The New York Times attempts to dismiss the notion that Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers have a close relationship. But read closely the article raises more questions than it settles, many of which have been more thoroughly investigated by Stanley Kurtz’s NRO columns and other writings. McCain touched on the issue once a few months ago but failed to follow through on it.
As vital as it is for the McCain campaign and its supporters to focus on facts and ask pointed questions, it is also incumbent on our side to shoot down crazy allegations, which are readily refuted and discredit those raising the real problems of Obama’s associations. In a recent talk WSJ reporter John Fund referred to Obama as a potential "facilitator president"--one who would appear moderate but make possible the wildest dreams of the most extreme leftists, through funding their non-profits or appointment to lower-level government positions.
Update:
Stanley Kurtz skewers the article on NRO today.
Note to Ken Thomas from RNC: now is the time to run that hachet piece on Obama and Ayers and reverend Wright. In fact, anything you have been saving, use it now. Affairs, financial stuff, Rezko, something Michelle wrote in high school (hey, it goes to character!), anything.
This is what heroes with honor and integrity do. A true patriot will always try to change the subject by smearing his opponents character, particularly during time of crisis.
By the way, a week or so ago you said you were working on a big smack down on the Communist Negro. When will that be coming out?
Really pretty despicable. Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama might have terrorist sympathies? That he might want to bomb the Pentagon? Or do you just think it's ok to say and do absolutely anything in order to get your man in the White House? I'm not sure which is worse.