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.
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?
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.
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.
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 leftist indoctrination camps?
tinisoli
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.
Indeed, what's interesting about this is that this line of argument is right out of Stalin. Remember in the USSR you could be guilty of 'thought crime' even if you could be 'associated' with someone who was. Does anyone really feel, for example, that Obama hates white people? I don't. I think Obama has thought long and hard about race, more than most people because growing up black but being half-white forced him to do so. I think just about every black person knows someone like Wright either in their family or close to it. Likewise many (but not all) whites have people in their network who probably wouldn't make very good spokespeople if they ever ran for office (my father-in-law comments alone could single handedly tank an attempt by me to run for dog catcher). But the message here is Obama is guilty and must apologize for not only his sins but everyone else's too.
Mouse: I was playing the faithtard card.
As an atheist I really don't see why sitting in church is somehow worse than trotting folks on stage at campaign events after begging for their support.
Doesn't make sense to me, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
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).
Thanks to this whole scandal, I'm now looking at all the 'former hippies' I know and wondering what they were up to during sixties. Were some of them Weathermen? Guess I'll never know unless I run for president.
I'll ask again, what's the deal with this "Enter 'foo' below' when making a comment?
John McCain's first effort in the Senate addressed the menace of the saber-toothed tiger. Now that the glaciers have receded, we know quite a lot about him. Obama descended from the heavens only a moment ago, and most of our knowledge of Him comes from Him and his loyal followers. We are about to enter into the political equivalent of an arranged marriage. The first words we speak to our husband will be "I do." It is curiosity which drives those wanting to know of His friends in Chicago.
The canard about Ayers committing his vile acts when Obama was eight is tiresome, for the simple reason that Ayers wrote in 2001 that he didn't regret his terrorism, and in fact stated he wished he'd done more. Obama had decided to work with (to say Obama merely spoke to such people is similarly dishonest) people who support bombing the political institutions they dislike, as a means to affect American politics.
I don't think this should be a primary reason to vote against Obama (and indeed, I'm still sitting this election out), but there is something very grotesque about an unrepetent terrorist being seen as someone with whom is acceptable to associate with.
John McCain's first effort in the Senate addressed the menace of the saber-toothed tiger. Now that the glaciers have receded, we know quite a lot about him. Obama descended from the heavens only a moment ago, and most of our knowledge of Him comes from Him and his loyal followers.
Well that plus the year plus bruising primary fight with Hillary's political machine. Did Palin come out of that same glacier too?
It is curiosity which drives those wanting to know of His friends in Chicago.
It is not a new issue, though. In fact, this is a very old issue and the only thing really new about it is that it's being dragged up at the last moment now that McCain's bold 'economic leadership' didn't seem to do much of anything.
Why is it that so many refuse to look into the context of their allegations? Obama does know Ayers. They live in the same neighborhood. They have sat on the same community boards. Turns out, Ayer's even supports Obama! Obama's association to Ayer's is not about terrorism, or anything even REMOTELY negative, in fact, it seems that despite Ayer's violent past, their involvement has been in attempts to accomplish positive things for society (and as an Obama supporter, I consider a fundraiser a positive grassroots action). Why and how is this a talking point for the GOP? Talk about apologies, do people just want to live with reckless hate?
Turns out, I live in Chicago, turns out, some people in my neighborhood have done bad things. Turns out, my cousin has been in jail and I still talk to him. Turns out, a family friend had an affair. Turns out, I may have unknowingly had a conversation with a shoplifter at my local bar. Turns out, I cheated on a biology exam in 9th grade. Turns out, that a whole bunch of catholic parishioners have assembled at the behest of men that rape children.
So judging by my past, even though I've led a respectable life to this point, I'm more or less a corrupt individual. Get this, most of us have known people who have done misdeeds - from extreme to inconsequential. So bring up Ayers, Wright, et al, refuse to look at the context, or your own family/friends/associations. And if you can take that moral high-ground, then as our man JC once said, go ahead and toss the first stone - at me if you like.
The two contenders for the presidency are following two different strategies, obviously. Obama is trying to put undecideds into his column. McCain is all about firing up the base to turn out on election day.
Thus, when Obama airs ads, they do so based upon his strong points and McCain's weak points. Bringing up the Keating Five, rather than some other random 'terrorist' association has the effect of bringing to the attention of voters McCain's past shilling for people who are percieved to be at the root of today's financial woes (I happen to agree, btw.) This will not (imho) fire up his base to vote for him so much as it will remind undecideds that Honest John is not on their side.
Contrariwise, when McCain airs ads attacking Obama for his 'terrorist' associations, they really won't do a lot to sway the undecided voters. A Republican attacking a Democrat for being 'soft on terrorism'? What else is new? But maybe the outrage factor will be enough to get a few apathetic die-hards out of their house and into the voting booth.
In fact, look up at the above postings: does anyone doubt that John, Robert Brown, DBL et al weren't going to vote for Obama anyway? If they make noises to the effect that they might have done so until this little bit of nastiness hit the intertubes, I would have zero problems with call them bald-faced liars. Now would anyone else, I would imagine.
Will
The canard about Ayers committing his vile acts when Obama was eight is tiresome, for the simple reason that Ayers wrote in 2001 that he didn't regret his terrorism, and in fact stated he wished he'd done more.
It's not a canard at all. Do you have actual evidence that Obama was aware of any of this about Ayers? That he had any reason to believe Ayers was anything other than a community leader & local college professor who maybe was some type of radical in the 60's (a phrase I'll again note almost always means a lot less than what Ayers was)?
That Obama was 8 yrs old is highly relevant. If he was 28 there might be less reason to think he could have been ignorant of Ayers (although, let's face it, even then Ayers wasn't John Lenin & the Weather Underground wasn't the Beatles).
Boonton, I've served on charitable boards, and believe me, I'd have known whether one of my fellow board members had written a New York Time piece in which he stated his advocacy for domestic terrorism. I would have know this despite not having any political ambition. It is starnge that a guy with national political apsirations would not know that a fellow board member had recently written in the NYT that he was unrepentent about engaging in terrorism.
Really, which piece was that? Do you often troll around the NY Times archives looking to see what your fellow board members published (if anything)?
Were you paying the Times subscription fee back then since it is only recently the NYT opened up its archives to allow for people to search for free?
It is starnge that a guy with national political apsirations would not know that a fellow board member had recently written in the NYT that he was unrepentent about engaging in terrorism.
I guess that might be because Ayers was recently asked about terrorism & they served on the board years ago. Strange that someone writing about this doesn't know the timeline of what happened when.
Boonton, it was rather famous, having been published on 9/11/2001. Ayers said that he did not regret having engaged in bombings, and in fact felt that "we didn't do enough." Googling, however, I see it was in the form of an interview.
Boonton, Ayers stated on September 11, 2001, in the pages of the NYT, that he did not regret having engaged in domesteic terrorism. Please educate yourself.
But here's the problem with it: John McCain regrets the Keating 5.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H getting caught.
Fixed.
You know why I think this is also important - this is a guy he agrees with on education policy.
All other things aside, I do not want anyone who remotely believes what Ayers and apparently Obama believe about education's purpose appointing someone to head the Dept. of Ed.
Public Education is already suffering because of some of the "progressive" education theories (as well as other things) and I really don't have much hope that going further down that rabbit hole will lead to improvement. they apparently burned through $50M and didn't learn anything from it.
Dewey they are not.
In a speech Saturday Obama said drug and insurance companies "should be held accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause." That doesn't leave you much room if there is an outcome, including price, somebody doesn't like. It's like the run up to the French revolution where the leftists complained about the speculators charging too much for grain (the Little ice Age affected the supply) and, prices fixed, the next year there was the indictment that there was no supply. Ayers has continued to believe in 'educating against the oppression' of the US system. People are concerned about the economy of curse but one of the overtones that Obama taps into is that people feel like there is really a lot of wealth out there, where did the $700 billion come from for instance, but 'it's the big shots that have it and I'll get mine with Obama.' I think many aspects of the 'revolution' will be destructive and, yes, contrary to the Whiggish traditions of America.
"Boonton, Ayers stated on September 11, 2001, in the pages of the NYT, that he did not regret having engaged in domesteic terrorism. Please educate yourself."
And Obama, having access to a working time machine, should have known all about it in the 1990s! Damn him!
Mike
Boonton, Ayers stated on September 11, 2001, in the pages of the NYT, that he did not regret having engaged in domesteic terrorism. Please educate yourself.
Ohhh and Obama served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund in the 1995....so explain again how you know your fellow board members will not be in the NYT advocating terrorism 6 years later?
Skullberg
All other things aside, I do not want anyone who remotely believes what Ayers and apparently Obama believe about education's purpose
What exactly does Ayers believe? What exactly does Obama believe about education?
they apparently burned through $50M and didn't learn anything from it.
In a school system whose budget is in the billions. Do you have a real opinion of the Annenberg program or are you just assuming it was all a wasted flop because some right winger pointed out that the whole system didn't magically get better from it?
"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.""
Not sure I understand the point. These two are both true, and neither one is at all new; articles last year were saying the exact same two things. (a) McCain was indeed acquitted of real wrongdoing in the investigation. (b) He very much regrets his role in it, minor though it was, and has done a lot to try to make up for it. Don't see the inconsistency here.
"I don't understand why the Right thinks it's a winner to go after Rev. Wright." Don't know if it's a winner. That would depend on whether the average American loves America and its peoples, or if he hates and despises the country and the white people in it. If the latter, then you're right. And you may be.
"Do you have a real opinion of the Annenberg program or are you just assuming it was all a wasted flop...?" Near as I can tell it was very successful in its intended purpose, which was to teach revolution to our kids. See Stanley Kurtz's articles on where the money went. Only thing is, I don't agree with that purpose very much.
Moe and Larry -
If McCain had associated with David Duke for twenty years, serving on boards together, letting Duke host fund-raisers for him, etc., would you give that a pass? I mean, Duke has never killed anyone, and he hasn't even destroyed any property. So by your standards, that would be OK?
I didn't think so. Well, Duke and Ayers are the same thing. Duke is a KKK racist and Ayers is a self confessed small "c" communist. What's the difference?
Care to cite specifics? I'll admit I didn't read all of Kurtz's stuff but what I did read was the usual spin from the surface with no real facts under the rhetoric. What grants specifically 'taught revolution'? In what way? How?
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED482425&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED482425
You may want to start with Final Technical Report...granted it's 270 pages long...who would have thought even 'teaching revolution' would be boring!
