« How to handle the crisis in your 401K | Main | Sorry for the light blogging »

The five is alive

07 Oct 2008 07:58 am

Ta-Nehisi, like many liberals, likes the Obama campaign's new Keating 5 video:

Don't know what to make of this. Part of me thinks it's stronger than the Wright/Ayers stuff because it's a personal attack with substance and policy behind it. In other words, it goes hard at McCain, but it also keeps the economy in the conversation. It's not just a random insult.

I have no doubt that this will hurt McCain.  But here's the problem with it:  John McCain regrets the Keating 5.  Indeed, you could say that his entire subsequent career has been one long apology for it. Repudiating what happened has formed the cornerstone of his current career; in a very real sense, it was the father of McCain-Feingold.

Now, I don't like the lessons that McCain seems to have taken from his extremely minor connection to the events of the S&L crisis (even Democrats from the time seem to admit that he was basically just thrown to the wolves to make it look like the Democrats weren't the only ones who had screwed the pooch).  And in fact I think that the Ayers connection is too tenuous to be interesting.  But there is a nugget of a real critique at its heart, which is that the academic culture Obama belongs to thinks its just fine to be a former active terrorist who has refused to renounce support for the violence committed by his group; that culture has rewarded Bill Ayers with prestigious employment and other positions in a way that it wouldn't dream of rewarding a similarly "idealistic" abortion clinic bomber.  I know it's hard to imagine, but if you're conservative, that seems like a real problem.

The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now.   That refusal to apologize is why the charge has proven hard to counter.  You can argue that it isn't a big deal, but you can't argue it isn't true, and unfortunately for Obama, some voters think it is a really big deal.

If I were the McCain campaign, I would be throwing a hell of a lot of resources into making my own video.  They have an actual factually accurate and coherent narrative about how McCain has spent the last 20 years atoning for the Keating 5; I would tell that story.  I would ask why Obama is choosing to bring up this 20 year old scandal without mentioning that McCain has repeatedly regretted it.  And then I would throw in Ayers and Rezko and ask when Obama's going to apologize for his lapses in judgement.

Comments (270)

But here's the problem with it: John McCain regrets the Keating 5. Indeed, you could say that his entire subsequent career has been one long apology for it. Repudiating what happened has formed the cornerstone of his current career; in a very real sense, it was the father of McCain-Feingold.

Actually, according to the McCain campaign as of yesterday, John McCain did nothing wrong in the Keating 5 incident and it was nothing more than a "political smear job."

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/mccain-now-saying-keating-five-scandal.html

You can also find plenty of McCain surrogates running around announcing that McCain was scapegoated in the investigation and that he was pure as the driven snow. McCain appears to be throwing his own regrets under the bus. (Although, since he threw his own campaign finance reform law under the bus months ago, that's hardly surprising.)

I've almost stopped reading your blog several times in the last few months, but this is why I keep coming back. In spite of your strong, very emotional dislike for McCain, you're still capable of some balance and insight.

Maybe we'll see the same balance soon regarding Palin. Peer pressure is hard to resist, as you've argued many times, but you don't have to lose your objectivity just because the people around you have Palin Derangement Syndrome.

I don't know what kind of "academic culture" they have in Chicago, and I'm not sure to what degree William Ayers as a terrorist (as opposed to a terrorist sympathizer) is over blown. However, I am getting sick of generalizations about "academic culture" and "academic elites". I'm a graduate student, and I can confidently say that an ex-terrorist would not be welcome in the social circles at my institution. I am tired of being told my profession/field is un-American.

As far as the Keating issue goes, I don't see why people are so ready to give McCain a pass on it because he regretted his actions. So what? It was a huge scandal and he was all over the TV for it. Then he spent years regretting it. Is that supposed to impress me?

Also, I don't think its fair to compare Keating to Ayers. Keating was a huge scandal that involved congressional investigations. I know its hard to imagine, but McCain had no choice but to regret his involvement in the Keating affair. By contrast Obama's 'relationship' with Ayers is a non-issue; he can regret it or not regret it and it won't make a difference.

Finally, if McCain's body of work on campaign finance reform is to be held as evidence of atonement for Keating, what does it say about him if he has spent most of this election trying to circumvent the very laws he wrote? It means this is all about political opportunism, not moral atonement.

Actually, based on what his campaign is now saying about the events, he doesn't regret it. He has learned how to pretend that he regrets it, the better to exploit visible public anger at Congress by presenting himself as a maverick, but he doesn't believe he did anything wrong.

"The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now."

Really? I don't think that's true. Just because they demand an apology doesn't mean that they otherwise don't think the association is a problem. In all likelihood, they are only demanding an apology for political reasons, and won't think any better of him if he does apologize. But what do I know, I'm a bomb throwing libruhl elite.

if you're conservative, that seems like a real problem.

Grow a spine. If you think Obama should apologize for Ayers, say so: "I think Obama should apologize for Ayers.". Don't hide behind this cowardly "some say" device.

What Direwolf said..

I'm part of Academia also, and this attack on "Academic Culture" as a monolithic whole has gotten rather old. I think William Ayers was completely misguided and wrong--and most everyone I know does also..

Worse though, is assuming that all academics must think alike. Do you, Megan, apply the same standards to all groups?

Do you look at religious groups--because hey, Operation Rescue is associated with religious groups and also associated with arsons and bombings at abortion clinics--and talk about how "all religious culture is tainted because it refuses to disassociate itself with this person?"

By such a standard, McCain and especially Palin are also accepting of terrorist actions of a small group of people.

