And honestly, I have a hard time believing that you guys think that people within a movement don't have internal disagreements about what that movement represents. Of course I looked at your link, Steve- I didn't say that you made that up, just referenced the definition you provided which is one definition, not the only one. If you'd read the link to the Ayers interview, you'll see that he obviously has some disagreements with mainstream advocates of the benign progressive education reforms that is defined in your link.

George: would that it were true that “progressive education” had nothing to do with “progressive politics.” Again, read Ayers' own words to the contrary.

BTW, in case it's not apparent- I was unable to comment for a while so I came back today to check the thread. Don't know if anyone's still reading.

Mrs. Annenberg certainly didn't seem embarassed about giving all this money to a wild-eyed radical and the other board members were well-respected educators, businessmen and community leaders. If there's some concrete evidence that
Obama did anything questionable (besides not talk that much about his experience at the Foundation) I've yet to see it. Otherwise its just another smear.

CStanley,

You seem to be confusing “Progressive Education” with “Progressive Politics” (read liberal politics)… the only thing they have in common is the word “Progressive”.

CStanley said: “Also, Steve, it's nice that you define the Progressive education movement the way you do, but...”

The definition of “Progressive Education” I provided you was NOT mine… had you followed the link I provided you might have learned what “Progressive Education” is.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices!!

In that particular case, I certainly would have appreciated the chance to 'go round and round' with George, as I don't see why my statement was 'putting words in his mouth'. If his statement about supporting McCain in the past doesn't imply that he feels that McCain is more likely to hold his party accountable, then I'd like to know what he actually meant by it.

I will concede that I could have phrased that better, and put it in a question form instead of stating that as George's opinion, but I really didn't think it was a stretch.

As I've repeated over and over in these threads about Ayers…I REALIZE THAT PROGRESSIVE VOTERS MIGHT AGREE WITH THE AGENDA THAT OBAMA AND WILLIAM AYERS APPEAR TO SHARE REGARDING EDUCATION.

But why is it that Obama never talks about those kinds of goals and instead the Annenberg project was swept under the rug until conservatives started asking about it, and when it is discussed it's watered down to buzz words like “small schools” which obscures the more political agenda of the proponents of those particular small schools?

The answer is obvious- because although you and other progressives might agree with that agenda, a plurality of voters in the US probably do not. It would be the same if a GOP candidate had a history of pushing for controversial ultraconservative programs- that candidate might have to obscure the actual agenda that he/she had worked toward and sell it as more middle of the road than it really was.

As for the brushup over comment tone and style, like nearly everyone else here I use sarcasm to make my points. When you agree with the people who do that, of course, I don't see you complaining about it but when it is used against you it stings apparently.

And you missed my point about your 'context' comment…which was that you complained that conservatives purposely leave out the context, but you never provided any actual information about what that context was, and then you blasted me for ignoring the context which you didn't provide. I had never seen that rebuttal before (and in fairness, I'll say that probably the more conservative leaning sources that I spend more time at probably ignored it, and although I do read centrist and liberal sites as well I must have missed that.) So now that you showed it to me, I gave you my opinion. You take him at his word that his words are twisted, but unless that one quote was made up I don't see how he could have been misinterpreted because it indicates that he specifically said he didn't regret the bombings, not that he didn't regret the antiwar agitation itself. We'll just have to agree to disagree on how we interpret and reconcile his contradictory statements, as I still feel that the most likely explanation is that even he felt that he had to backtrack a bit after 9/11, and after people around him were probably horrified to see the juxtaposition of his initial interview statement against the bombing of the Pentagon on that day.

As for Factcheck.org, they're not perfect but they're pretty good, and my statement wasn't an overall judgment of their impartiality in general- just pointing out the obvious conflict of interest. I'd expect that a group supported by a foundation would recuse themselves from giving verdicts on a project funded by the same foundation because of that obvious problem with objectivity.

This presidential campaign truly has taken on a life of its own. At many levels, it appears that political parties and many politicians have a win at any cost mentality by trying to blame the other side for all of our troubles and misfortunes.
The reality is that there is more than enough “blame” to go around and pointing the finger of blame at some one else does not solve any of our fundamental problems.

To know a person is certainly not the same as adopting their beliefs or core values. In my lifetime, I certainly have met and associated with people who do not share my core beliefs but that does not make a proponent of their attitudes or beliefs. If anything, it has accomplished the opposite by making my own beliefs stronger. I would venture a guess that this true for many people.

The fact that Mr. Ayers was a radical in the 60's is irrrelevant. What is relevant is what, if anything, Sen. Obama learned from the history of those turbulent times, how those lessons have made him a better person and presidential timber, as it were.

