Here are three pieces that suggest to me that Ayers is in fact that radical. Two are by Sol Stern at City Journal, and one is Ayers' own words (I referenced this earlier).

If these things are accurate portrayals of Bill Ayers' education agenda- and I haven't found anything to the contrary- then why is it not fair for those of us who find that agenda completely unacceptable to ask what Obama thinks of these ideas? By choosing to work with Ayers- being picked as the chair of the board of Ayers' pet project- and then while on that board and other boards giving funds to several of Ayers' projects (which brings up another problem I have with all of this, the self dealing- but that's a separate issue), Obama shows signs of endorsing Ayers' education agenda. There are also several people who were involved in this and other projects who are now Obama's education advisors.

And on top of that, Obama has stressed how important his education agenda will be- to the point that he specifically mentioned that he will not cut back on his goals for education even in the face of the current economic crisis (the question he was asked at one of the debates, on whether or not he will scale back any of his proposals.) This is obviously a big issue for him, yet he's hardly been asked to elaborate on his views on education- and his record shows this involvement with left wing radical education programs. Aren't the voters entitled to know where he stands on those programs? I assume that his views might not be as radical as Ayers' are- but where do his views end and Ayers' begin?

You don't think it's odd that not a single reporter or debate moderator thought to ask him that question?

Oh, and I did mean to address something that George brought up- I am glad that you took the time to look through those reports, Pete. What I'm objecting to is that you seem to have specifically sought to rebut every point that Kurtz made, and in doing so you're simply putting the opposite slant on the information from what he gave. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle (and frankly, I didn't find that Kurtz was trying to make mountains out of molehills- he didn't seem to be claiming that the projects funded were a complete waste or that all of it was for left wing indoctrination of school kids- he just pointed out some of the negative information (negative from the eyes of a moderate or conservative, that is) which NO ONE ELSE was reporting on.

I have no problem with you going through and finding the counterpoints to those points- but it's the way you chose to write TWO articles ridiculing Kurtz and his conclusions that I find offensive. Had you written something that simply pointed out that Kurtz says A, but B is also true, that would be a lot more fair and accurate.

… the Chicago Annenberg Challenge contributed groundbreaking research to the field of education concerning how to improve schools. By offering support through professional development and technical assistance, teaching and learning improved, the quality and quantity of professional development increased, and the community became more knowledgeable and better equipped to create successful school reform.

That's a pretty damn glowing endorsement attached to the Annenberg name. They might not have known every waking detail of the CAC, but they're more than happy to allow the CAC's results to be lauded under their name.

Kim- what I am looking for specifically is on funding for Bill Ayers' small schools projects- I don't recall the exact amount but he got a good bit of money from CAC and also from the Woods Fund for that project, and in that project Ayers' partner is an avowed Communist named Klonsky. Ayers' own writings and descriptions of the goals of these schools show that they're steeped in left wing activist principles- focusing as much on social justice, critical race theory, and criticisms of capitalism as they do on ordinary academics.

Here's an exchange I found very interesting (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/freed… note how the guy he's corresponding with is a bit more moderate even though he shares some of Ayers' ideas- but Ayers keeps pushing for a more radical left wing agenda in the schools.

BTW, Sol Stern of City Journal has also published a lot of good articles on Ayers' education philosophy if you are interested.

And finally (I really do need to run), I'll again remind you of what my actual complaint is here. Ayers may well represent the left fringe of what is considered acceptable in Chicago politics and in the education community. He may well work together with people more to the center left and may have done some good work through the years.

But hasn't it occurred to anyone to ask why Obama has downplayed his work with Ayers, and why he never even talks about his work with the CAC? If it was all that his supporters seem to think it was, then it should be a project that he'd be very proud of. It is, after all, a major education initiative that he chaired- and thus his main claim to having any executive type experience. Why is he downplaying it? Any why are voters wrong to want to know more about it?

Perhaps the complaints I have of far left politicization of the school system aren't warranted when the project is taken as a whole. If that's the case, then why aren't people more forthcoming with information about it instead of ridiculing people like Stanley Kurtz?

If a GOP candidate had as little experience and little time on the national scene as Obama has had, then wouldn't you feel you had a right to know about what he'd been doing before he came on the national scene? And if he came from a community that was steeped in far right wing politics, wouldn't you ask to what extent he agreed with the politics of those he'd associated with then?

When they specifically feel the need to note that:
? All participating sites in the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform were locally controlled and locally governed.

? The Annenberg Foundation was not directly involved in the daily operations of any of the 18 challenge sites. This includes, but is not limited to: programming, staffing, or board composition.

? Work related to programs, fundraising and development, research, and evaluation at individual Challenge sites during the grant period was undertaken through the local Challenge entities.

That seems a bit to me like they're trying to put some distance between the Foundation and the operation of the CAC, no?