Basically, this is poor logic. I guess I'll go back to reading Sully, Coates, and Fallows again... because I have to say that your views on politics really seem off.. kinda like what you, yourself, say about Krugman--good economist, bad at politics.. Heed your own words and stick to economics..

I think you can see conservatives doing similar: tolerating and rewarding hate preachers and those that have raped the constitution and the reputation of the US and maybe caused the torture of GI's.

People that promote violence everywhere ought to be condemned for their views. There is no evidence (as far as I am aware) that Ayers was promoting violence when he was being rehabilitated in liberal circles.

That refusal to apologize is why the charge has proven hard to counter. You can argue that it isn't a big deal, but you can't argue it isn't true, and unfortunately for Obama, some voters think it is a really big deal.

Could we get some evidence for "some voters think it is a really big deal" please? You must be reading The Corner too much if you think that's true.

I also don't see any need to apologize for being friendly with someone who committed crimes 40 years ago. And the extent of their relationship is seriously overblown by people with dishonest motives.

John McCain regrets the Keating 5.

Oh, I guess that makes it ok, then. And when he goes to war with Iran on false pretenses, I'm sure he'll regret that, too.

It's funny, though, that he doesn't seem to regret it enough to not call the Keating 5 investigation a political witchhunt that railroaded a completely blameless John McCain. I'm not quite sure how that works. If he didn't do anything wrong, what does he have to "regret"?

I guess I have Palin Derangement Syndrome. She's a Bircher in terms of her basic attitudes and she's too intellectually lazy to serve at the top of the executive branch. When she was picked I thought McCain should have shored up his economic credentials by picking Romney or Jindal. He didn't, and now he's stuck with her. She's fun to watch and she energizes the base, but otherwise she's useless.

As long as we are asking Obama to apologize for his assocations with somebody that did something when Obama was eight. We should as why Sarah Palin spoke through satellite at the AIP's(Alaska Indpendence Party) convention this is a party that wants to break away from the US, or why Mccain sat on the board of an organazation that was linked to Nazi collaborators and Ultra-right wing death squads. Everyone can play this game, mean while people are losing their houses, 401K plan, health care is in trouble and a 90 year old woman is shooting herself becasue she is about to lose her house.

But known of that concerns you or the right. In the end it is the American people that suffer and if Mccain wins which I think he will I do not want to hear people like you and others complain how bad things are. Why? Becasue you guys decided to vote on smear not issues.

#1- Why should Obama apologize for talking to him? Who made you The Decider? Ayers lives in Chicago, and has met almost everyone there at some time or another. You want the whole city to apologize to you?

#2- You seem to think that if McCain rationally explains away his Keating connection, the American people will say, Oh, that's all right, we get it, you're forgiven, John. But these attack ads are NOT rational, they do not appeal to the rational part of our psyche- That's how that do what they do. Remember the Swift Boat ads? Plus, McCain brought this on himself. Now he's got people screaming "terrorist" and foaming at the mouth whenever he mentions Obama- Palin too. What are they trying to do, win the election or get Obama killed?

What exactly should Obama be apologizing for? There's absolutely no proof that he shares the same ideals that make Ayers a scandalous person.

You connect the "academic culture" that refuses to renounce the activities of Ayers because they don't think anything of it to Obama. Why? What's the point? Is the implication that because he happens to be a member of a community of Hyde Park academic liberals, he somehow brushes Ayers' actions aside? If not, what are you trying to say?

Also, I don't think its fair to compare Keating to Ayers. Keating was a huge scandal that involved congressional investigations. I know its hard to imagine, but McCain had no choice but to regret his involvement in the Keating affair. By contrast Obama's 'relationship' with Ayers is a non-issue; he can regret it or not regret it and it won't make a difference.

The issue with the relationship with Ayers is not that there is any scandal that we know about. The issue is Ayers is apparently still a radical leftist. The fact tha Obama was willing to form s political allinace with him suggests that he may share many of Ayers political views contrary to how he is trying to portray himself.

I also don't see any need to apologize for being friendly with someone who committed crimes 40 years ago.

Nor do I, if the crimes were justified (MLK) OR repudiated (Senator Byrd). I would think that being friendly with Byron de la Beckwith, or William Ayers, is in a somewhat different category.

Megan,

What's appalling about the how Ayers issue is harped on isn't the sensible point that it suggests Obama is a member of an overly relativistic academic culture. It's the hornets nest these accusations are clearly aimed at stirring up. The critics aren't complaining that he tolerates a 60s radical, but that he's FRIENDS with TERRORISTS, and in the post 9/11 world that's a loaded accusation that implies a whole lot more than you suggest. In a campaign season filled with hateful and intolerant rumors that (gasp!) Obama is a secret Muslim, the non-stop harping on Ayers has a purpose beyond highlighting some liberal academic relativism. It's a wink and a whisper hoping to reinforce and spread already rampant intolerant and ignorant ideas and attitudes.

I've got rural friends and family, and let me assure you, that's how it is being heard, and it is working.

Ayers and his wife were both bomb planters and part of a group that murdered several people in the 1970s. Both he and his wife are professors in Chicago. Yes, academia does welcome former terrorists as long as those terrorists are white and leftists. The people writing above may not like that fact but too bad. If you don't like it, take it up with the University of Illinois Chicago. They are the ones who are keeping a convicted terrorist on their faculty and let him remain there after he wrote on 9-11 that he wished he had done more.

The double standard here is appalling. Palin wears a Buchanan button once while governor and it is front page news. Obama gets a free home from a convicted felon, attends a black supremacist hate whitey church from 20 years, and is associated with a terrorist whom he calls a "respectable guy in the neighborhood" for 20+ years and none of that is deemed newsworthy.