"I didn't think so. Well, Duke and Ayers are the same thing. Duke is a KKK racist and Ayers is a self confessed small "c" communist. What's the difference?"
What is it with people today and their complete inability to make appropriate equivalencies? How many people have KKK racists killed in America in the last 100 years? How many people have small "c" communists killed IN AMERICA in the last 100 years? If those two numbers are not roughly the same, those two things cannot be equivalent.
Good grief.
Mike
The issue is not what to do with Ayers. Once he cleared the criminal justice system, he should be free to do wnat he wants. If he can find a home in academia, fine.
The question is the values of someone who forms political alliance with him. Does such an alliance imply a shared world view?
Pg 32, for example:
"As the Chicago Challenge began awarding its first implementation grants, the new central administration introduced two major initiatives to bring centralized, high-stakes accountability into the system. It placed schools with fewer than 15 percent of students scoring at or above national norms on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) on academic probation and assigned each a probation partner and a probation manager to direct school improvement efforts. Schools on probation that failed to improve their test scores over a period of time could be reconstituted. The administration also developed a new policy to end social promotion.....If they (students in 3rd, 6th, 8th grade) failed to meet these benchmarks, they had to attend mandatory summer school and, if they failed again...they were retained at grade level"
All pretty basic ho-hum stuff. Did it all work? No but even in elementary schools that the program focused on the money was never more than 2% of the budget. Even if all the ideas worked perfectly it's still tossing a rock into the ocean on the Jersey coast and asking your friend in Ireland if they see any waves yet.
Boonton,
Ayers Interview by Revolutionary Communist Party - http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html to give you some background.
He's a "redical" progressive educator who trying to reconcile "trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom."
From that I gather him and I don't see eye to eye on probably anything regarding teaching.
DBL writes: "If McCain had associated with David Duke for twenty years, serving on boards together, letting Duke host fund-raisers for him, etc., would you give that a pass? I mean, Duke has never killed anyone, and he hasn't even destroyed any property. So by your standards, that would be OK?
I didn't think so. Well, Duke and Ayers are the same thing. Duke is a KKK racist and Ayers is a self confessed small "c" communist. What's the difference? "
McCain associates with Henry Kissinger and G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, and I don't see much of a fuss being made about that, even though all three of those men are far more reprehensible evildoers than Ayers ever was. You pick your poison, I guess, and you and McCain prefer actual murderers, racists and war criminals to theoretical ones.
You guys really think you can win with this bullshit? It's hilarious how the once-big conservative movement has become as effectual and impressive as a gnat's fart.
Um, sorry. Ayers issues go way beyond an unpopular war.
Boonton,
If this was such a waste of time program, because the funding was too small to make a difference, why did Barack cite it as the main experience for running for state senate?
Skully types: "From that I gather him and I don't see eye to eye on probably anything regarding teaching."
From that I gather that Skully missed more than a few English classes.
Robert:
The issue is not what to do with Ayers. Once he cleared the criminal justice system, he should be free to do wnat he wants. If he can find a home in academia, fine.
The implication of what you are saying is that once Ayers cleared the system he was going to be a normal person again and if he built himself up as a low level community leader...well again unless you're OJ memories are going to fade and only the curious googler will really get to the bottom of who the nice guy down the road is...or was.
The question is the values of someone who forms political alliance with him. Does such an alliance imply a shared world view?
And exactly what is this Alliance? This is a lot of grandiose language to describe interaction with someone in Chicago's low level mainstream who everyone else in the mainstream also interacts with with hardly any objection. How many Republicans clapped at the Chicago Annenberge Challenge? If Annenberg had named Tim McVeigh to head the Chicago portion would they have likewise clapped?
You can say the mainstream was wrong....but you're NOT! You're saying since Ayers was cleared he could do whatever he likes which means building up a mainstream life. This is why this argument is getting so incoherent, you're saying it's OK that Ayers is part of mainstream society but rising politicians have to take special care to background check the people in mainstream society they interact with?
If this was such a waste of time program, because the funding was too small to make a difference, why did Barack cite it as the main experience for running for state senate?
It probably wasn't a waste of time but looking at the whole system for results is. If you raised $50M to end world hunger wouldn't that be a worthy personal accomplishment? Would it be valid for me to dispute your effort because the world hunger figures don't even show a blip during the period you did it?
Now if you want to talk about the CAC and if it could have done better if Obama had been smarter then go ahead. So far, though, you haven't presented anything serious other than to tell us it 'taught revolution'...whatever that means.
Fun fact about Joe Vogler:
He wasn't "buried under that damn flag."
His remains rest in Dawson City, Yukon.
Seriously, do the wingnuts think screeching, "He knows a Commie!" is going to trump the fact that McCain has been humping Dumbya Bush's leg in public for years? We even have pictures of McCain grabbing Dumbya around the midsection and grinding on him with his eyes closed. Even Larry Craig would be embarrassed if there were pictures like that of him floating around.
John McCain knows what Dumbya's aftershave tastes like. Run on that.
Well, considering the last of the active Weather Underground holdouts along with a few other straggling radical groups staged their last criminal act in 1981, you have problems saying it is four decades ago... three is closer to the mark with the last prosecutions going on in the 1990's. Those things led the Heritage Foundation to do an examination of how these groups were trained and Cuba was the central nexus and cross-training for a host of groups, which included the Weathermen. Bill Ayers still sees fit to traipse down to Venezuela and praise Hugo Chavez's 'revolutionary teaching methods', which includes bankrupting the economy and impoverishing the population. That was very recent as these things go. Ayers and Dohrn not only don't apologize for the damage they did, but wished they could have done more.
So, when you get Obama and Ayers working on an education group in the 80's, the Ayers started CAC and having Obama head up the group, then working on the anti-firearm Joyce group, and then working together on the Woods Foundation, doling out cash to ex-PLO members broadcasting what can only politely be termed 'hate speech', I have a problem.
If Sen. Obama's main claim to why people should vote for him is his character and judgment, then raising questions about both is fully in-bounds of what Sen. Obama should expect in the way of questions.
He wants to raise Keating? Great! One of the maian places he did his banking was: BCCI. I DO want that can of worms opened as it hits across the entire political spectrum, including a number of heads of state and presidents both D and R, plus a whole slew of Congresscritters. One of the major parts of the BCCI operation would be the BNL scandal, which went far beyond the Regan Administration... which is why President Clinton stuffed the investigation under the rug.
Please, lets DO open that up!! I would love to start the hard connections with tyrants, dictators, terrorists and heads of state and Congresscritters via shared banking at BCCI. Oh, please, get on your high horse on this and investigate the hell out of it and don't care where the chips fall... I want that. I do!! Please! And then don't complain when some of the backers of Barack Obama get IMPLICATED in that whole mess, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head.
Go ahead! I really do want to see a large number of Congresscritters, Presidents, tyrants, dictators, thieves, terrorists and assorted billionaires brought low. Don't complain when it hits *your* politicians and those you back - you wanted it. Suck it up and push this, please. I will love the results. You, however, may not.
Robert Brown,
What "political alliance" did Obama forge with Ayers that was any different than the political alliance that the Republican funder, Annenberg, forged with Ayers?
Well, considering the last of the active Weather Underground holdouts along with a few other straggling radical groups staged their last criminal act in 1981, ....
Problem, we aren't talking about every member of the Weather Underground we are talking about Obama and Ayers.
Ayers and Dohrn not only don't apologize for the damage they did, but wished they could have done more.
I agree, if they ever ran for office this would be excellent stuff to use on them.
So, when you get Obama and Ayers working on an education group in the 80's, the Ayers started CAC and having Obama head up the group
The CAC was started by the Annenberg Foundation, the CAC was the Chicago grant of a much larger program to try to improve public education. Ayers wrote the grant application to the Foundation for the creation of the CAC, he didn't start it. There was a five person board that selected the CAC's board, Ayers was only one & did not recruit Obama.
Go ahead! I really do want to see a large number of Congresscritters, Presidents, tyrants, dictators, thieves, terrorists and assorted billionaires brought low. Don't complain when it hits *your* politicians and those you back - you wanted it. Suck it up and push this, please. I will love the results. You, however, may not.
Ahhh yes, another bomb thrower it seems....
Suppose McCain had an association with someone who had bombed a black church - i.e., the shoe being on the other foot.
Would you just laugh that off as insignificant?
Please have the intellectual honesty to admit you would not.
Occam-
If by association you mean appeared in the same room with, then it would be insignificant.
No. The issue is that Ayers's radical leftist world view apparently remains intact even though he has cleared the justice system. There is nothing wrong with holding those views. A rising politician will be suspected of sharing the views of those he forms political aliances with. Thus, he should make himself aware of those views if he wants to avoid being embarassed by them on his way up (assuming he is trying to hide them).
Two problems Robert:
1. I've yet to see any real Alliance be documented here.
2. While Ayers, when asked, asserts he doesn't regret his past, I've seen no evidence that he continued to push radicalism during his entry into the mainstream. You are free to demonstrate this as Ayers has published several letters to the editor and op ed pieces in the Chicago Tribune and NYT.
rick,
OK, let's titrate the issue. Suppose McCain launched his campaign from the home of a bomber of black churches, who later appointed him to a board.
No problem? Or would you wonder what the bomber saw in McCain that he liked?
Once again, please exercise some intellectual honesty.
Suppose McCain launched his campaign from the home...
Supposed you lived in the real world rather than one of endlessly made up hypotheticals?
At the end of the day the answer to almost all attempts to reason by analogy is to task in what ways does the analogy match and not match the problem you are addressing and which are more relevant. Suppose McCain had.... invariably leads to a million other questions and unless you're going to spend all day fleshing out this hypothetical you might as well stop now.
I've seen no evidence that Charles Manson has continued to murder people over the last 30 years. So while he hasn't expressed any regret about his past, he's a good guy now too.
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.
This is just stupid. I am not trying to say Megan is stupid, because she is not. But incredibly smart people sometimes say incredibly stupid things. Megan's selective concern trolling is getting tiresome. Seems to me she is trying to overcompensate for her Obama bias.
On the other hand this line is downright funny coming from a libertarian.
I saw a report somewhere that the people who think O’bama (Yo mama) is Qualified, are the same ones who though OJ was innocent.
That's the best you can do?
A Democrat ethics committee found McCain guilty only of bad judgement. He provided no favors to Keating, only took contributions, which he then donated to the Treasury. I believe that he has said that he regrets ever associating with he guy, and the atmosphere around him, but he committed no crimes to regret. And Megan is right to point out that he has been doing penance ever since - hence McCain Feingold.