The same is true for Sen. McCain. He to, has had some very interesting associations in his past. If “guilt” by association were to be the litmus test in selecting our leaders, then I doubt that there would be anyone qualified for the presidency.

I don't expect either candidate to be the most brilliant person tha ever walked the face of the earth, but I do expect them to recognize their limitations and recruit the very best talent available to advise them. I also expect them to accept their advice and follow their recommendations and when necessary, to accept their criticism, for to do otherwise is to develop an “arrogance of ignorance.”

CStanley, That's what I mean about you coming across as a condescending ass. Bill Ayers wrote his 'rebuttal' because IT WAS the author of the interview NOT Bill Ayers and NOT me who 'twisted' words. AND now… you are trying to twist mine.

To quote GeorgeSorwell , “Stop putting your words into my mouth.”

—————–

CStanley said: “I don't know how I'd forgotten that before, but just realized that that organization *might* not be the most impartial in judging whether or not the goals and outcome of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge were mainstream and positive on balance (yes, it is the same Annenberg.)“

Your argument that FactCheck.org is not to be trusted is ridiculous but… o.k. let's leave FactCheck out of the equation:

FOXNEWS – Fact Check: Camps highlight foes' old associates

“William Ayers: Forty years ago, Ayers was a founder of the Weather Underground, a radical group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. He was a fugitive for years with his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn. But after Ayers surrendered in 1980, the charges against him were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Eventually, Ayers became a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, specializing in education reform and even advising Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

In 1995, Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate session at his home for Obama as he prepared to run for the state Senate. Later, the two worked with the same charity and social-service organizations in Chicago.

Obama has tried to minimize his link to Ayers, at one point saying he was just a guy who lived in the same neighborhood. But while there was more to the relationship than that, there is no evidence they were ever close friends or that Ayers advised Obama on policy. Obama has denounced Ayers' violent activities, which occurred when Obama was a child.”

AND…

CNN Factcheck

“There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now “palling around,” or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.”

—————–

CStanley says: “I am going to point you to something that I believe indicates just how 'mainstream' Bill Ayers now is.“

After reading your link it appears that you believe that someone who believes in “Progressive Education is out of the mainstream.

It seems that you don't have a clue to what the term “Progressive Education” means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_progressivism

is a pedagogical movement that began in the late nineteenth century and has persisted in various forms to the present. More recently, it has been viewed as an alternative to the test-oriented instruction legislated by the No Child Left Behind educational funding act.

The term “progressive” was engaged to distinguish this education from the traditional curriculum of the 19th century, which was rooted in classical preparation for the university and strongly differentiated by socioeconomic level. By contrast, progressive education finds its roots in present experience, is more democratic in outlook, and looks forward. Most progressive education programs have these qualities in common:
<ul>
<li>Emphasis on learning by doing – hands-on projects, experiential learning</li>
<li>Integrated curriculum focused on thematic units</li>
<li>Strong emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking</li>
<li>Group work and development of social skills</li>
<li>Understanding and action as the goals of learning as opposed to rote knowledge</li>
<li>Collaborative and cooperative learning projects</li>
<li>Education for social responsibility and democracy</li>
<li>Integration of community service and service learning projects into the daily curriculum</li>
<li>Selection of subject content by looking forward to ask what skills will be needed in future society</li>
<li>De-emphasis on textbooks in favor of varied learning resources</li>
<li>Emphasis on life-long learning and social skills</li>
<li>Assessment by evaluation of child’s projects and productions</li>
</ul>

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-pa...

Note that although I'm linking to a rightwing blog, the source of the material is easily verified as being a (very) leftwing source, and you can click through to see that nothing's been taken out of context or distorted (I'm actually only providing the link to the rightwing blog's post because it has highlighting which points directly to the point I'm trying to make.) Here you see Ayers' own words when he's speaking to members of the Communist party, and the way he characterizes his education goals is quite a bit different than what you'll read in the Chicago media, or in MSM sources.I don't know how else to reconcile all of his words and actions other than to assume that he does hold far left wing views, including a desire to indoctrinate schoolchildren with those views, but he speaks blatantly about it to far left people and uses much different language when talking about his goals to more mainstream people.

Note that the main focus of this interview also disputes the theme that's been touted where Ayers is considered completely acceptable by the community in which he works. The main questions in the interview focuses on Ayers being disinvited from an important education summit because he was too radical even for the progressives who were organizing the meeting.

Oh, and an extreme conflict of interest just crossed my radar screen when I realized that the Factcheck article that's being quoted in the main post here is from an organization that's full title is “Annenberg Political Fact Check.” I don't know how I'd forgotten that before, but just realized that that organization *might* not be the most impartial in judging whether or not the goals and outcome of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge were mainstream and positive on balance (yes, it is the same Annenberg.)