McCain has answered any number of questions about the Keating 5. Why can't Obama do the same about Rezko and Ayers? Why can't he sit down with a real journalist who is not in the tank for his campaign and explain his past associations, what he thinks of Rezko, why he took the sweetheart home loan, why he let Ayers and his nasty wife run fund raisers for him, and whether he thinks being associated with them was a mistake? Instead he gets a free pass.

What is going to happen here is a replay of 1992. If Obama wins, once he is safely in office, the media will not be able to ignore the slime in his past anymore just like they couldn't ignore the slime in Clinton's past. We will get a repeat of the 1990s where more and more sleaze flows out of the Whitehouse and everyone yells at each other over it. Only this time it will be racially tinged since once Obama is in office anyone who criticizes him or the government in anyway will be accused of being a racist. Gee, won't that be fun and so good for the country.

O,

The best thing we can do for Muslims is point out that there are plenty of white terrorists like Ayers and that not just Muslims are terrorists. Muslims have a legitimate gripe when they are condemed for being terrorists and then rich white liberals like Ayers and his ilk not only get a free pass but get to hobnob with the elite.

You want to help stop discrimination against Muslims? Fire Ayers and Dorn from their jobs and make Obama apologize for ever being associated with them. Show the world that it is not okay to be terrorist if you are rich and white and leftist.

Jane Fonda apologized for traveling to Hanoi. I haven't noticed conservatives forgiving her for it.

The Bill Ayers thing appeals to a small and dwindling, overwhelmingly male, authoritarian and bloody-minded minority of the American populace. They're not going to be assuaged by apologies from a black man they've already decided is a terrorist. In any case, Obama has nothing to apologize for. McCain had a lot to apologize for in the Keating 5 scandal -- he was bought by a crook.

Do you look at religious groups--because hey, Operation Rescue is associated with religious groups and also associated with arsons and bombings at abortion clinics--and talk about how "all religious culture is tainted because it refuses to disassociate itself with this person?"

I think the point is that radical leftists seem to be able to find a respectable home in academia where as a radical right winger would not. That does not mean that all academics are radical leftists, the culture just seems to be more accepting of them.

Does Eric Rudolph have a job at a state run University? Did he help launch John McCain's career? Ayers has apologized? That is nice. I suppose if Rudolph apologized the left would make nice and give him a tenured track position. Rudoph is rotting in jail for the rest of his life where he ought to be. Ayers and Dorn should be in the cell next door. Instead, they will no doubt be spending a few nights in the Lincoln bedroom. As long as you murder for the left, all will be forgiven in the end.

Does Eric Rudolph have a job at a state run University? Did he help launch John McCain's career? Ayers has apologized? That is nice. I suppose if Rudolph apologized the left would make nice and give him a tenured track position. Rudoph is rotting in jail for the rest of his life where he ought to be. Ayers and Dorn should be in the cell next door. Instead, they will no doubt be spending a few nights in the Lincoln bedroom. As long as you murder for the left, all will be forgiven in the end.

Megan,

The problem with this line of reasoning is that McCain has essentially rescinded his apology in this election cycle, instead saying he did nothing wrong. If Ayers is open to attack because Obama is unapologetic about his association with the man, the same must hold true for McCain and Keating. By your standards Ayers is open to attack, and I think McCain's people have every right to hit that if they want to. But in all his maverickyness, McCain has abandoned his earlier honesty on the subject and claimed that there were nothing to the charges, which using your reasoning opens up that line of attack to the Obama campaign.

Actually Megan Obama did condemn Ayer's actions in the 60's and 70's so I'm not sure which 'he' you mean by 'he doesn't regret it'? I take it you mean Ayers who has said he still thinks he was right to bomb a statute BUT the problem is Ayers isn't running for anything.

You're beef with 'academic culture' is valid but only to a degree. Ayers, IMO, glided back into mainstream society through a few openings:

1. He has a rich Republican father who was able to use his influence to help his son buy his way back into respectable society.

2. Since he was never convicted of a crime he doesn't have the taint of a criminal record. Yes I know you'll say OJ but people paid attention to OJ's case!

3. His entry into the mainstream was low key. He became a professor of education, kind of an intellectual backwater and not the place that people who aspire to become world leaders tend to hang out. He did not go after competitive positions (like running for office) but instead served on charity boards and other 'ho hum do gooder' type of activities. Likewise his brief writings (except for his mostly unread autobiography) were the usual 'ho hum let's have better education' stuff that let him be published in major newspapers as an 'activist' or 'education professor'.

IMO, by the time Obama arrived on the scene Ayers had already finished his transformation. This is why you won't find any Republican objection to Ayers until it came up in the primaries. No one noticed him sitting on boards, writing the occassional op-ed or having a professorship because by this time Ayers was forgotten (not that he was ever so important to begin with).

Could a Republican have pulled that off? Well there are dubious characters like G Gordon Liddy who seem to have been somewhat accepted today. A while ago there was a famous televangelist who admitted to having gay affairs and he left to study psychology....whose to say he isn't going to turn up as a professor at some mid-rate college somewhere 20 years from now. Could an abortion clinic bomber have pulled this off? I'll admit probably not, although the real deciding factor here seems to be escaping the law. Ayers would have probably have turned out differently if he served 5-10 yrs.

Whatever the issue with Ayers, McCain's sin wasn't that he may have socialized with Keating or been mentored by him, it's that he may have sold influence in exchange for campaign donations. It's not that Keating was a bad guy and McCain was friends with him. It's that he did bad things for Keating as part of his job as Senator.

That's why it's a bit of a leap to go from McCain doing bad things as part of the Keating 5 and whatever crime of association one wishes to pursue regarding Obama.