Obama on the other hand, funneled a ton of money to Ayers radical schools projects. And to Rezko's "public/private housing" projects - money that was used fraudulently.
I've seen no evidence that Charles Manson has continued to murder people over the last 30 years.
True but he still acts like he would murder people if given the chance. If, however, he was released and became a quiet dentist at the end of the street and 20 years later someone moved there and agreed to attend a Chamber of Commerce meeting with him to support better snow plowing by the city would that make that person responsible for the Manson murders? Would that be a 'political alliance' with the Manson family?
Obama on the other hand, funneled a ton of money to Ayers radical schools project
Such as? Specifics please?
"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?"
No, but he might want to explain why he had a 20-year relationship with someone who founded an organization that blew up public buildings, killed police officers and robbed banks, and who has refused to express any regret for those actions.
And he might want to explain why he chose to launch his political career in that same terrorist's living room.
Ayers has not made an effort to fit into mainstream society. He is proud of his "work" and has written books and made public comments to that effect. His "helping children with education" consisted of working to bring his radical, left-wing, America hating agenda into the classroom to breed another generation of radicals and Obama helped by funneling money to him.
You can find out more about this fairly easily, though the Obama camp tried to suppress the records and it took several FOIA requests to get access.
I don't care of he apologizes or not, this is clearly part of a pattern with him. He hangs out with all sorts of dubious people and seems to fit right in.
The fact that Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago (which he is) is shameful as well.
And the new site design makes my eyes bleed. Bright green? Really? Ouch!
You can find out more about this fairly easily,
Apparantly not as no one here is willing to post specifics. As for supressing the records, Obama does not own the CAC's archives.
And you shouldn't need the records anyway. Are you telling me that $50M was spent on programs to 'teach revolution' and not a single parent objected? Certainly there must be some letters to the editor or something protesting this even if Chicago has no Republican presence, Illnois is 100% Democratic (which I don't think it is)...and so on...
This post and many of the comments within are absolutely ridiculous, and pointless.
The Chicago political culture is often backwards, even corrupt, and much like other big cities, it has its fair share of shady characters. Rudy Gulliani could tell you a story or two about some of the people he's dealt with to get things done, or to get elected. If your a big city politician, you avoid associating yourself closely with scumbags and corrupt assholes on important matters, especially dealings with your own campaign, and aside from that you shake hands with them, take their money, and perhaps do business with them when it benefits a larger cause. Right or wrong, this is reality.
Obama is no different than any other big city politician. If he has to apologize, so do A LOT of others.
Mbunge, apparently you are unaware that Obama chose to continue to associate with Ayers after Ayers announced in the pages of the NYT that he did not regret his domestic terrorism.
Boonton, if for some crazy reason, Manson were to be released, and then openly stated that, while he no longer intended to kill people, he had no remorse about having had people killed, yes, any citizen with a shred of decency would refrain from associatting with Manson in any way, shape, of form. There cannot be any true reconciliation or forgiveness without true remorse.
It is grotesque that people are not ashamed to be associated with Ayers in any fashion.
What is the 'Democrat' ethics committee? Is there a Democrat party in Congress?
And, yes, McCain did do favors - he intervened on behalf of Mr. Keating.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-factcheck_07pol.ART.State.Edition1.394f4b2.html
How did he do so?
He ran interference and blocked legislation aimed at preventing bank fraud.
This helped Keating because Keating was committing literal bank fraud at the time.
And, no, (at this time) McCain does not regret his actions those many years before.
Tessa, I don't care if Obama apologizes, but it is unusual for the criminals to announce in prominent newspapers that they wished they had committed more crimes.
Jane Fonda apologized for traveling to Hanoi.Actually, no she hasn't. According to snopes, she apologized only for posing for photographs in an anti-aircraft gun, and feels she did nothing wrong in traveling there, or any of the other questionable actions taken there.
I saw a report somewhere that the people who think O’bama (Yo mama) is Qualified, are the same ones who though OJ was innocent.
I saw a report somewhere that the people who think O’bama (Yo mama) is Qualified, are the same ones who though OJ was innocent.
Will,
Boonton, if for some crazy reason, Manson were to be released, and then openly stated that, while he no longer intended to kill people, he had no remorse about having had people killed, yes, any citizen with a shred of decency would refrain from associatting with Manson in any way, shape, of form. There cannot be any true reconciliation or forgiveness without true remorse.
I thought we weren't talking about Ayers but Obama. The question is whether the association with the given facts available is something Obama should be bashed for or not.
In the Manson hypothetical the question isn't would Manson be a good person after 20 years of uneventful freedom but would the person coming into the neighborhood be blameworthy for an otherwise innocent association with him?
Of course Manson is already old so if released he would most likely not live 20 years. He is famous so even if that happened he would be well known after 20 years for his murders. He is also convicted of crimes so that makes the attempt to craft this as a hypothetical analogy equiliviant to Obama-Ayers rather strained...see my previous post about living in the real world instead of a make believe one of what if's.
Will,
Mbunge, apparently you are unaware that Obama chose to continue to associate with Ayers after Ayers announced in the pages of the NYT that he did not regret his domestic terrorism.
1. I noticed you failed to answer how you have protected yourself from your charity fellow board members who may appear in the NYT in the future supporting terrorism?
2. Source please? The CAC held meetings from 1995-2001. Even assuming Obama read the NYT piece from Ayers on September 11, the CAC would have either ended or be wrapping up at that time.
Yes, lets talk about the economy and more regulation. Regulation that McCain called for 2 years ago. That Bush called for 4 years ago. But was held up by Fannie D's. We will just call em D's since it was pretty much all of em. If you hate the current economic crisis, by all means blame the guys who did it. Starting with Frank, Mass-D, and the other Democrat enablers.
And lets pull the top 5 people who got contributions from fannie and freddie in jail. Not too mention their last 3 CEOS.
That would be a damn good start.
It's kind of difficult for McCain to apologize for something he was exonorated of 20 years ago. The only people claiming that McCain did anything wrong are hardcore Obama partisans. At worst Senator McCain showed courtesy to an influential, and at that time perfectly legitimate, businessman who did millions of dollars of business in his home state. Compare and Contrast: Senator McCain may have made a few phone calls for information on Keeting's behalf: Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D) routinely called regulators into his office to throw violent, profane tirades at them for shutting down failing S&Ls. Had Wright stood back and let the regulators do their jobs the S&L "crisis" would have cost the Treasury $50-$80 Billion instead of the $500 Billion it ultimately cost.
With Obama and Ayers the problem is considerably different. Ayers was an unrepentant domestic terrorist who got off on a technicality BEFORE he met Obama. The two projects they worked together on were unmitigated disasters that substituted revolutionary ideology for simple common sense. Until Obama was called on it by the Clinton campaign he didn't even seem to think squandering $150 Million dollars of taxpayer money was a big deal. In Liberal LA-LA Land he was a hero because he "tried". This is not a man I would entrust the nation's welfare to. He's Bill Clinton w/o the libedo and that STILL isn't a Good Thing.
Well actually it looks like Obama left the CAC before 9/11 therefore he was gone by the time the NYT asked Ayers about his activities in relation to 9/11....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
It's not the crime it's the cover up. If Obama's connections to Ayers don't amount to anything, they why did Obama lie repeatedly about the extent of their relationship. On any given day he is still lying.
Ayers and Obama worked together on two projects over a period of several years. The famous photo of Ayers trampling the America flag was published in 2001. How old was Obama then?
That's the difference between a relationship with an unrepentant (told the NYT in 2001 he didn't do enough - no remorse there for any wrongdoing) terrorist, and a person used as a token republican in a corrupt democrats scandal, later acquitted.
McCain isn't skirting campaign finance laws. And unlike Obama lived up to his word on taking public campaign funds. The GOP has filed complaints over Obama's skirting of finance laws alleging illegal and foreign donations.
There's more here - keep digging. Obama doesn't need to apologize. He needs to produce just one person in his past who isn't politically radioactive. He has thus far been unable to do that. Eventually people are going to wonder why not.
Orion
It's kind of difficult for McCain to apologize for something he was exonorated of 20 years ago.
Hmmmm....
With Obama and Ayers the problem is considerably different. Ayers was an unrepentant domestic terrorist who got off on a technicality BEFORE he met Obama.
Well technically since the gov't failed to convict Ayers of being a terrorist he too was exonorated.
Until Obama was called on it by the Clinton campaign he didn't even seem to think squandering $150 Million dollars of taxpayer money was a big deal
The CAC was $50M and was funded privately by the Walter Annenberg.
Assuming everything BO said is correct (a somewhat dubious assumption) the question remains:
Why did Sen. Obama deny his relationship with Ayers?
He was not just a man he knew in the neighborhood. The evidence is incontrovertible that he served on Boards with him, appeared on panels with him and that Ayers gave a fund raiser at his house for him.
So - why did he lie about the relationship?
Glad to see that hypotheticals are OK again.
Notwithstanding that neither of us has any idea how Manson now acts, what if Manson became a "quiet dentist" who said he regretted only that he hadn't done more? And if he were not attending Chamber of Commerce meetings to support better snow plowing (please!), but wrote books advocating "helter skelter." No problem?
Think about Ayers's actions: among other crimes, he put nails into a bomb that he intended to detonate at a dance. Nails. To maximize the suffering and death. Don't you find that ...troubling?
Boonton, I'd demand that such a person resign. If they didn't, I would. Also, it is my understanding that Obama served with Ayers on the board of another group, the Woods Fund, until December 2002.
I think you can see conservatives doing similar: tolerating and rewarding hate preachers
Oh? You mean like Revs Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson? Oh, wait, those are Democrats.
Who exactly are these Republican "hate preachers" who national Republicans are embracing?
those that have raped the constitution
You mean those who invented a "right" to abortion and have screwed up American politics for the last 35 years by taking a political issue and refusing to allow those who disagree with them to have a say about the issue (despite the fact that there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution about it)?
Glad to see that hypotheticals are OK again.
Well what you seem to be missing here is that if all that happened he would cease to be the Manson we know and just some quiet dentist at the end of the street. As I pointed out, that couldn't happen because Manson's so famous that people probably would never really forget his past but then that's the problem with your hypotheticals which is why I've advised you to leave behind the make believe world you live in.
Think about Ayers's actions: among other crimes, he put nails into a bomb that he intended to detonate at a dance. Nails. To maximize the suffering and death. Don't you find that ...troubling?
Errr yes, like I said if he ever runs for office that's an excellent reason to vote against him.
Will,
Boonton, I'd demand that such a person resign.
