The intent was to turn the Chicago Public School system into a totalitarian Madrassa. They largely succeeded. An informed and educated citizenry is the backbone of the Madisonian Republic. An ignorant and indoctrinated citizenry is the foundation of a Lennist-based Fascist state.

jerryofva on October 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM

That’s the essence of a key policy issue raised by CAC-Ayers-Obama. Do we want a President who supports turning public schools into Madrassas of the radical left?

Failure to answer means that you know the answer is negative.

As usual you try to evade the issue. Kurtz didn’t make it up and you know it. Simple question: Did the CAC, operating under Obama’s stewardship, make a positive contribution to the education of Chicago’s Children yes or no?

Failure to answer means that you the answer is no.

Independents (the undecided) could care less about a religious zealot

It’s not about religion, it’s about racism and anti-Americanism, and it’s about whom Obama chose to include in his inner circle for the majority of his adult life.

Wright played out in March and April when many people were not listening, particularly independents who did not vote in the democrat primary.

cmptrnerd on October 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM

You are wasting your time this Tom Shipley guy has been led to the facts many times, but he refuses to read or comprehend what he reads.
Believe me, you are wasting your time, he won’t change his mind and he doesn’t care about facts.

That the stupidest example of moral equivalence I’ve seen since the most recent time I’ve heard a clip of Obama speaking.

BuckeyeSam on October 14, 2008

Now you know why he’s an Obama supporter. One can’t be that smart in the first place for supporting him, but it takes an especially stupid person to make arguments like this to try and justify Obama and his radical associations.

And Wright is an issue. The Wright info broke several months ago during the primaries when many weren’t paying attention, so it is very likely that folks didn’t give it much thought, or have forgotten about it. It’s time for a reminder. His associations with radical socialists/marxists is extremely relevant to the economic crisis because it shows that Obama is likely of the same mindset. Do we really want an anti-capitalist socialist in charge of “fixing” the economy? No, we don’t.

McCain, stop letting the media and Obama supporters run your campaign. Say what needs to be said. What are they going to do, call you a racist? Oh, the horror. Newsflash: they already are calling you a racist. Here’s another newsflash: folks are tired of everything being called racist. Use it to your advantage.

If the object is to move voters, we need three things from Kurtz, IMO.

What does a day in the life of a South Shore African Village Collaborative student look like? Until parents sit up and say “Whoa, that’s not what I want my kids learning in school!” the Ayers/Obama ideological approach to education simply won’t resonate deeply with the electorate.

We are not talking about Afrocentric add-ons to traditional education, like Black History month. Nor is it limited to revised textbooks which include more emphasis on the achievements of African American individuals and their role as a force in American history. We are talking about the wholesale subsitution of a political curriculum in place of education as we know it. As newly elected Vice President for curriculum at AERA, the largest association of professional educators in the country, Ayers is now in a position to pursue that agenda.

We are also not talking about elective studies at the college level, we are talking about political indoctrination which starts in elementary school and continues till High Scholl graduation. We need to be told in no uncertain terms precisely what and how Ayers’ teachers are being trained to teach.

Kurtz assumes that his readers will understand “Afrocentricism” as an ideological reference. It is just as likely to be interpreted as racist code and it will certainly be condemned as such by at least half the politicians in the country and most of the press. Without concrete, dramatic examples of what Ayers’ programs look like on the ground, Kurtz’ investigative reporting will simply never get any serious public traction. We may get it, but we’re not the ones who need to be persuaded that this is truly toxic stuff. Kurtz’ scholarly approach is a solid, necessary first step, but we need a lot more ammunition to make the public case, and alas, we may simply have too few investigators of is caliber to provide it.

Your opponents have won the debate if you allow them to define the terms used in that debate.

*

Can you imagine if McCain said “Black folks’ need stifles the global economy”? They’d go nuts.

And just an aside MarkTheGreat, when Tammy Bruce said yesterday that she used to place plants in the GOP rally audiences or knew the Dems did that, then I knew for sure my gut feeling was right on the shouters at the McCain rallies WERE FOR SURE plants. No doubt about it. Something else to add to your list of what Obama did have control over.

See, this is classic Kurtz. He says in that story that they turned down requests for groups that focus on math and science to serve as external partners. But i scanned the list a few months ago of the list of external partners (there were about 50 of them) and saw at least one that, through it’s name, showed it was a group that taught math and/or science.

I would have to look more into this, but it seemed to me that Kurtz was being intentionally misleading. He stated groups that taught math and science were turned down by the CAC, but it also looks to me that there were some that were accepted. So, while it is true that SOME were turned down, the inference was that ALL were. And I don’t think that was the case.

Then McCain=nutjobs showing up at rallies shouting terrorist/traitor/off with his head.

cornfedbubba on October 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM

McCain has no control over who shows up at his rallies.

Obama can and did have control over which church he chose to attend.
Obama can and did have control over who he chose to associate with.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Jaibones on October 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Reminds me of a seen from “Bruce Almighty”.

1) Wright first broke on the seen while only hard core Democrats and Republicans were paying any attention to the race.

2) You discount the short attention span of most voters. Anything that happened three or four months ago has long since rolled off of the attention meter.

McCain needs to put out some recap commercials to remind people of what has gone on before.

cornfedbubba on October 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I believe it more likely that was an Obama supporter or a code pinko and I expect to see more of this type of tacit at McCain and Palin public appearances.

Texas Gal on October 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, and cornfedbubba ain’t no corn fed bubba. He/she is some arugula eating, latte-drinking, Obamabot, who lives in some nice suburb and has nothing better to do all day than morally equivocate about McCain’s associations. Douche!

Wright may help paint a better picture, but it brings a lot of baggage — and most people have already learned of Wright’s rantings and calculated them into their evaluation of Obama.

I’ve heard this asserted a lot recently, but how do we know this is true? Wright was an “issue” in March and was put to bed in April when Obama finally disavowed him. Plenty of folks were tuned out during the primaries, particularly if they were not registered to vote in the democrat primary, and may not have really registered the significance and extent of Obama’s relationship with Wright.