Now that you've presented this letter of rebuttal, all I can say is there's a discrepency between his initial statement (which specifically said he didn't regret the bombings) and his later ones presented here. It's not my place to judge how or why someone would contradict himself in that way, though I imagine the dates of the two statements might explain it (despite the fact that Obama didn't seem to notice the 9/11 article, a lot of other people did and you can bet that Ayers wasn't popular even among his friends for having been quoted on the day of the worst terrorist attack on US soil in our history as saying that he personally didn't regret his own history of terrorist acts.)

If you're going to accuse me of twisting other people's arguments and 'melting away' (WTF? I'm one of the people who attempts to always come back to these discussions to answer questions that people have raised to my points- if I miss a few now and then, excuse me for not being at my computer 24-7), can you at least provide an example of when you feel that I've discussed in bad faith?

What right wing-nut conspiracy theories do you feel that I adhere to?

Over the last few weeks you've tried to put words into the mouths of other TCV posters; intentionally ignored links to reputable sites that disprove your wing-nut conspiracy theories; and, when called on for your condescending smart ass posts you just melt into another thread without the courtesy of an explanation or reply.

I don't mind debating issues but you seem to be going out of your way to shut down any reasonable discussion.

When asked point blank if he would again take part in bombing the Pentagon, he said “I would not want to rule it out.”

Even the quote that you claim is being misused says that he does not regret setting bombs- not as you claim, that he doesn't regret protesting the war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...

Let's look at the factcheck piece…which boils down to dismissing any concerns about Ayers because he'd been accepted as mainstream.

OK, so Mayor Daley says he's no longer a radical leftist and that is supposed to convince me?

And an education journal describes the Annenberg project as mainstream and that dismisses any possibility that the project had a liberal agenda (Baltimore based education journals are hardly expected to have a centrist or conservative perspective, and what educators would be crazy enough to look a 50 million dollar gifthorse in the mouth??)

Then there's mention of two Republicans involved- one of whom was the GOP governor at the time the grant was announced (yeah, I'm sure he was reading all of the proposal and Ayers writings on education, rather than responding to his state getting a huge grant that he could claim as a positive for education reform in his state- I'm sure it would have been politically quite popular for him to have said, “No thanks, we can't accept that grant because the project has an agenda other than improving academics for our kids.” That would have gone over well, I'm sure.

And one other board member is mentioned who is Republican and is supporting McCain. So we aren't to believe that someone can be moderate or conservative on some issues but OK with a liberal education project?

I've already rebutted the stupid assertion about Annenberg himself- a foundation like that makes a grant offer on a broad goal, and that person then is not going to be the one who reads the proposals that are submitted so it's HIGHLY unlikely that Annenberg actually selected Ayers to be the leader of the Chicago branch of this project.

As for Ayers himself, anyone who questions his radicalism should read some of his work, including recent writings and his speech praising Hugo Chavez. This is not someone who espouses mainstream politics, believe me.

Obama was the leader of the CAC- the chair of the board. Ask yourself this- if this was a project that was a) successful and b) had goals that mainstream Americans would support, then why did Obama NEVER talk about his long involvement at the head of the project? It was never even mentioned in his two books, and he never brought it up as part of his resume.

Ricorun- perhaps you might look at some sources that are a LITTLE bit more critical of CAC, rather than their own reporting of it and Newsweek (which has been completely in the tank for Obama?) As Joe G. says, it will not give you brain cancer to read other points of view instead of just trying to reinforce your own beliefs.

As I've said repeatedly, for me it's not just the terrorist thing (although I can see why John McCain himself may be personally offended that Obama won't completely disown Ayers, as McCain was um, somewhat adversely affected by the actions of militant war protestors in the 70s. Would Obama not find it offensive if McCain really did have ties to George Wallace or someone of his ilk?)

But aside from that, to me this is about Ayers' radicalism and what it says about Obama that he feels this person is mainstream- and the fact that Obama has been completely opaque about that by deflecting any attention given to this part of his past and other things that suggest a similar far left leaning on several issues (education being one of them.)

Anyway, this Newsweek article (which I came across on the Annenberg site) I think does a pretty good job examining the issue.

The statement, “Ayers was a domestic terrorist who is “not repentant” for his acts” is patently FALSE… The 'quote' (sic) the right keeps using is a snippet taken totally out of context. The ONLY thing Ayers said he wasn't sorry for was his opposition to the war… PERIOD.

To quote DLS… “[sigh]“

In all fairness, I do not see that McCain was affected by brushes with Keating or Liddy– (after the initial offense with Keating of course). In fact, he seemed galvanized enough by the experience to sponsor a comprehensive bill which attempted to rein in that kind of activity. It would be nice if those on the right who are evaluating Ayers-Obama would go beyond “palling with terrorists” and look at actual influence.