Ahhhh so where's the time machine so you can check up on your fellow board member's future statements?
Also, it is my understanding that Obama served with Ayers on the board of another group, the Woods Fund, until December 2002.
Well check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Fund_of_Chicago....Obama was on the board in 2001 but in 2008 he wasn't. He shared the board with an interesting group of what appear to be pretty mainstream characters. If you got more information that fills in the 2002-2007 gap please let us know.
Disingenuous. Don’t you suppose the subtle, sophisticated, highly educated, highly intelligent Obama might have gleaned just the tiniest scintilla of a hint of Ayers’s politics and background after an association lasting more than a decade?
Besides which, knowledge of the Weathermen is widespread. For Christ’s sake, Ayers’s wife was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for years. Do you seriously suppose that the backgrounds of Ayers and Dohrn are not common knowledge in Chicago, and the subject of daily commentary among those they meet? If Obama didn’t know that background, then he must have been the only politico in Chicago who didn’t. And in that case he is not only too stupid to be President, he’s too stupid to be allowed to cross the street by himself.
Ayers has admitted his guilt (“guilty as sin, free as a bird, it’s a great country” I believe were his exact words).
Face the truth: you’re going through elaborate contortions to defend actions that you’d condemn in a heartbeat if different dramatis personae were involved (as in the McCain-church bomber scenario). And that’s intellectually dishonest.
Occam,
Think about Ayers's actions: among other crimes, he put nails into a bomb that he intended to detonate at a dance. Nails. To maximize the suffering and death. Don't you find that ...troubling?
See what I mean about living in the real world. The dance bomb was not made by Ayers and he didn't put nails into it. It was made by his friends and it detonated prematurely. Ayer's involvement in it was only that it was his design and he appears to have known about their plans before the accident.
Not saying that makes Ayers's actions ok. As Obama said he did destestable things when he was 8 yrs old but try not to be so muddled. Get the acts correct and get their timeline correct, this bomb was 1970...not in Ayer's mainstream later life. Is it any wonder your hypotheticals are equally full of inaccuracies?
Then again, he might think a relationship to pursue activities completely unrelated to what his colleague may have done decades ago was completely irrelevant to his own character; and he might think that people who want to believe that if A likes B and B likes C then A must like C too are a bit short in the intellectual capacity department; and he might have thought it was far more relevant what A and B actually did together than what B might have done decades ago.
And he'd be right. But don't let me interrupt a good two minutes hate.
Obviously the Bill Clinton/GHWB tsunami relief commercials were a source of great confusion for you people; how could Bill Clinton possibly be able to associate himself with George H.W. Bush, the man he defeated for President? Like matter and anti-matter, they should have simply annihilated each other when they came into contact; because people can only associate themselves with people they agree with 100%, in your model of a rational universe.
('foo' on the comment form is probably to thwart spammers who try to forum spam by directly calling the posting script.)
Mouse: I was playing the faithtard card. As an atheist I really don't see why sitting in church is somehow worse than trotting folks on stage at campaign events after begging for their support. Doesn't make sense to me, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
That weren't the faithtard card. You accused those who dwell upon Obama's Wright connection as doing so only because Wright is black.
So the Repbulicans have not fully expelled rabble rousers like Falwell and Robertson from the political stage. So what? This fact is no more relevant than the fact that the Democrats haven't thrown out the likes of Jackson and Sharpton yet. It's a cheap parlour trick for rousing up the fringes, and both parties use it to their own dishonor.
That's a little different than spending two decades under the spiritual mentorship of angry divisive agitprop.
The only way it could be compared would be if
Obama tried to stop feds going after Ayers
to keep Ayers safe from justice
Mccain regrets doing something wrong,
trying to stop federal investigation
keep Keating from Justice.
and I dont hide like GOP you want my email?
Besides which, knowledge of the Weathermen is widespread. For Christ’s sake, Ayers’s wife was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for years. Do you seriously suppose that the backgrounds of Ayers and Dohrn are not common knowledge in Chicago, and the subject of daily commentary among those they meet?
Really? Amazing isn't it that not only did Obama but a host of other mainstream characters from politics, business and education all thought nothing of this guy sitting on boards while chatting EVERY SINGLE DAY about his activities as a radical?
Not one, not one peep of protest from anyone? What there's no Republicans in Chicago?
The facts are obvious. Ayers settled down to a normal life. He did normal things and acted like a normal person. His father's influence combined with the fact that people for the most part forgot and didn't care about the Weather Underground allowed him to become a mainstream entity by the time Obama arrived on the scene.
Your hypothetical is crap from the outset because Manson is too famous, even decades later people would remember who he is. Do you suppose, however, that our friend Will has conducted background checks on his fellow board members? Does he know what they were doing 20 years ago? Do you think he even googled them or has he simply assumed they are nice people because they seem so today?
Face the truth: you’re going through elaborate contortions...
Interesting directive from someone who is unable to:
1. Conduct any research on his own.
2. Comprehend that different events happen at different points in time.
3. Care more about the facts of scenarios that exist in his own imagination than what really happened.
and
4. At the end of the day bases his case by 'supposing' what people talked about ten, fifteen years ago.
Boonton, this piece, in the Chicago Sun-Times....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article
....says that Obama was on the Woods Fund board with Ayers until December 2002. Do you understand that December 2002 is fifteen months after September 2001? This took me about 17 seconds to find. Is there some reason you wish to remain ignorant about this matter?
Is there some reason you cannot grasp that designing bombs, with knowledge that they will be used to harm people, is as morally culpable as making them? Is there some reason you cannot grasp that when one never expresses remorse for such acts, and indeed says 40 years later that one has no regrets for such acts, time is not a mitigating factor, and the acts remain part of one's mainsteam life?
Boon, stop being disingenuous, please. One does not need to do background checks on people one serves on boards with to know that they have been quoted in the NYT as saying that they had no regrets about engaging in domestic terrorism.
Real world? Real world?? Listen to yourself: Ayers didn’t make the bomb, he just designed it. Oh, OK. And here I was thinking he was a criminal.
Wow. You’re willing to go that far?
Help me out. When did Ayers’s mainstream later life begin? 1971? 1972? 2007? When? Operationally, how are we to recognize when his terrorist life ended (if only that were true...) and his "mainstream" life began?
Suppose in 1970 Ayers conspired to plant a bomb – as he has admitted – then stood down for a while, then conspired to plant another in 1975. Would the intervening period qualify as mainstream life? For all we know, Ayers is simply between bombs.
The fact is that, barring prosecutorial misconduct, he could (and should) have been tried for murder, under the felony murder doctrine, since some of his co-conspirators died in the furtherance of the conspiracy to which Ayers was a party.
(Btw, how can there be “inaccuracies” in a hypothetical? That doesn't make sense. An inaccuracy is a disparity between reality and the characterization of it. For obvious reasons, a hypothetical cannot have such a disparity now, can it?)
...says that Obama was on the Woods Fund board with Ayers until December 2002. Do you understand that December 2002 is fifteen months after September 2001?
Ahhh so now did Obama read the Sept 11 article in the NYT? Was it reported by the Chicago Sun Times and Tribune? Did Chicago notice an unrepentant terrorist was sitting on the board of a major charity?
This took me about 17 seconds to find. Is there some reason you wish to remain ignorant about this matter?
YEA because I've spent the day correcting all the other mistakes you've been making and tracking down the facts about the other half dozen unsupported charges floated and then dropped here. Nice of you to join the club and discover that your browser's able to visit Google too!
Is there some reason you cannot grasp that designing bombs, with knowledge that they will be used to harm people, is as morally culpable as making them?
I corrected yet another factual misstatement: "he put nails into a bomb that he intended to detonate at a dance" I know you like conducting an argument in a fact free zone but try, just try, to pay attention to them once or twice...you might find it surprisingly helpful!
Ayers has, as you’ve mentioned, has been featured prominently in the NYT and Chicago Tribune. He’s hardly below the radar, and was long before Obama began his campaign.
Until and unless you respond to my McCain-church bomber question, I’ll consider you to have conceded that you have no defense.
Vote against him? That’s it?? So I take it that Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and the late Tim McVeigh can’t count on your vote?
Seriously, give it up. You’re defending the indefensible.
Real world? Real world?? Listen to yourself: Ayers didn’t make the bomb, he just designed it. Oh, OK. And here I was thinking he was a criminal.
You're the one who told me to face the truth....why the need to lie about what Ayers did or didn't do? I didn't say he put the nails in the bomb you did.
Help me out. When did Ayers’s mainstream later life begin? 1971? 1972? 2007?
I would peg it around 1980 after his legal charges ended and he started taking college courses & as far as we know never involved himself with bombings or advocated bombings again. I think his engagement with Chicago's mainstream was a slow process but was already done by the 90's. It doesn't take much, people forget and there's the bandwagon effect. You see someone on something normal and mainstream (chamber of commerce, chairty board etc.) you assume they've been 'vetted' by society as a normal person so you treat them as such which further reinforces the image.
The fact is that, barring prosecutorial misconduct, he could (and should) have been tried for murder, under the felony murder doctrine, since some of his co-conspirators died in the furtherance of the conspiracy to which Ayers was a party.
I suggest you borrow Will's time machine and email your brief to the Regan Justice Department.
Btw, how can there be “inaccuracies” in a hypothetical? That doesn't make sense.
Indeed, do you see how delusional you've become....real world my friend, real world.
Will,
One does not need to do background checks on people one serves on boards with to know that they have been quoted in the NYT
I ask again what do you know of your fellow charity board members and how do you know it?
Ayers has, as you’ve mentioned, has been featured prominently in the NYT and Chicago Tribune. He’s hardly below the radar,
I suggest you research that as I've already brought it up. He has made the NYT and Tribune, mostly writing letters to the editor or the occassional op-ed piece advocating education. Nothing more and he is usually described as an 'activist' or 'education professor'. Assuming you were not doing focused research on him and digging through archives my thesis is reinforced.
Vote against him? That’s it?? So I take it that Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and the late Tim McVeigh can’t count on your vote?
Err, yes. Like I said, let me know when one of them shows up on a ballot otherwise you're kind of wasting your time preparing an extensive argument proving they are really bad people. I hope you're not writing the Gov. of California a 6,000 word letter arguing against Manson being released and allowed to practice dentistry.
Until and unless you respond to my McCain-church bomber question, I’ll consider you to have conceded that you have no defense.
Explain to me everything your hypothetical McCain knew about the Church bomber both before, during and after their first meeting. Explain to me what everyone around the bomber knew about this guy. Then explain to me everything about his bombings, how/why he stoped and what he has done since.