I think the point is that radical leftists seem to be able to find a respectable home in academia where as a radical right winger would not.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/

"John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), where he has taught since 1993. From 2001-03, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security, and the separation of powers. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96, where he advised on constitutional issues and judicial nominations."

I won't defend Ayers, but John Yoo has been responsible for much more human suffering than Ayers has.

Oh, hi guys!

Can we talk about the $20,000 I lost on my investments this week? Anyone have any ideas on how I can get it back? No?

How 'bout my house? Can I still sell it for what I bought it for 6 years ago? No? Can a qualified buyer get credit to buy it?

What if my car's transmission goes out, and the repair cost basically totals it (it's a 7-year-old SUV)? Can I get a car loan? I have great credit history, really!

Are we going to talk about those things? No?

So instead we're going to keep talking about some obnoxious white professor dude that Barack Obama knew from a charity board? Really? Seriously? That's not really pushing my buttons, so to speak.

Ayers, Schmayers. I'd like to see some regulation in the credit market, please, so that when my fund manager's fund manager's fund manager's stock broker buys stuff, we'll know that it's not just cardboard window dressing. And I'd like to know that MY family's life isn't going to implode because of other people's irresponsibility. How 'bout that? Can we do that?

Get back on topic people. We're turning on each other like in "Lord of the Flies."

1. It's pretty silly to think that Obama could have at any point apologized for having associated with Ayers and then gotten a pass for it. I'm surprised that you believe that.

2. McCain should have just kept up saying that was a long time ago and he was wrong and he apologized. Instead he treated it like it was a witch hunt where he was unfairly smeared. That is basically an unapology.

3. People by and large don't know about the Keating scandal. I know if you are in the know this is just noisy rehashing of ancient history. But most people have no idea that McCain was ever in a scandal and if 'fighting corruption' was something that he was sort of forced into by circumstances and ethical lapses that he's made that is different than the commonly understood narrative of fighting corruption at the expense of his personal ambition.

I don't necessarily think that rehashing Keating is good move either politically or morally. I do however disagree with pretty much every criticism that Megan has of it.

I loved college and being in academia, but...

There really are some things about it that are problemattic and from what I've heard Illinois Universities are among the worst about it. That being it's too tolerant about some things and not tolerant enough of others. I perversely liked being able to take a course from a Chinese professor who lovingly quoted Mao, but I was also slightly unnerved by that. And unnerved by knowing that if he was say a Spaniard who lovingly quoted Franco he'd probably be out on his ear. (Don't misunderstand I don't like Franco either) And my college is much more conservative than most.

Still this kind of thing also depends on what department you're in. The English, History, and Psychology departments are usually the most intensely willing to forgive all Left-wing extremism. Some other departments are basically apolitical or even a bit conservative. It also depends on the University. So anyway I love being an academic, but I'm quite willing to rail on the humanities departments of many prestigious Universities.

I won't defend Ayers, but John Yoo has been responsible for much more human suffering than Ayers has.

You no doubt disagree with Yoo's judicial philosophy, but I don't have any knowlege that he is a radical right winger any more that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a radical leftist.

Ayers hasn't done much damage (except perhaps to Chicago's schools) since he is confined to a small backwater of political thought. Electing someone who shares his views as President of the United States is an entirely different matter.

John if you actually think that Ayers would ever get to stay in the Lincoln bedroom if Obama was elected. If that actually think that would happen. If your brain is such that it conjures that as a plausible scenario your brain is broken. It isn't working right. You shouldn't trust anything else your brain tells you. You should be suspicious of everything that comes out of there. There is a question that reasonable people can disagree with which is how much Ayers' and Obama's associations matter. I think not much. If you disagree cool. But if your brain is making predictions that will never ever happen something is wrong with your brain.

That being it's too tolerant about some things and not tolerant enough of others. I perversely liked being able to take a course from a Chinese professor who lovingly quoted Mao, but I was also slightly unnerved by that.

Kind of interesting, I work with a Chinese person who is very proud of China (yes the Olympics drove him wild). One day he asked me what I thought about the Dali Lama...I said I didn't know a lot about him but he seemed like a nice guy and China should probably just sit down with him instead of getting all spastic. Well.....his POV was totally opposite, the Dali Lama was a terrorist, his people had killed his racial group (the Han), China had spent billions making Tibet nicer and so on. He too didn't believe me when I said Mao had killed millions.

What seems different about Ayers is that this isn't even a good example of that. Ayers didn't become a prof of poly sci talking about how individual bombings can be a better way to change society than voting. He became a prof. of education and basically dropped out of sight except as an advocate for education. Unlike your professor, you may have even had him for a course and never realized he was ever any more than that vague term of '60's radical' (which for most people means a hippie).

If you want to get into associations, let's get just as ridiculous as Palin. McCain served in the senate with Strom Thurmond, an avowed segregationist who never fully disavowed his opposition to integration, even years after it became a reality. After his death, McCain paid tribute to Thurmond: "I have not known an individual who was a more astute politician and more dedicated public servant..."

Does this mean that McCain is a racist who pals around with segregationists?

Foody,

It is called irony and hyperbole. I do not think that Ayers will get a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom, although it wouldn't surprise me. The point is, however, that he will get the respectability of being associated with the President. If Obama wins, anytime the subject of Ayers comes up the answer will be that that is old news and we had an election about that. If the President can be associated with Ayers why not other people? Obama winning will no doubt open a lot of doors for Ayers and Dorn and make them much more mainstream than they are today. That will be much better than any stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

John,

It isn't called irony. But with that last sentence I'm done being a big jerk. You're probably not actually crazy.

