[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, they offer up the facts...

Quote:
Summary
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.

Let's take this statement as an example. Look at the exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Obama back in April:

Stephanopoulos: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

Technically, everything Obama said MAY be true, but his response is clearly misleading based upon what he left out. In fact, Hillary had to bring up his service on the Woods Board with Ayers. He never mentioned the Annenberg Challenge at all.

Next thing you know you'll tell me that you find his response about not knowing how Jeremiah Wright felt about the U.S. Government (and, *gasp*, white people) plausible and believable.

The man lacks credibility.

In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.

it rests on what "pals around" entails. to be a "pal" one must have a recurring social relationship, and there has been NO evidence of ANY of these activities between obama and ayers.

I think "paling around" is a stretch based upon what we know so far, but no more of a stretch than FactCheck asserting that "so far as is known, their relationship was never very close." If that's not begging the question, I don't know what is. That's not a "fact check". That's a naked opinion without any factual substantiation.

And McCain's description of them as associates is clearly accurate.

the facts above support the conclusion that the annenberg challenge was not "radical"

From Kurtz: "CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)"

Maybe you think ACORN is a pretty mainstream organization?