Please. (Does Obama just read the comics, or the racing form?) Are you seriously asking us to believe that someone could be the subject of a feature article in the New York Times and that people surrounding him would be unaware of it? Do you think it might draw just the tiniest jot of attention among those who knew him, or does it happen so frequently it hardly warrants mention? (Memo to myself: better check to make sure the NYT doesn’t have a feature article on my wife that no one happened to mention to me.)
A distinction without a difference. But how about this, then: “He was responsible for nails being put in a bomb that was intended for detonation at a dance.” That still leaves him a tad short of Mother Theresa territory, yes?
Suppose a bright, charismatic Republican were rising as fast as Obama has, on the basis of a boffo keynote address at the Republican Convention. Then it comes out he spent 20 years sitting in the pews of Rev. Fred Phelps' church. Despite the God Hates Fags rhetoric, our boy swears he was only there for the baby in the manger stuff. That's why he contributed tens of thousands of dollars and had his kids baptised there. Suppose further that he launched his first campaign for public office in an idealistic abortion clinic bomber's living room - a guy who gamed the statute of limitations to avoid charges and got a comfortable nest at Bob Jones U, despite vociferously defending his actions.
I'm sure the tenor of those on this blog would not be so dismissive.
That's a little different than spending two decades under the spiritual mentorship of angry divisive agitprop.
Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | October 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Like Governor Bible Spice Caribou Mooseburger Barbie (wink, wink)?
Wow, this has brought out ye olde Bircher loon trools in the droves, my droogies.
people dont peruse the most wanted list
unless they wanted to get in J edgar's pants.
In any case, I grow weary of this. I’m done.
[Obama is] Bill Clinton w/o the libedo and that STILL isn't a Good Thing.
As detestable as I find Clinton in most ways, he actually governed to the right of Richard Nixon, both in Washington and Little Rock. In fact, one of the most detestable things about him was his tendency to cave to the political right on issues where they are not only wrong, but where he KNEW they were wrong (capital punishment, "don't-ask-don't-tell"). And Clinton was busy divesting himself of radical associations around the same time Obama was deciding that Saul Alinsky was a worthy role model.
Like it or not, everything about Obama's biography as a young man and his subsequent political life indicates a commitment to progressive beliefs of the sort embodied by Alinsky and his disciples. His associations, with Wright, Ayers, ACORN and the rest flow naturally from that background. Ditto with his comments on "bitter clingers" in the Heartland.
There is no mystery here. This really is a case of what you see is what you get. Obama will likely govern as far to the political left as he can get away with. If the political fallout from the brewing recession + financial panic are as bad as they currently look, that may be much further than many people expect.
Boonton, I was aware by September 14, 2001, that Ayers had made his comments. I have no particular interest in Bill Ayers. I do not regularly read the NYT. I thus logically deduce that if a person I served on a board with had been quoted in the NYT, saying that he did not regret his domestic terror campaign, I would have known it. If it is your position that Obama was ignorant of Ayer's remarks until December 2002, well, you just go right ahead.
Suppose a bright, charismatic Republican were rising as fast as Obama has, on the basis of a boffo keynote address at the Republican Convention. Then it
comes out he spent 20 years sitting in the pews of Rev. Fred Phelps' church. Despite the God Hates Fags rhetoric, our boy swears he was only there for the
baby in the manger stuff.
Sounds like Palin except minus the address from 4 years ago and minus a grueling primary battle where this was all hashed out once before. Ohh and except
for the bright as well.
Occ.
Please. (Does Obama just read the comics, or the racing form?) Are you seriously asking us to believe that someone could be the subject of a feature
article in the New York Times and that people surrounding him would be unaware of it?
Well I live in NJ and I rarely check out the Chicago Tribune. On 9/11 I certainly wouldn't have been reading the Arts section of the Chicago Tribune's paper
and checking out an article titled "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen" to see if
it happened to be my neighbor down the block. (Actually, I remember on 9/11 many of the internet servers were overloaded and it was very hard to get onto
the NYT or CNN sites). I'm not sure why Obama, from Chicago and running for office, would have made it a point. You may recall on that day lots of things
were going on and most likely the story was missed. Unlike Sarah Palin, I have no reason to believe that Obama reads all newspapers and magazines.
What I also notice, and this is kind of the important thing, is that no one else seemed to care either and this is important. As I said the bandwagon effect
is that if we see others doing something we assume it has been 'vetted' and give it a provisional ok. Will, I'm sure, has not checked out his fellow charity
board members. He does not know if one of them might be, say a serial rapist from 15 years ago who beat the system. He probably assumes correctly that they
wouldn't have made it to the board if they weren't ok people in some sense.
If Obama was at fault then what about everyone else? The Republican Gov. of Il didn't notice a terrorist running the biggest grant ever to the Chicago
school systems? Not even when he was praising it? The home of the U. of Chicago with its famous right wing economics department never even bothered to
write a letter to the editor? When the CAC was announced the only notable criticism from the right (and even it was pretty quiet) was that they should have
focused more on hard academics? Hell, what about the Republican Annenberg who put Ayers in charge of $50M. Even rich guys do kind of care who is spending
their money for them most of the time! NONE OF THEM SAID HEY WAIT WHAT'S A NUTSO EX-TERRORIST DOING HERE!!!!!
And no they didn't. Why? Because no one cared about Ayers. He was low key, behind the scenes, coming forward only with vanellia do-gooder stuff that no
one disagreed with. No one disagreed with him, he wasn't trying to get a position that was desired by others, no one had any reason to say "google him, what
type of dirt is there, who is this guy and what's his story?" And that's obviously how Ayers wanted it. OK he didn't regret what he did but for whatever
reason he decided that he had enough of the fugative life, enough of the radicalism and settled down to going with the system rather than against it. His
dad helped (chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony....no doubt plenty of
nice upper class connections there and somehow I suspect a few Reaganites in that address book of his)
The counter thesis here is that everyone knew Ayers and exactly what he did, the Weather Underground was 2nd only to the Beatles. But no one said anything.
Oddly the magic Obama mind ray was working perfectly to keep everyone silent until 2008 where, I guess when they upgraded to Windows Vista they had a blip
and it became an issue when he was running against Hillary.
Well the proofs in the pudding. Two years ago if someone said "William Ayers" to you what would have been your first thought? Try to answer honestly.
Boonton, I was aware by September 14, 2001, that Ayers had made his comments.
Really? Please tell me why and how you became aware of Ayers's comment. It's not often I meet someone who can tell me to the day when he heard a pretty much irrelevant news item over 7 years after the fact.
"Two years ago if someone said "William Ayers" to you what would have been your first thought? Try to answer honestly."
My first thought would've been "What's that bastard scumsucking hippie terrorist done now?" And I'm 5 years younger than Obama. And I never had my political career kickstarted in his home.
But apparently, you consider ignorance of leftist atrocities to be a perfectly valid defense.
Qwinn
Because, Boonton, ya' ol' master of irony, there is something notable about a guy getting a feature story in the NYT, in which he proclaims that he does not regret a terror campaign, on the very day that terrorists collapse the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.
Boonton, why on earth do you assume your ignorance is the standard for the population?
And it is just as true to say that the people who dismiss the Bill Ayers things are a minority of overwhelmingly leftist, anti-American, elitist fools who would apologize for anyone and anything that advances the socialist agenda. You could stick a fork in the stomach of a pregnant woman and these morons wouldn't find a thing wrong with that as long as you held the Correct View.
POINT ONE: Ayers activism was only beginning when Obama was eight, and evolved into using education as a weapon for revolution. The fact that Obama shared "education reform" efforts with him begs the question of whether he shares that image of how children should be taught. Have you read Ayers' devotional suck-up speech praising Chavez when he was in Venezuela TWO YEARS AGO? ("We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution." http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/world-education-forum/ ) It's clear he sees his imperative as using education to foment anarchy and a dismantling of Western society, and no doubt was exercising that at Annenberg Challenge.
How much does this vision differ with Obama's, and do educators and parents agree with it?
POINT TWO: I was an activist against the Vietnam War, and had to rub up against sympathizers of the Weathermen, perhaps they even were active in it on the QT. I remember clearly thinking, "these guys are scarier than Nixon could ever hope to be, absolutists and totalitarians, more power-mad than Nixon, and capable of much more evil."
I kept my distance, and I feel quite sure one could not work with such people now without understanding their toxicity.
Those of you wannabes that imagine you've learned the lessons of the 60s and want to teach the world to sing, I hope you don't have to experience this deeply darker side now.
McCain is the REAL one and our only hope.
I dont always read the NYT
so I could have missed it and os could Obama.
that is what you rest your cicumstantial case on?
and noone admitted to building any bomb.
Obama's ties to Ayers IS a real problem. Have you read any of Ayers's educational ideas? He says you can't separate progressive education from politics. But the guy's not only an unrepentant terrorist trying to get his political agenda a foothold in the education system, he's got harebrained ideas about education and lots of fans in the educational world. No wonder the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a failure -- it pushed Ayers' airhead philosophy instead of nuts and bolts teaching. And Obama didn't have the sense that this stuff was doing no good! If he wins, Obama gets to pick an Education Secretary -- useless educational philosophy for all!
andrea actually posted something that was not stupid and was valid complaint.
The educaitonal policies of CAC.
But since Bush did not even fully fund No Child left behind to be effective, thats CAC policies were not a good strawman!
a few direct questions for Ms McArdle:
a) what would you have Obama apologize for? not immediately ostracizing a man who was, decades later, doing helpful work in his community?
I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the gross failure in judgment occurred that requires some apology. Especially when being lectured by some one with as questionable morals as McCain.
b) did you miss this?
"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Obama made his apology publicly in a far ranging and forthright interview about Rezko with the Chi Sun times in 2006.
I remember clearly thinking, "these guys are scarier than Nixon could ever hope to be, absolutists and totalitarians, more power-mad than Nixon, and capable of much more evil."
-- Red in Blue
WOW - now what ayres did was certainly against the law but... comparing ANYTHING the weathermen did to Nixon killing a million or so innocent civilians in a false and useless war just because he didn't want to lose face??
If you can draw some equivalence there, its small wonder you'd vote for the guy who proposed invading Iraq a couple of weeks after 9/11 and sings about bombing another country to raise political donations.
A hypothetical is made-up, by definition. How can it possibly be “inaccurate?”
When you're offering it as an analogy, but portions of it are not actually analogs of the situation under discussion.
I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me. If there's no standards at all for hypotheticals, what purpose could they possibly serve in a discussion?