Oh, Megan. You should have stopped at "...in fact I think that the Ayers connection is too tenuous to be interesting."

Another truly disappointing post about politics, Megan. And it's interesting that you freely admit how Rovian you would be if you "were the McCain campaign." Obama doesn't need to apologize for his few, brief brushes with Ayers and has already admitted that the property deal with Rezko's wife was "boneheaded." Nothing criminal, no political favors sold.

Keating Five is a whole other matter and is obviously relevant now. McCain, and the other four senators of the Five, were bullying regulators for Keating because they received large political contributions (and other goodies) from him.

Thanks to the bailout, the next President, through his Treasury Secretary, is going to be able to throw around hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to buy up "toxic assets." McCain has already demonstrated the kinds of favors that he will do for his wealthy and well-connected friends (and he has accumulated many over the years).

Keating Five is releavant; Ayers and Rezko are not. Ayers and Rezko are bullshit. If slinging it is how you would choose to win a political campaign, fine. But don't try to argue that these "associations" are in any way equivalent. Keating Five cost real money. Our economy is tanking at the moment. McCain has already demonstrated his judgment with regard to economic matters and it's not good.

Ayers hasn't done much damage (except perhaps to Chicago's schools) since he is confined to a small backwater of political thought.

He probably isn't even all that bad at being a professor of elementary education. I think it is kind of ironic that someone who set out to overturn the whole world ends up being pretty ordinary.

I hope Megan is following this thread before she moves onto other things. While academia may be forgiving of left wing radicalism I wonder what she feels about the world of business?

In an alternate universe, there's a Bill Ayers who decided to go mainstream but instead of taking courses at the local college he decided to go to work with daddy. I can see a middle aged to older guy introducing himself as "Hi, I'm Bill Ayers Change Management and Team Building Consultant"...with his father's connections I don't doubt he could have made a nice living in the world of corporate consulting. In that universe how much less 'forgiving' would the business world be? In essence itwould be even more than academia. No one would even bother checking his background beyond callin his references and even if some client did a background check it would probably end with the lack of a criminal record.

Dorn is a prof at Northwestern Law school and Ayers works at UIL. Dorn once said about the Manson murders "Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.” She later she was just kidding. Is it too much to ask that if you spend your youth celabrating murder and trying to kill Americans and blow things up, you can't then be associated with the President and work at a top flight university or any university for that matter? Is there any act when done in the name of leftism, no matter how vile that isn't ultimately forgiven and rewarded? If the Left had any shame, they would be embarassed by Dorn and Ayers rather than celbrating them.

the academic culture Obama belongs to thinks its just fine to be a former active terrorist who has refused to renounce support for the violence committed by his group

Let us welcome David Horowitz.

The economy, the economy, the economy. No one gives a shit about any of this.

Let's talk about what bringing up this latest smear/fear tactic about Ayers really is: an attempt to play into the fears of voters that Obama might really be "not one of us" - that instead of being the reasonable, intelligent, self-made man and public servant he has presented himself as, he is somehow a radical black Muslim who wants to take over America, institute Marxism, take away your guns and teach your children to hate America. He looks different than you, so he is "not one of you."

This kind of fear based hate mongering brings out the worst in everyone. It's what gave us the fabulous George Bush these past 8 years.

Now McCain is trying to tell Americans that Obama is hiding his past, that nobody knows him, that he won't tell us what he will do if elected, implying that he is a dangerous person with a agenda, who if elected would do all sorts of terrible things. This despite two books published by Obama, despite detailed policy statements on his own campaign website about his proposals, and despite a lifetime spent in public service.

It's a blatant and pathetic attempt to distract voters from a forthright discussion of the economy and each candidate's proposals. McCain is grasping. He will win no new converts with this strategy, but he will incite hatred and negative fervor in his own followers, possibly to a dangerous degree.

The John McCain I see today bears little resemblance to the man I considered supporting in 2000. More and more he reminds me of the fictional Anakin Skywalker morphing into Darth Vader - a promising leader who sold his soul to become #1, and whose rhetoric is negative and fear based. The Dark Side indeed.

Hopefully undecideds will be smart enough this time not to be taken in by this pathetic smokescreen.

If Obama has to apologize for Ayers, can we have McCain apologize for G. Gordon Liddy?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column

"The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now."


Jiminy Tapdancing Christmas! Obama has to APOLOGIZE for simply speaking to someone who did something bad when Obama was 8 years old? Are you kidding me?

Forget about politicians, by this standard what are the odds that Megan needs to apologize for at least one person she's spoken to in her life?

Mike

You just want an apologize. How can he apologize from knowing Ayers. Because Ayers did something when Obama was 8 years old. Obama sat on a board that was trying to help the children of Chicago should he apologize for helping children as well.

Texasfootballmom,

I have never known a terrorist personally and I wouldn't stand in the same room as Ayers let alone let him host a fund raiser for my state senate campaign if I had one. I also have left churches for things like the pastor not staying for mass after he brow beat the congregation for money and never once mentioned what they actually do with the money. If any pastor in my church ever got up and said "God Damn America" or talked about how we got what we deserved on 9-11, there would be a fist fight and he sure as hell wouldn't be conducting my marriage ceremony or baptizing my kids or be compared to my grandmother.

You are who you associate with and you are what you do. Obama has associated himself with some really vile people over the years. It is perfectly reasonable to assume he has picked up a few flees from these various dogs. If he doesn't like that accusation, he should have thought about that when he was taking Ayers' money, serving with him on the CAC board and sitting quietly listening to Wright's hate mongering for 20 years.