Net: It seems the Annenberg family does not think there was anything going on at the CAC that would prompt them to change the praise for CAC that's published online with their family name attached to it. So I guess there are people who can both support McCain and find good in the CAC. For whatever that's worth.

As to derision, anyone can go back over to the original post and count how many of your own comments toward me (and others) are derisive. Right?

Further, you went out of your way toward the end of that comment thread to make this offer, quoting your own words here: “If you wish for me to try to track down proof of that I will”. I was asking you to do that. Then I was waiting for you to come through. Perhaps you find that impatient, but I need to point out that at no time did I put up a comment to the effect of “crickets chirping” or any such nonsensical note of triumphalism. And I don't understand your need to imply that's what I did. I ended by leaving the ball in your court. Maybe you should cease making offers of proof you will be unable to fulfill.

As to my point about Wikipedia–and all this right there for anyone or everyone who cares to read those comments for themselves–I explained why I couldn't link directly to the newspaper articles: Because nothing but abstracts, at best, were available on the internet. I even linked to one of the abstracts. In short, I did more than just link to the Wikipedia. And I also conceded the limitations of my sources. If you think all newspapers are biased to begin with, you don't have to accept what they have to say.

There's also a larger point. You requested that Pete read, consider and respond to your lengthy data dump. And when he spends his time doing just that, you dismiss his response in a few words as being meaningless. If it was going to be meaningless, maybe you could have spared him the time. If the only thing that matters is that Obama has an association with Ayers who is so radical that any association disqualifies Obama, why not just admit that?

All I'm saying is that I think we shouldn't attribute bad intentions when lack of time is the most common explanation (I always hate it, for instance, when someone posts something and then comes back a few hours later and writes 'crickets chirping' or something similar, as though the other people he/she were debating with can't possibly be away from their computers for a period of time, it MUST be that they can't think of a good comeback.)

Um, I wasn't aware that there was an Annenberg on the ballot, Pete. I assure you that if I was being asked to pull the lever for a Republican who had backed this project, I'd more carefully scrutinize the connections and motivations there. Fair enough?

In turn, what I did was nothing more than conduct a careful analysis of what you provided me. And that analysis demonstrates how ridiculously partisan and skewed Kurtz's analysis is. Re-read your own source materials, in particular the item you specifically called out for me, Russo's report. If you do that, and do it with an open mind — as I tried to do — you simply won't find support for the politically-charged accusations made by Kurtz.

If you insist support for Kurtz is in the other source materials, then why are you not demanding similar scrutiny of the radicalness in Republicans who bellied up to Annenberg? Are you being so selective in your own analysis that you refuse to consider the references — time and time again — to the synergies between the CAC and Anneberg? Their philosophies meshed like hand-in-glove. If Ayers/Obama/CAC were radical, then so was the Republican-friendly Annenberg.

You can't have it both ways. You can't voice doubts about the education-reform strategies of Ayers/CAC/Obama without simultaneously expressing the same doubts about Anneberg/Republicans/McCain.

I just noticed also that Georgesorwell apparently was calling for me to supply some proof other than what he called a 'document dump' since the primary source material is so lengthy- but then if none of us have time to read through all of that (and ideally, there should be reading of documents that would be written from an impartial angle or alternatively, from two different sources with one being sympathetic to the CAC and another more critical of it) then we either accept someone's conclusions drawn from it or we throw up our hands and say “who knows, and thus who cares?”

CStanley is referring to this post.

What I asked her to do is read the material and–quoting the actual words I wrote–”cite chapter and verse”.

In short, I asked her to do what Pete did here.

From my study of these documents, two notable observations emerged, neither of which (I assume) will make the aforementioned TMV commenter very happy: First, Kurtz repeatedly and blatantly ignores information that is not supportive of his premise, raising serious questions about the validity of his larger effort. Second, it can be reasonably argued that the views held by CAC/Ayers were “radical right” instead of “radical left.”

Because all you've done is what you accuse Kurtz of in reverse. Instead of ignoring information that doesn't fit Kurtz's premise, you ignore the information that does and then cherry pick things that fit your own premise.

And therein lies the problem, I guess. I just noticed also that Georgesorwell apparently was calling for me to supply some proof other than what he called a 'document dump' since the primary source material is so lengthy- but then if none of us have time to read through all of that (and ideally, there should be reading of documents that would be written from an impartial angle or alternatively, from two different sources with one being sympathetic to the CAC and another more critical of it) then we either accept someone's conclusions drawn from it or we throw up our hands and say “who knows, and thus who cares?”

As for your conclusion that the agenda could be considered radical right instead of radical left- isn't that pretty much a given, that radical agendas on each side of the spectrum often share some characteristics? I don't see how that exonerates Ayers from actually having a radical left perspective, or Obama for having worked to execute that agenda.