The Chicago political culture is often backwards, even corrupt, and much like other big cities, it has its fair share of shady characters. Rudy Gulliani could tell you a story or two about some of the people he's dealt with to get things done, or to get elected.... Obama is no different than any other big city politician. If he has to apologize, so do A LOT of others.
This isn't an explanation, it's a rationalization. We haven't had a big city politician on the national ticket since Spiro Agnew -- who turned to be on the take, and continued to rake in the little envelopes from his friends into his vice-presidency -- and before that probably Al Smith in 1928, probably for the precise reasons you give here. They've gone to bed with too many slimeballs and cranks.
It would take a novelist to have dreamed up the irony that 40 years after the police riot in Chicago, we would have a Daley Machine regular as the Democratic nominee for president.
If Giuliani had managed to win the GOP nomination, his many Tony Rezcos would be household names right now, thanks to the MSM. However, you would not find a Bill Ayers or a Rev. Wright in Giuliani's world. Associating with America-haters AND thugs is what makes Obama a uniter not a divider!
What I'm waiting for is for Obama to apologize for associating with Senator Tom Coburn:
According to records obtained by Salon, Coburn filed an apparently fraudulent Medicaid claim in 1990, which he admitted in his own testimony in a civil malpractice suit brought against him 14 years ago by a former female patient. The suit alleged that Coburn had sterilized her without her consent. It eventually was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to appear for the trial. In his sworn testimony, Coburn admitted he sterilized the then 20-year-old woman without securing her written consent as required by law. He blamed the omission on a clerical error, but maintained that he had her oral consent for the procedure. (Salon has been unable to contact the woman and is withholding her name out of respect for her privacy.) Coburn also revealed under oath that he had charged the procedure to Medicaid -- despite knowing that Medicaid, also known as Title 19, does not cover the cost of sterilization for anyone under age 21.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/13/coburn/
Nobody thinks that Obama would sterilize someone without their consent, of course. The REAL problem is that he is a member of the Senate, and the what the culture of the Senate says about his character.
Eric, if Coburn knowingly engaged in Medicaid fraud (and yes, there should be a trial to determine the facts), then Obama, McCain, and every other Senator should refuse to caucus with him, because the United Sates Senate should not tolerate Senators who engage in fraud. Is this difficult for you to comprehend?
RH Omea: That is exactly my point, these guys are scarier than Nixon, you wanna see how bad it can get, let's get Mr. Too-Cool-To-Care-How-Evil-You-Are-Just-Adore-Me in office and find out.
McCain's association with Keating was much deeper (close personal friend) and at the very, very least as serious as Obama's association with Ayers.
If McCain wants to lob a bomb like this then he should expect tit for tat.
I've recently discovered that John McCain has spent the past four years serving in an organization with a well-known terrorist pal. Rather than resign from the organization, McCain has stayed on, and as recently as *tonight* he spent an hour and a half in the same room as this guy, talking politics with him in front of a *lot* of witnesses.
And with that he's lost my vote. Character counts, people.
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.
Are you kidding? Obama was a kid at the time of Ayers' actions, and he's condemned them. That's somehow not enough? Your last paragraph suggests you think Obama should apologize - for what? Working to reform education, along with local Democrats and some rich Republicans? You're supposedly an Obama supporter, yet you're urging McCain to hit Obama over non-scandals. McCain's scandal with Keating, in contrast, centered on McCain's own actions, and that scandal had severe consequences. Apologies or not, his conduct was far from innocent (watch the recent mini-doc if you haven't) and he doesn't seem to have learned much from the scandal except how to work the press. Most striking of all, you seem to believe that the National Review gang, Sean Hannity and the rest have actually making these hundreds of mentions of Ayers in something resembling good faith. Yikes.
I have no idea why this is so difficult for you idiots.
I, for example, in my past as both a gay activist and white supremacist, have had moments which would mean Obama would not want to shake my hand, let alone smell my finger.
I can understand that. Why did he want to smell Ayers' finger?
I think the calls for an apology are misguided and sound petty.
The issue is whether Obama deep down inside shares Aryers's (and others he associates with) radical leftist world view and as such was eager to forgive him for his violent past in order to work with him. Or did he just go along to get along to further his political career in the hard left environment he fond himself in.
It would be nice to know these things so we know what we are getting before electing him president.
Because, Boonton, ya' ol' master of irony, there is something notable about a guy getting a feature story in the NYT
The arts section? And you waited until Sept 14 to read it. What an excellent memory you have.
Eric, if Coburn knowingly engaged in Medicaid fraud (and yes, there should be a trial to determine the facts), then Obama, McCain, and every other Senator should refuse to caucus with him,
If he is not convicted, though, should they continue to caucus with him?
Robert
The issue is whether Obama deep down inside shares Aryers's (and others he associates with) radical leftist world view and as such was eager to forgive him for his violent past in order to work with him. Or did he just go along to get along to further his political career in the hard left environment he fond himself in.
Well I posted the link to the 270 page report on what the CAC did. It's out there if you want to truth or you can just recycle the same old spin from the right.
I, for example, in my past as both a gay activist and white supremacist, have had moments which would mean Obama would not want to shake my hand, let alone smell my finger.
And certainly your present as a right-wing nutjob doesn't help, either.
But perhaps if, instead of trolling blogs, you had rehabilitated yourself as a local educator and philanthropist, things might be different.
And, indeed, Ayers apparently has such a history of diabolical plots that he's sitting faculty at the U of Chicago, and a member of some of Chicago's leading philanthropic organizations, and a figure deeply involved in local politics and respected by both Democrats and Republicans.
So maybe that's why even Illinois Republicans are characterizing the Ayers attacks as complete bullshit. Seriously - there's no legs on this, just like there's no legs on Obama's 20 years of association with a former Marine pastor with three letters of commendation from the White House.
I wonder if that Will Allen was an imposter....
I like your point here:
When you're offering it as an analogy, but portions of it are not actually analogs of the situation under discussion.
I think the Manson analogy can be reworked to make it more illustrative if you pair it with an opposing analogy....so consider this the Manson Next Door vs The Molester Next Door:
Imagine one day you're on the web and see this site that let's you research your neighborhood...you put in your address and it spits out all this demographic info, home prices, sales etc. You see a link that says "find sex offenders near you!" you click it and it opens up a map showing where registered offenders are living. What do you know the guy at the end of the block is one! You know him at Church, he sits on a charity board and every now and then the paper publishes one of his letters but 25 years ago he was convicted of rape.
Imagine Manson is released for some strange reason. He settles down somewhere and lives a normal life never again committing any crimes. Even though the local outrage over him moving in may die down people probably aren't going to forget who he is. He will be a bit like OJ, walking around free but always with a cloud over his head. This, of course, is due to the fact that his crime was so famous and him ever being released would certainly be equally as famous.
The question is, then, is Ayers more like the molester next door or the Manson next door? The evidence, as best as it can be put together is that for the most part before the campaign he was more like the molester. Some people knew he was some type of radical in the 60's, very few people bothered to know exactly what he did and exactly what he was accused of (unlike the analogy, the lack of a criminal conviction made the issue hazier...what exactly did he do if he wasn't convicted?).
The critical thing is NOT that the information wasn't there. The information was always there, even before the Internet and Megan's Law you could search criminal conviction records to see if you had any convicted offenders living by you. The question really was if the information was part of the society's common knowledge (like Manson's conviction) or not? Hence Will's case ends up hinging on trying to show that Obama had to have read the New York Times Art's section on 9/11/01 despite the fact that he was living in Il and not NY and there was so much more to read at that moment. Will wouldn't have to show that Obama read about Manson's conviction in the LA Times on page 4 1973 because there was literally a million other chattering sources going on about Manson. It's pretty implausible to think someone with reasonable connections to US culture would be unaware of him. Despite Will's memorization of NYT Art's stories, it is pretty clear Ayers never achieved such a level of fame.
Typical moron liberal response. You can't imagine anyone who is homosexual to be anything but a limp wristed idiot believer in the 'melting pot'.
Well, I like my Presidents the way I like cock - old, white, and preferably fat.
And nobody has answered yet why Obama would smell Ayers' finger, but not mine. Because nobody on here has any intelligence.
And nobody has answered yet why Obama would smell Ayers' finger, but not mine.
Well, actually I did, but I understand it can be kind of hard to read with Steve Schmidt's nuts in your face.
But look, it's pretty simple. Bill Ayers turned his life around and became a leading community figure, an authority on a particular philosophy of education, a philanthropist, and a figure in local politics respected by both Democrats and Republicans.
You've chosen to wallow in belligerent ignorance, instead. That's the difference between Bill Ayers and your racist ass.
Couple of things. First, the extent to which McCain actually changed (atoned, if you like that word) after the Keating episode is debatable, and there's a credible case that he never changed a bit, except to be more careful in how he translated personal and financial interests into public policy. Second, and relatedly, even if we stipulate that associating with Ayers is a horrible thing (and there's a credible case against that view, given the guy's subsequent activities and the wide range of people who have supported those activities), there's no non-insane argument that there has been some nefarious public-policy consequence. That makes the claim against McCain more consequential than the claim against Obama, for political purposes.
Yeah, Boonton, there's a dimwit who uses my name in this forum.
Now, you seem to have read something I didn't write. I didn't wait until September 14th to read the article. I read reports of the article within a few days of the 9/11 attacks, because other media decided it was noteworthy to have a guy announcing his lack of remorse for terrorist bombings on the very day of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Look, you obviously don't believe me, and you've adopted your typical Obama defense, which is that your guy is oblivious. Fine.
Now, if Coburn specifically admitted to Medicaid fraud (I haven't read even excerpts of the afadavit mentioned, so I don't know if the chracterization in accurate), then yes, other Senators should refuse to caucus with him, even without a trial. They should take this action because engaging in Medicaid fraud, like engaging in terrorist bombings is unacceptable behavior, and the people who engage in it are unfit for public life, until that time they have paid the legal consequences for their acts, and have demonstrated remorse. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Tell me, Rich, ya' ol' moral titan, specifically how many bombings can one participate in without remorse before one is unfit for public life? Obviously you think Ayers possibly hasn't reached threshold yet; please give us a number where you could safely say that someone has gone too far.
So now people are pretending to be me in denial of my sexuality because it doesn't fit liberal norms.
You liberals have gone from idiotic to fraudulent.
How many did McCain do? I'm sure you can remember the day you found out.
Bomb Iran, Bomb bomb Iran...
James, if you want to argue that anyone who fought in Vietnam is unfit for public life, go ahead and make the case.