If I were Obama, I'd skip the Keating 5 and go straight to Phil Graham. Phil Graham was Enron's point man in the senate who helped write the laws that made their frauds possible - and his wife was on the board (which is, I don't know, a conflict of serious interest?). He's also knee deep in responsibility for the current financial melt down - the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was after all his bill. Not only is he a "pal" of McCain's, there's a better than fifty-fifty chance this nimrod would be Treasury Secretary.
As for Obama, perhaps"if you're conservative, (the ex-60's radical Ayers) seems like a real problem" but if you're an American citizen at all worried about where our economy is headed, Phil Graham as chief economic strategist for a John McCain administration should scare the living shit out of you. For a serious economist such as Megan McArdle, Phil Graham should be regarded as the Anti-Christ.

"Obama sat on a board that was trying to help the children of Chicago should he apologize for helping children as well."


Obama's first political fund raiser was at Ayers and Dorn's house. He did more than just sit on a board with him. Further, if that is all he did, why hasn't he released all of the CAC materials and done a real interview explaining just what he did and did not do with Ayers. Even Anderson Cooper admitted Obama is lying about this. If Obama wants a pass for Ayers, he needs to come clean and stop lying.

Yes and Franklin Raines who stole millions form Fannie and Freddie and is still a Democratic Grandee and sometime advisor to Obama and Jim Johnson who was one of the Country Wide crooks and head of Obama's VP search committee mean nothing. It is all about Phil Graham. Obama was bought and paid for by Fannie and Freddie. Let's talk about the Keating 5, right after Obama explains all of the money he took from Fannie and Freddie.

John,
I just think your wrong on that. Ayers has gone as high as he can go, given his past. With one notable exception. If he makes an ideological conversion, a la Horowitz, and becomes and ultra conservative crusader, well then he will be allowed to come to Broder's village and chum around.

This is all only relevant if anyone has any evidence that Obama knew who Ayers was and that means really knew...not just that he was a '60's radical' which could mean anything. Considering that Ayers was making a purposeful effort to fit into the mainstream that's going to be a hard level thing for Obama-haters to find evidence of....and no "all leftist radicals know each other well" ain't going to cut it.

P.s. Why does the comment field say "Enter 'foo'"?

Megan,

You've put your finger on perhaps the most unappealling aspect of Obama's personality. He refuses to apologize for anything. Instead, he's always blaming other people for the trouble he's gotten himself into.

Consider the Rev. Wright episode. Instead of a straight forward apology for a long time of trucking with a hateful race baiter, Obama tried to to deflect blame to you and me. His conduct, his associations, his judgment wasn't the problem, you see, rather it was Megan and her friends and their racism.

Consider the "clinging to religion and guns" espisode. Instead of a straight forward apology for insulting millions of his fellow citizens, he hemmed and hawed and ducked.

Obama reminds me of Eddie Haskell from the "Leave it to Beaver" television show of my youth. Slick, fast talking, smooth, sincerely insincere.

Blog about the economy. With all due respect, whenever you try to do politics you come off as an ignorant, partisan hack. As no doubt someone has already pointed out to you, the current John McCain in fact is unrepentant about the Keating 5 scandal.

Stick with what you're competent at.

You cite two points against Obama: first, that the "academic culture" he "belongs to" is "fine" with Ayers current privileged status, and second, that Obama "spent some time talking to" Ayers. You can't seriously believe that Obama should have to answer for the sins of academia, whatever they may be, so let's ignore the first. As to the second, maybe it would help to know what exactly according to you is the proper response when confronted with someone like Ayers in a social situation. It is sufficient to pretend you don't see him, or is it necessary to make a cutting remark? Are you then required to leave? If so, can you just slip away, or must you publicly denounce the proceedings before departing? Perhaps if you clarify your views on this, I will be ableunderstand exactly what you think Obama should apologize for; for now, its not so clear.

texasfootballmom pretty much nails it when she writes: Let's talk about what bringing up this latest smear/fear tactic about Ayers really is: an attempt to play into the fears of voters that Obama might really be 'not one of us' - that instead of being the reasonable, intelligent, self-made man and public servant he has presented himself as, he is somehow a radical black Muslim who wants to take over America, institute Marxism, take away your guns and teach your children to hate America. He looks different than you, so he is 'not one of you.'

And I see that McCain has also trotted out that "two memoirs" line that Palin so gleefully recited at the convention.

The McCain campaign just doesn't like the fact that regular folks increasingly see Obama as a reasonable, likable, intelligent candidate. The McCain campaign also wants to deflect these same people from the fact that, no, Obama hasn't written two memoirs. In fact, "The Audacity of Hope" deals explicitly with Obama's take on politics and why politics need to be changed. The McCain campaign simply can't afford for any more undecideds to read the book and discover that, agree with him or not, Obama is a reasonable, likable, intelligent candidate. So the campaign - trailing and falling further behind - has to pull out last stops to try and demonize Obama, assisted by movement conservatives (well-represented above).

I don't agree with the Keating 5 video. I think it deviates from a strategy - even-keel presentation of positions, low-key swatting of the latest McCain / Palin distortions - that is paying big dividends.

On the other hand, and somehow Megan (deliberately) missed this connection, we're in an economic crisis that has plenty of threads connecting it to the Keating era. Regular folks, as Joan Butterworth deliciously points out upthread, are worried about this economic mess, a mess which is by the day less and less abstract. A mess that John McCain has been all over the board 'handling' and has some historical baggage that doesn't generate confidence this time around.

A mess that shows how ridiculous, petty and desperate this whole Ayers blow-up is.

But, hey, that's all they got left. Enjoy the desert, righties. You've earned it !

