A radical concept of honesty

Politifact offers a masterful takedown of GOP allegations linking Barack Obama, William Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge:

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers’ involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.

This attack is false, but it’s more than that – it’s malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there’s ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That’s Pants on Fire wrong.

Absolutely. This whole concept of "guilt by association" is tiresome, unserious and completely dishonest, particularly for those who generously give their time to other public charity boards. Even the use of the word "radical" has been misappropriated in yet another bit of campaign chicanery.

But it's an ironic - and consistent - course of action for a flailing campaign that has demanded "candor and truthfulness with the American people" on the Ayers issue. Instead, we'd all do well to demand the same from these accusers in their dozen (or so) glass houses.