Let me know when the Obama war with Pakistan starts; what a blast!
Will,
Wasn't looking to do anything of the sort, just trying to bait into self-righteousness. Nice to know you're so easy to trigger.
Not sure which is best, the Will Allen full of cock or the Will Allen full of himself.
Will,
Thanks for clearing that up. Hopefully if Megan is feeling better she can do something about the fake Will.....
So Bill Ayers would have drawn a blank for you until 9/11/01 when you read the article about him in the Arts Section of the NYT. I'll take your word that you read the article and it made an impression on you at that time....kind of proves my point.
When did you read about Charles Manson? I haven't the slightest idea. I've seen news stories about him, documentaries, probably saw that story in several articles but it's such common knowledge I, and probably most, people don't remember where we first heard about him.
As I said, the information was never hidden, no one was looking for it (for the most part). As Notable as the Ayers article was on 9/11, most people were paying attention to other things that day. If you have real evidence to the contrary please present it.
James, could you please detail the logic involved in determining that it is self righteous to state that people who wish to participate in public life should not be remorseless about engaging in a domestic terror campaign? Perhaps you could give an example of what sort of remorseless violent criminal behavior would render a person unfit for public life, and saying so would not be self rightteous. When O.J. Simpson gets out of jail, and if he then states he does not regret cutting his wife's head off, would it be self righteous to say that The Juice is unfit for public life? Do tell!
Boonton,
It's obvious that Will Allen is exactly the kind of person who would read the Arts section of the New York Times devotedly every. single. day.
Well, one of them would anyway.
Will,
It's not the actual issues, it's the idea that you think you are somehow intelligent and influential, when you are just as full of it as any other pseudo-anonymous poster.
You're not even a blogger, you post comments on someone else's blog. As such, your bluster amuses me hugely.
But the random OJ reference was very good. Well done. Have a biscuit.
No, Boonton, I knew who Bill Ayers was already. One of the reasons the headlines (in other media) I read regarding the NYT piece caught my eye in the days after 9/11 was that I knew who he was already.
Again, I have to ask that you try to not mischaracterize what I wrote. I did not say I read of the piece on 9/11.
Perhaps you could give an example of what sort of remorseless violent criminal behavior would render a person unfit for public life, and saying so would not be self rightteous
I wasn't aware that anyone with a history of violent criminal behavior was even running for high public office this year. Are you talking about some local election?
When O.J. Simpson gets out of jail, and if he then states he does not regret cutting his wife's head off, would it be self righteous to say that The Juice is unfit for public life?
Carefull, Occam went ballastic on me when I said I wouldn't vote for Ayers or his wife! I don't want you to get hurt!
This is prejudiced:
You mean me, don't you James? You pseudo-liberal moron, can't imagine a man sucking off a mariachi band and then going to vote Republican.
What do my orifices have to do with political office?
So small minded.
James, by what mind reading device have you determioned that I think I am influential? I agree that I belive I have above-average intelligence, but then many, if not most people, think they are above-average in that regard, so that doesn't take much insight to make that assertion about me. I have never stated that I am influential, however, and in fact have written on many occasions that posting on a blog is almost entirely an exercise in self-amusement. In other words, you simply are making stuff up about me, because you don't have anything else to write.
Boonton, the question wasn't addressed to you, and if you think that participating in public life is limited to people who run for office, then you have a different definition of "participating in public life" than I do.
I did a rough calculus, which estimated that your self-regard is in proportion to your number of posts, your attempted bullying of other posters, changing the subject where necessary, and insulting the other posters intelligence when they disagree.
self-regard =
(numbposts+bullying) x
(subjectchange+insults)
-------------------------
(Self-Awareness-sense of humor)
but maths was never my strong point. I'm not very bright.
James, please provide an example of a thread where I insulted another poster prior to that poster demonstrating a desire for an invective-filled exchange, by using such language towards me first. If someone want to have an insult-filled exchange, I'm happy to oblige them. Why is it that you find my insulting language notable, but not that of the people who are insulting me? Could it be you only note such language when it is employed by those you differ with politically?
Nice irony with the use of "self-awareness", though. One can only hope it was intentional.
I can balance quadratic equations while balancing a cock in both hands; each hand maintaining a different rhythm.
I did that in New York's meatpacking district, in 1981, in front of a crowd of 400 hundred amazed men. One of whom - I'm sure - was Rudy Giuliani.
I consider that 'participating in public life'.
What do my orifices have to do with political office?
You'd have to ask your Republicans, I guess, since they're the ones who want to legislate your orifices.
Wait, am I talking to the troll or to the idiot? I can't tell anymore.
By the way, if "Ya ol' moral titan" is considered a harsh insult, or even a mild one, then I plead guilty and apologize; it seemed rather mildly sarcastic to me.
Sorry to jump in on your question to James but I agree public life isn't limited to running for office....but that begs the question of what should society do with someone like Ayers.
I asked that before...basically he can take college classes (check, even convicted criminals do that)
He can become a professor (check)
Charity boards are private affairs so you can't really keep him off them unless you're runing the chairty.....which begs the question...
If this is where Ayers should have been stopped then shouldn't the primary people to stop have been the charities...namely the Annenberg Foundation and then the World Foundation. If the charities decided for whatever reason they were ok with Ayers then shouldn't their promoters be expected to step up to the plate?
That would be a problem because the CAC was welcomed with cheers by all types of people from both sides of the asile as well as by mainstream publications including ones with a right wing bent. Try as you might, I've yet to find anyone objecting to Ayers on the board even though he was there for years! So yea it's kind of a stretch to suddenly discover in 2007/8 this was all wrong and Obama is to blame.
Will,
It clearly wasn't intentional; to debate you is to prove my stupidity, it's clear.
On self-awareness, have you considered that there might be a reason why so many of your exchanges with different people often end up in insult? Given that the only thing in common is you, maybe you can.
If that's you at 1:00pm, I'm very impressed. But, as Chet says at 1:01pm - I'm also worried for you if President Palin comes to power.
Unless you are the 'gay friend' she mentions.
I'm not going to plow through all that expensive edu-speak. The abstract states the program was a failure (something else we ahould quiz Obama about)
That said, the report doesn't address the questiong of whether Obama shares the radical leftist world view of Ayres.
McCain hardly had an "extremely minor" connection to Keating. It's true that he did not do as much as the other Senators but that had more to do with the fact that he was a junior Senator at the time. In fact, McCain was the one who had the closest and most direct connections to Keating.
The only reason McCain is considered absolved is because he apologized. And to many dimwitted Americans, that is enough. They like nothing better than seeing someone redeeming themselves. The problem is, as any adult will tell you, an apology in words is useless unless it is followed by actions. It's crystal clear that McCain's apology (like the "Straight Talk Express" and so much else about him) was nothing more than a cynical ploy. It was a con job and we are the victims.
And, as usual, the "mark" in the con absolutely refuses to believe that any such con happened. How could it possibly be? The "mark's" ego-centric, Randian vision of themselves as some sort of "super-person" of high intelligence gets in the way of them honestly looking at themselves. Well, it's time for you kids to go play in the sandbox. The adults have to clean up your mess.
Don't bother me with actual documents! I know the truth!
James said:
Thank you James. By 1982, I was in such great physical condition that I was able to play the bongos with my ass cheeks. The inserted maracas were the Pièce de résistance, and landed me a weekend of bliss with Richard Gere.
That was possibly the high point of my life.
Convicted criminals can be professors?
so Cindy Mccain can bea professor?
LoL
Mccain was not bad on Keating, I
could handle him , its the Moronic palin that scares me.
The edu-speak documents do not address the underlying question...no truth to be found there.
So you have read them now?
Or just making judgments without bothering to read key documents?
Or just making judgments without bothering to read key documents?
He knows, because otherwise all the pundits he trusts are lying to him, and we know O'Reilly and Hannity would never lie, so QED.
Don't talk to me about O'Reilly...
He left my lovely Puerto Rico friend so sore. He couldn't sit down through the final semester of his 9th grade.
He didn't want to know me. Too white and too old. I was 16 at the time.
Again, the documents are a technical assessment of the failure of the CAC. They do not, nor should they, address the radical leftist world view of Ayres and whether Obama subscribes to those views, which is the primary issue for voters (although the failure of one or Oboma's signature projects is also of interest).
So the documentation for the main point of connection between Ayers and Obama don't interest you at all, even though it's now one of Obama's 'signature projects'
This is apparently a huge issue of national security, and you can't be bothered to read them?
What sort of patriot are you?
You Sir, are Un-American.
Robert,
Again, the documents are a technical assessment of the failure of the CAC. They do not, nor should they, address the radical leftist world view of Ayres and whether Obama subscribes to those views,
The claim has been made that the CAC funded radical leftist worldviews etc. that taught children 'revolution'. The section I quoted directly contradicted a right wing pundit assertion that the CAC did nothing to emphasize improving test scores. If this is your concern you should be trying to find as much as you can about what the CAC did and didn't do. Failure to present any support to your thesis results in rejection of your assertions and that is how things are playing out right now.
(Also if the CAC was so radical it should not be much of an issue to find people who were criticizing it at the time it was going on. Chicago may be a democratic town but it has plenty of conservatives)
A BIGGER POINT:
I didn't watch the debate last night but from what I understand McCain didn't mention Ayers. The issue is now intellectually dead. If McCain honestly felt Obama was nothing more than an Ayers in disguise then it was his duty to say so, say it directly to the American people. His failure to do so can only be explained by:
1. He doesn't really believe it - in which case he's playing it only for the suckers out there.
2. He does really believe it but thinks Obama's vote against the pork filled energy bill of a few years ago is more important. In which case he establishes that whatever the merits of his service in Vietnam he is now unfit for command.
The documents chronicle yet another failure of an expensive attempt at "education reform". That is of side interest to me at the moment.
There is no "national security" issue here except for the general failure of our education system and the ultimate protectionist trade policys this will lead to.
The more immediate issue is Oboma's world view. Does it match Ayres's (or "spiritual adviser" Wright's)?
Boonton, people who have regard for public life should refuse to associate with the likes of Ayers, or anyone else who admits to engaging in violent criminality, and is remorseless about it. As I stated above, it is grotesque that Ayers is accepted in public life. No, Obama isn't close to being the worst offender in this regard, but I never said otherwise. Hell, I even said that Obama's choice to associate with Ayers isn't even a good reason to not vote for Obama. I merely was taking issue with the notion that people like Ayers were acceptable to associate with in public life, and with the notion that Obama's association with Ayers only predated Ayer's very public announcement that he was remorseless about his vile acts. I understand it is your belief that Obama was without knowledge that Ayers had made such a statement. I can't prove you wrong, or at least I can't without a lot of work which I am unwilling to do, so, fine, believe what you will.