I'm kind of curious about that too Gregg....what should Ayers have in our society? Given he wasn't convicted of a crime should be be barred from taking college courses? Plenty of people with real criminal records get degrees. Barred from becoming a professor at a mid-level college? Why?

Shunning is a useful social institution but at the same time America does allow people to reinvent themselves. The proper forum for addressing Ayers was criminal court and the case wasn't made against him there. That's not Obama's or even academia's fault.

As I pointed out if Ayers had choosen to go into business using his father's connections he could have ended up making millions and no one would have known or cared who he was in 69.

Megan, I think you have a good point here about McCain and the Keating 5: that is, it's not particularly intellectually honest of the Obama campaign to be using this against him: he was cleared of any wrong-doing.

But I think you really drop the ball when you state "I would ask why Obama is choosing to bring up this 20 year old scandal...." First of all, he's bringing it up because McCain is attacking him on issues like Ayers and trying to paint him as "other" and a threat. McCain can't go toe-to-toe with Obama on the issues (he's on the losing side of the ones most important to voters right now), so he's trying to undermine trust in Obama. Go figure that Obama's going to hit back. Note that Obama didn't bring this issue up earlier -- perhaps because it wasn't quite timely enough (the financial meltdown hadn't reached its current fever pitch), but it seems clear that the Obama campaign is fighting back against the McCain campaign having decided that they're only going to win by smearing Obama.

As for the Ayers - Obama link, what is silly and shameful is the idea that Obama being willing to associate with Ayers means that he's tolerant of terrorism as such, and thus won't be an effective leader against Islamic terrorism. This is the conclusion that the McCain campaign wishes you to draw. It's just a stupid as the Obama campaign's desire that you draw the conclusion that because McCain was involved in the Keating 5 scandal, he can't or won't do anything to help with the economy.

As for your requirement that Obama, "apologize" for associating with Ayers, I think it's completely beside the point. Obama has denounced what Ayers and the Weather Underground did, and that should be enough. He doesn't need to apologize for associating with a University Professor who was a criminal 40 years ago.

It's all standard politics and it's all garbage. I don't think either claim tells you much about how either of the candidates will govern.

I just love all the extreme generalizations about academia.

Kissinger held academic positions after his role in overthrowing governments in Chile and several other places, and encouraging torture in Argentina. Friedman and a bunch of others provided material support to Pinochet and his government even as people were being tortured in the national stadium.

Michael Ledeen was found guilt in the Iran Contra affair.

Yet, somehow academia is only tolerant of extreme leftists. Of course, to closest thing one can find to those who acted on such beliefs is someone like Ayres...

William Ayers is not running for office, and by the time they met, he was an established part of the community doing charitable and educational deeds. People act as if he and Senator Obama sat around smoking spliffs and reminiscing about Ayers' olden days, and wanting to blow shit up. I mean really, get real.

They may have similar approaches to education but other than that, what evidence is there that Ayers had any influence on Senator Obama's politics?

NONE.

It is a non-story. Move along.

And then I would throw in Ayers and Rezko and ask when Obama's going to apologize for his lapses in judgement.

And what about Wright? I don't understand why the McCain camp won't go after Obama for his long association with Wright.

Obama only denounced Wright after Wright accused Obama of just being a politician.

No one is claiming that Obama thinks that it is okay to blow things up. The problem is that he seems to have no problem associating himself with people who hold truly vile views. Ayers is not just a terrorist. He is an unapologetic Marxist who has spent the last 20 years trying to turn the Chicago schools into leftist indoctrination camps. Even if he were not a terrorist, he would still be a radical.

Obama sold himself as a new kind of candidate; someone who could bring people together and reach out to the other side. Yet, in reality, he seems to only be able to reach out to radicals and crooks like Wright, Ayers and Rezko. How many other kooky and radical associates does Obama have that will no doubt be getting political appointments in his administration? Is there any view too radical or too vile that is not on the right that Obama can't excuse or find acceptable? That is what this is about. It is not about Obama being out planting bombs.

It seems to me that it's a loser to bring up Ayers. He was protesting an unpopular war. Seems to me there's currently an unpopular war with which McCain is associating himself.

The Ayers case was thrown out because the Feds used illegal wiretapping to get evidence.

Is today's GOP really that tone deaf that they want to rub wiretapping and an unpopular war in the public's collective face?

Dig into the details and what do you get? ZOMG! The Annenberg Challenge! Education policy! 'Radical' Reform! Sorry, but it's a real snoozer unless you're just waiting to have your buttons pushed.

Rallying the base at the expense of expanding appeal to undecideds/independents is a losing strategy, I think. And I think most honest Conservatives believe that, too.

I've been trying all year to place a $500 bet with my GOP-backing friends and family on the outcome of the election, and I'm getting no takers. I thought I'd get some action after Saddleback, but it was a no-go.

I don't understand why the Right thinks it's a winner to go after Rev. Wright. Does anyone really get that upset about him having swiped a line or two from the Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, etc. crowd the GOP has been selling to me for years?

Oh. Right. Wright's black.

"Ayers is not just a terrorist. He is an unapologetic Marxist who has spent the last 20 years trying to turn the Chicago schools into leftist indoctrination camps."


Thank, John, for confirming that folks like you really don't care THAT much about terrorism. What really winds you up is if the terrorist in question doesn't have the "correct" political views.

Mike

On first reading, I thought your headline said, "the fire is alive" referring to the markets. Good news that I was mistaken.

However, like others, I have a quibble with this statement, "The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now."

