'Obama Action Wire' member responds to questions about the candidate's ties to radicals and terrorist groups

I happened to be in the WGN studios for the entire affair because my friend, Zack Christenson, produces the show in question. He was aware of my previous reporting on the Obama-Ayers connection and kindly invited me to sit in on the two-hour interview. (For full disclosure, I work for two other radio stations in Chicago, WIND, and WYLL).

As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign "which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points" had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.

Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."

Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.

One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.

As Rosenberg repeatedly pointed out that Team Obama had been offered the opportunity to take part in the conversation, the agitated masses adapted their argument to suggest it was outrageous to request an interview from the Obama campaign in the thick of the DNC. Delivering the line of the night, Rosenberg countered, "The Obama national headquarters is just down the street from here. They obviously have the time to send out these angry emails, but they can't walk a few blocks to our studios?"

Throughout the open-line segments, Rosenberg and Kurtz wore incredulous expressions. The hostile callers were so bereft of any legitimate argument, there was little to do but sit back and marvel at what was going on.

The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign's recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement 'which also happened to feature Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist' last night's call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama's unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a "smear," and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs.

Stanley Kurtz is poring through mounds of documents (access to which was initially blocked) in a public university's library that (a) establish a deeper link between a major party presidential nominee and a man who is proud of bombing US government buildings, and (b) shed light on said candidate's brief, unexplored executive experience. It's entirely understandable why the Obama campaign would prefer that the files remain out of the public eye until at least November 5, but Kurtz's careful research is completely within the bounds of reasonable inquiry. One might even argue it's vital that a man who may be the next leader of the free world be thoroughly vetted.

Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.

If anyone still believes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine isn't a top priority for the American Left, last night's example offered a stark and alarming wake-up call. Still not convinced? For goodness sake, read Jonah's book.

For the podcast of the full show CLICK HERE

#####

Obama Campaign Tries to Shut Down Chicago Radio Show, By Warner Todd Huston NEWSBUSTERS.com

Members of Barack Obama's campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City's most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn't like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama's ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party's nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois.

Show host Milt Rosenberg [1], the station's only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obama's ties to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to appear. At the same time, Rosenberg's producer contacted the Obama campaign's HQ -- which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago -- to offer some time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz' claims about Obama and Ayres. The campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.

After the refusal of host Rosenberg's offer to appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The Chicago Tribune has the full text [2]) to drum up protests of the radio station, which said in part...

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and told people to call and protest Kurtz' appearance. The email also lied to its supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal time.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the Obama campaign's rebuttal to Kurtz' work.

Then, in compliance with the Obama campaign's email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of Obama supporters nation wide.

Now, Dr. Rosenberg's show is one of the most intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of the English language as well as one on the year's best literary offerings. Like I said, exploitation radio he ain't.

So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just as outrageous is the Obama campaign's obvious desire to destroy free political speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama presidency would impose on the country?

#####

Source URL:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/08/28/obama-campaign-tries-shut-down-chicago-radio-show

######

Barack Obama, Aspiring Commissar, By the Editors

While the Obama coronation proceeds apace in Denver, it is in Chicago that Americans are getting a disturbing demonstration of his thuggish methods of stifling criticism.

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Harvard-educated social anthropologist and frequent contributor to National Review, among other publications. He is widely respected for his meticulous research and measured commentary. For months, he has been doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do: examining the background and public record of Barack Obama, the first-term senator Democrats are about to make their nominee for president despite the shallowness of his experience and achievement.

Kurtz has written extensively, and with characteristic attention to factual detail, about Obama's early career as a 'community organizer,' his cultivation of benefactors in the most radical cauldrons of Chicago politics, his long-time pastor's immersion in Black Liberation Theology, his ties to anti-American zealots, and the years in the Illinois state legislature this self-styled agent of change spent practicing the by-the-numbers left-wing politics of redistribution and race-consciousness, remaining soft on crime and extreme on abortion.

This has led Kurtz, naturally, to scrutinize the relationship between Obama and one of his early political sponsors, William Ayers. Ayers, as we have previously detailed, is a confessed terrorist who, having escaped prosecution due to surveillance violations that came to light during his decade on the lam after a bombing spree, landed an influential professorship in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). As he has made clear several times before and after helping to launch Obama's political career, Ayers remains defiantly proud of bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other targets. He expresses regret only that he didn't do more. Far from abandoning his radical politics, he has simply changed methods: the classroom, rather than the detonator, is now his instrument for campaigning against an America he portrays as racist and imperialist.

Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a 'smear' and smacks of 'guilt by association.' A presidential candidate's choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event' does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?

