.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   The people that McCain worked for
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > between 1979 and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> 1992
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> harmed more people than Ayers.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   Best Regards,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   Donovan
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                   --- On Tue, 9/16/08, g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                     From: g. crabtree
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > & Barack
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                     To: "Andreas Schou"
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > <ophite at gmail.com>,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> "vision2020"
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                     Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > 7:24 PM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> So what's your problem with the G-Man? The guy did
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > his time in
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> anything
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> but
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> country club conditions until your hero, James Earl
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Carter, commuted
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> his
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> sentence. He never ratted out his associates and
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > he's managed to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> support
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> himself and his family as an ex-con. No small
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > accomplishment. Oh
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> yeah,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> he
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> has never attempted to slaughter soldiers and police via
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> cowardly
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> practice of hiding and detonating explosives wrapped in
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > nails. All
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> things
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> considered, I know that I would much rather associate
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > with a man who
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> served
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> his time and was released from prison than an
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > unrepentant attempted
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> murderer
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> whose only regret is that he couldn't cause more
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > carnage and mayhem.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Of
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> course that's just me.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> g
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:32 PM
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> Subject: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > They both knew each other. They were both appointed
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > to co-chair an
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > education panel by Mayor Daley, and the prior state
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Senator from
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > Obama's seat introduced him at Bill Ayers'
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > house. No large,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> ongoing
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > connection. But here's the thing:
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > Why isn't John McCain's friendship with G.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Gordon Liddy a campaign
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > issue? Is there any defensible reason for treating
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Liddy like a
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > rehabilitated member of the community, rather than
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > as a threat to
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > the
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > Republic? If so, why?
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > -- ACS
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > List services made available by First Step
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >> =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >> >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >>
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  > >   List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  > >   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  > >                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > >  =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >  >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  > >  >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  > >  >                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  > >  >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > >  > =======================================================
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > =======================================================
> >  > >  >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  > >  >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  > >  >                http://www.fsr.net
> >  > >  >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > >  > =======================================================
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > =======================================================
> >  >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >  >                http://www.fsr.net
> >  >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  > =======================================================
> >
> >
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================