That goes contrary to the conservative creed of personal responsibility, doesn't it? Bill Ayers is the one who should be apologizing, not Barack Obama. Should John McCain be apologizing for Chuck Hagee, or the crazies in that organization he fraternized with (the name eludes me)? I certainly don't think so, it's not relevant. The Keating 5 is relevant, because McCain was one of five senators who accepted major contributions from Charles Keating to pressure regulators into backing off on Lincoln Savings and Loan.

"even Democrats from the time seem to admit that he was basically just thrown to the wolves to make it look like the Democrats weren't the only ones who had screwed the pooch..."

That's the second time I've read that, with no primary source. Which Democrats?

The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now.

No no no, Megan. You are either lying or you aren't paying attention to these "critics" you're speaking for. The problem they (pretend to) have vis à vis Obama and Ayers is that Obama was "palling around" with him at some point in his career. The association is the sin. An apology is not requested, nor would it make a difference. All they care about is finding "terrorists" that can somehow be linked to Obama, however fraudulently. Palin is tasked with delivering the below-the-belt blows at her rallies in front of racist rubes while Saint McCain asks leading questions like "Who is Barack Obama?" that are immediately answered with shouts of "terrorist!" by the lunatics at his rallies.

"The problem Obama's critics have is not that he once spent some time talking to Bill Ayers; it's that he refuses to apologize for it now. That refusal to apologize is why the charge has proven hard to counter. You can argue that it isn't a big deal, but you can't argue it isn't true, and unfortunately for Obama, some voters think it is a really big deal."

Yes, the really, really stupid voters. Obama doesn't need their votes. He shouldn't even seek them out. People that stupid should be shunned in polite society now that the Age Of Stupid is over.

John McCain has ties with people who make Bill Ayers look like Shirley Temple, and he's not apologizing. This is all a lot of hoohah about nothing of consequence.

Megan with all due respects, McCain wasn't just 'thrown to the wolves' in Keating 5 scandal. His wife had invested with Keating and as always he claimed later he knew nothing about that. He took plane rides with Keating. Come on, if McCain cannot figure out the impropriety in his actions then his judgment should be questioned.
Of course his campaign wants to rewrite the Keating 5 scandal now.
What about McCain's subsequent bad 'association' such as sitting on a committee / board with Singlaub, as radical as Ayers. Probably the association was just as tenuous. Or do you think terrorism facilitating anti-communism and condoning domestic terrorists who bomb abortion clinics is ok?

I don't understand why the Right thinks it's a winner to go after Rev. Wright. Does anyone really get that upset about him having swiped a line or two from the Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, etc. crowd the GOP has been selling to me for years?

If one of the major candidates had sat under the "ministry" of any of these men for twenty years and spoke fondly of him thereafter, you would have a point.

Nice try at playing the race card, though. Getting a bit dog-eared and grungy by now, is it?

MBunge writes: "Jiminy Tapdancing Christmas! Obama has to APOLOGIZE for simply speaking to someone who did something bad when Obama was 8 years old? Are you kidding me?

Forget about politicians, by this standard what are the odds that Megan needs to apologize for at least one person she's spoken to in her life?"

Megan voted for war criminal/torture president Dumbya Bush in 2004. That's a far more egregious offense than a casual acquaintance with some old guy who never killed anyone - and no, Ayers never killed anyone, despite what people like John would have you think.

Did I miss Megan's apology?

Word has it that Obama once shared a sidewalk across which, the previous day, a purse snatcher had sprinted away with the belongings of a 85 year old woman shopping for food.

How dare Obama share that sidewalk with that purse snatcher.

And how dare he use sidewalks inhabited by purse snatchers.

Is Obama a purse snatcher?

At minimum, I think Obama should appologize. He's definitely got some 'splaining to do.

ps: While Rome burns, the GOP (and libertarian supporters) fiddle. My opinion: the tune you guys--and gals--are playing is screechy.

Gosh John, by your own logic, why aren't you going after Sarah Palin for not disassociating herself from her own church? Palin recently sat at a sermon where a guest speaker, David Brickner of the Jews for Jesus movement, suggested that terrorism in Israel was God's judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah. This is what he said:

“Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It’s very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment - you can’t miss it.”

I didn't see anything about her disassociating herself from that church or that guest pastor.

And at her previous church, her pastor, named Kalnin, made some pretty outrageous statements about Jesus being "in war mode" related to our involvement in Iraq, as well as a whole slew of crazy stuff. Look it up.

Now Palin's husband belonged to a separatist organization, the Alaskan Independence Party, that believes Alaska should secede from the U.S. I have not heard about her divorcing or denouncing him for that. And rather than denounce the AIP, as Governor, she even sent a video to the AIP's recent convention, telling them to "keep up the good work."

I guess her husband saw America as "imperfect enough" to quote Palin, that he would belong - for 7 years - to a party whose leader, Joe Vogler, made the following statements:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

"And I won't be buried under their damn flag."

So John, why aren't you similarly outraged about McCain's running mate's associations?

Obama only denounced Wright after Wright accused Obama of just being a politician.

False Obama denounced Wright's obsession with white racism before. Look up his speeches on Wright.

John
The problem is that he seems to have no problem associating himself with people who hold truly vile views. Ayers is not just a terrorist. He is an unapologetic Marxist who has spent the last 20 years trying to turn the Chicago schools into leftist indoctrination camps. Even if he were not a terrorist, he would still be a radical.

Have any actual evidence of this? How exactly did Ayers get assorted pro-education pieces published in major newspapers and get a Republican like Annenberg to let him administer $50M in grant money and not one person raised a peep....no one on either side of the political spectrum, in fact could got both sides to clap and applaud? Exactly how did Ayers try to turn Chicago schools into left