But we are talking about more than a mere 'association.'

Bluntly, Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers, whom he now dismisses as 'a guy who lives in my neighborhood.' Ayers and Obama have made joint appearances together; they have argued together for 'reforms' of the criminal justice system to make it more criminal-friendly; Obama gushed with praise for Ayers' 1997 polemical book on the Chicago courts; and they sat together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing enterprise that distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their ideological allies. Most significant, they worked closely together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

The CAC was a major education reform project, proposed by Ayers, which was underwritten by a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, complemented by another $100 million in private and public funding. The project ran for about five years, beginning in 1995. As the liberal researcher Steve Diamond has recounted, Ayers ran its operational arm, the 'Chicago School Reform Collaborative.' Obama, then a 33-year-old, third-year associate at a small law firm, having no executive experience, was brought in to chair the board of directors, which oversaw all 'fiscal matters.'

By the time the CAC's operations were wound down in 2001 it had doled out more than $100 million in grants but had failed to achieve any improvement in the Chicago schools. What little is known about the grants Obama oversaw is troubling. As Diamond relates, one of the first CAC awards in 1995 was $175,000 for the 'Small Schools Workshop,' which had been founded by Ayers and was then headed by Mike Klonsky. It was only the beginning of the CAC's generous funding of Klonsky a committed Maoist who had been an Ayers comrade in the radical Students for a Democratic Society (the forerunner of Ayers' Weatherman terrorist organization), and who hosted a 'social justice' blog on the Obama campaign website until his writings were hastily purged in June after Diamond called attention to them.

The CAC records, said to comprise 70 linear feet of files, have long been maintained at the library of the UIC, the public university where Ayers teaches. This summer, Kurtz made an appointment to review them and, after being assured access, was blocked from seeing them by library administrators, who stammered about needing permission from the 'donor' whom they declined to identify. Kurtz energetically raised public awareness to the stonewalling, and the library finally relented this week. That is, as Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democrats' nomination tonight, the records of his only significant executive experience just became available for review on Tuesday.

Kurtz began his review, and on Wednesday was invited on Milt Rosenberg's radio program to discuss it. Rosenberg is a Chicago institution. His program, Extension 720, has aired for more than 30 years a civil forum where knowledgeable guests from across the political spectrum discuss important issues in revealing two-hour interviews. What happened Wednesday night was stunning, as even the normally unflappable Rosenberg observed.

The Obama campaign, which has emissaries appearing everywhere â€" declined Rosenberg's invitation to have a representative appear on the program and respond to Kurtz's factual assertions. The campaign did, however, issue an 'Obama Action Wire' that encouraged supporters to contact the program (telephone information was provided) and use scripted 'talking points' to disrupt Kurtz's appearance, which it deemed 'unacceptable.' As the Politico's Ben Smith reported, the campaign also urged supporters to demand that Rosenberg scrap the appearance of Kurtz, whom the campaign libeled as a 'smear-merchant' and a 'slimy character assassin.' The rant was reminiscent of the work of the left-wing media 'watch-dog' Media Matters for America.

Other than denigrating Kurtz for being conservative, Obama’s operatives have provided no response to the substance of his claims. In their only pretense of engaging him, they accuse him of telling 'a flat out lie' that Ayers recruited Obama for the CAC. Though it is a reasonable inference that Ayers recruited Obama, the careful Kurtz has stopped short of making it observing only that Obama offers no explanation of how he was recruited if not through Ayers, his friend and the CAC's driving force.

The station, WGN, has made a stream of the broadcast available online, here, and it has to be heard to be believed. Obama's robotic legions dutifully jammed the station's phone lines and inundated the program with emails, attacking Kurtz personally. Pressed by Rosenberg to specify what inaccuracies Kurtz was guilty of, caller after caller demurred, mulishly railing that 'we just want it to stop,' and that criticism of Obama was 'just not what we want to hear as Americans.' Remarkably, as Obama sympathizers raced through their script, they echoed the campaign's insistence that it was Rosenberg who was 'lowering the standards of political discourse' by having Kurtz on, rather than the campaign by shouting him down.

Kurtz has obviously hit a nerve. It is the same nerve hit by the American Issues Project, whose television ad calling for examination of the Obama/Ayers relationship has prompted the Obama campaign to demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation.

Obama fancies himself as 'post-partisan.' He is that only in the sense that he apparently brooks no criticism. This episode could be an alarming preview of what life will be like for the media should the party of the Fairness Doctrine gain unified control of the federal government next year.

####

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmUwOTllNmMzZDNlMTljMGFmY2JkZTllYmQyOTY0ODY=

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format