Can we believe you spent a weekend with Richard Gere as well, Will?
James, the sort of person who engages in lame comments about sexual orientation is one who would be well advised to refrain from making editorial remarks about another person's social skills. Golly, you really do have a large capacity for unintentional irony, stripped of self-awareness, don't you?
I do, Will.
I can only thank God you are on this earth to point it out.
So that wasn't you at 1:34pm?
Like Chet said, it's very difficult to tell which is which sometimes.
Diana Nelson, Illnois Republican Representative confirmed that no conservatives or Republicans ever made an issue of Ayers involvement in school reform....
The issue is now dead, or as dead as it can ever get. Soon only the kooks will be clinging to it.
I missed Chet's post above; perhaps he can explain how someone could have "turn his life around" if he wouldn't even express remorse for engaging in violent criminal acts. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. What has he turned around from?
Did you miss the post where Chet said it was hard to tell the idiot and the troll apart?
That was the difficulty I was having.
I think the troll seems friendlier.
Perhaps Chet is judging Ayers by his acts, not his words?
But I'm not as smart as you Will, so I'm sure that must be wrong.
Ya' know, Boonton, what makes a good election issue, or even who wins an election, is really not of paramount importance, at least not to me. My entire participation in this thread has mostly been to contend with the morally idiotic notion, as Chet so neatly summarized, that it is possible that people who engage in remorseless violent criminality have "turned their life around".
Relax, Boonton. It is overwhelmingly probable that your guy is going to win.
James, is there some reason to think that when a man says he has no remorse for his violently criminal acts, that he might be lying? Or are you using the same finely calibrated machine which allowed you to peer into my inner thoughts? Do tell!
I'll explain it to you very, very, slowly, as embarassing as it is that this needs to be explained. When people engage in significant wrongdoing, they have not turned their life around until they have frankly acknowledged the wrongness of their acts, and express remorse for having done so, and then made efforts to repair what harm they have done. Perhaps Ayers has tried to achieve the third step; I can't peer into his soul, so I don't know. I know for a fact that he has not achieved the first two acts.
I see Will.
I must be very stupid, because I thought that if someone used to try to blow things and people up, and now is a professor active in his community, that perhaps their actions had improved.
I see it clearly now that words, not actions, are the only thing that matter.
Thank you Will.
I thought it was worth trying to peer into your inner thoughts, as you seem so skilled at it with Obama and Ayers. But of course, I lack your intellect.
Will,
I missed Chet's post above; perhaps he can explain how someone could have "turn his life around" if he wouldn't even express remorse for engaging in violent criminal acts. He doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Well this is two different things. 'Turning your life around' simply means you no longer do whatever bad thing you used to do. Expressing remorse for the bad things you've done, likewise, doesn't mean you've stopped doing them. Ideally it is best that a person both regret their bad acts and turn their lives around, but there's plenty of people who no longer do the things they did in their youth but remain stubborn and thickheaded about their past.
Ya' know, Boonton, what makes a good election issue, or even who wins an election, is really not of paramount importance, at least not to me. My entire participation in this thread has mostly been to contend with the morally idiotic notion, as Chet so neatly summarized, that it is possible that people who engage in remorseless violent criminality have "turned their life around".
Damm, sorry I didn't see that earlier. I could have saved you hundreds of posts by just shooting your idea down from the beginning. But I am also approaching this from what is right and wrong...or at least proper and improper. It seems a double standard is afoot here where Obama's obligations are being set higher than others. Perhaps this is partly because McCain has managed to act so unpresidential that it's almost mean to harp on that but there is an election happening and as citizens we should discuss who should win and why rather than pretend this is a sporting event and we are oddsmakers trying to figure out the spread.
James, is there something in your head which prevents you from understanding that frankly acknolwedging one's wrongdoing is, yes, a human action? Is your reading comprehension such that, when I write.....
"...and then made efforts to repair what harm they have done."
....you interpret the words as meaning...
"I see it clearly now that words, not actions, are the only thing that matter."
I'm sorry if this seems insulting, but I am really curious; what has happened in your brain which compels you to reach such an interpretation? I'm really am sorry, but it must be asked; what on earth is wrong with you? Are words just random stimuli which cause wholly unpredictable and unrelated thoughts to fire in your synapses?
Boonton, a person who refuses to frankly acknowledge the wrongness of his acts cannot be said to have turned his life around, for the simple reason that he is still implicitly stating that he is willing to engage in such acts again, if presented with the same or similar circumstances. There is no true forgiveness or reconciliation possible until the wrongdoer acknowledges doing wrong.
If you had read one of my very first posts, you would have seen that I stated that the Ayers matter was not a good reason to not vote for Obama.
Will,
You're clearly using concepts which are beyond my comprehension; I thought that words and actions were usually designated as somewhat separately entities - especially say, in the field of politics.
I see now that judging a man wholly and utterly on whether he says sorry is the sole issue here; not whether they continue to act violently, or become a productive member of society.
Words are actions. I see.
I'm sorry. I frankly acknowledge my wrongdoing Will.
I hope bin Laden on his next video is genuinely upset and sorry, and we can just forget about 9/11 and get along.
James, my curiosity increases. When I write...
"...and then made efforts to repair what harm they have done."
....do you really interpret that statement as being a subset of....
"I see now that judging a man wholly and utterly on whether he says sorry is the sole issue here; not whether they continue to act violently, or become a productive member of society."?
You need medical help, I'm sorry to say.
Will,
I've changing the argument to suit. You must recognize that technique.
Given that words are now officially actions, you don't pay much attention to them.
I said earlier:
And yet you still persist answering, because you can't help yourself, can you?
No, James, I answer because when a person writes "A" and someone else says the person wrote "not A", I inquire whether the someone else is lying, or has a malfunctioning brain. Since a malfunctiomning brain does not carry with it the moral element that the act of lying does, I always try to be charitable and assume that former condition applies.
Will,
I told you from the start my intentions, and ten posts later you STILL hadnt realized it, and I have to point it to you, and you still answer.
You can't help yourself - this pathological need to be right and/or have the last word. It's very amusing.
Who is the stupid one again, I forget? Me no bright.
btw - you've completely conceded this argument to Boonton now yes?
James, I really don't care about your intentions. I would like it if you would stop lying.
Boonton has made several contentions. First, he seemed to contend that Ayers statments of non-remorse were recent, not many years old. This was incorrect. Then he seemed to doubt that Obama associated with Ayers after Ayers made his remarks about not having regrets. Obama did. He now seems to be contending that person can turn his life around without acknowledging the wrongness of his acts. This is wrong. He is also contending that Ayer's asscociation with Obama is not a matter which should influence voting. I stated the same thing at the beginning of the thread.
It's pathological Will, isn't it?
You're still trying to score points of someone whos only goal, admittedly openly at the start of our conversation, is to provoke more pompous nonsense from yourself.
And yet you still reply.
Is it last post wins? Or is it much deeper, and Daddy never let you win?
And are you still going to reply to this, given my amusement grows exponentially with every post you continue this farce?
Hey, James, I'm just killing time here, in between phone calls. Why on earth have you concluded that your inner state of mind is something I care about?
Well, I just got the call I was waiting for. Have a nice day.
Will,
I have no idea why you continue to respond. but it's ok, I'm going to leave the computer now.
You can class that as a victory if it helps.
The craps getting deeper, seems like Sean Hannity is guilty of guilt by association
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/08/fox_news/index.html
He gave his whole show over to an anti-Obama nutcase. Never once did he tell his viewers or challenge his guest with the fact that he is a well known anti-semitic nut who has run for Congress on a platform of ending "Jew Power" and has filed hundreds of frivilous lawsuits...so many that the Federal Courts have actually barred him from filing any more.
I'm not going to fight over whether Ayers should be considered a reformed person or just a bad person who hasn't done any crimes lately. At this point the GOP is intellectually dead and it's good to see them getting their hat handed to them.
I can guarantee you that Rudy Giuliani knows after that magical April evening that actions are more important than words.
I missed Chet's post above; perhaps he can explain how someone could have "turn his life around" if he wouldn't even express remorse for engaging in violent criminal acts.
I could, if I wanted, explain how you've completely misread Ayers, how you've misrepresented his involvement in the Weathermen, and completely overstated the moral import of his actions.
But what would be the point? This isn't about what Ayers has done, or his precise degree of contrition, or the closeness of his tenuous association with Obama, or what Obama knew or didn't know on 9/11 or at any other date.
This is about seizing whatever flimsy pretense you can find to question the judgment of the political candidate who's basically been right about everything from the get-go - Iraq, the economy, just about everything. Almost everything you've posted here is a flat-out misrepresentation. If it wasn't a misrepresentation about Ayers and Obama it would be about Wright and Obama, or Rezko and Obama, or any of the other shibboleths of the racist right.
Diana Nelson, Illnois Republican Representative confirmed that no conservatives or Republicans ever made an issue of Ayers involvement in school reform....
Really only relevant if Illinois Republicans ever actually cared about what went on inside the Chicago public schools.
As if.
McCain has a couple of big problems in this campaign--his credibility and judgment--which would make his feelings of "regret" questionable. In the 2000 presidential campaign Senator McCain accused the Bush campaign for "pandering to the outer reach of American politics and the agents of intolerance" such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Yet, in this campaign he did a complete reversal, adopting Rod Parsley as his "spiritual guide" and accepting John Hagee as a political supporter until this duo proved to be a serious political liability. This is only one instance of McCain's many reversals. Consequently, regret can certainly be a matter of semantics and opportunism. It seems that Senator McCain's firmly held beliefs are malleable.
Nobody cares about a smalltime wannabe terrorist from 40 years ago other than Republican hacks desperately clutching at any straw to save their losing campaign.
Read the polls. We don't care about their stupid fake outrage over some nobody. They just look like idiots endlessly harping about it while the financial system collapses.
Do me a favor, just one favor.
Please, please stop pretending that you at any time are, or have been, an Obama supporter. That little ruse has worn a bit thin. It simply shows you up as disingenuous.
No, Damozel, Megan is a genuine Obama supporter. But she also has genuine qualms about whether Obama is sufficiently committed to the laissez-faire free-market principles that have done such wonders for our economy and our financial system. (/snark)
More seriously, Obama is going to win a landslide victory because he's been able to bring together a lot of people whose ideological predispositions aren't necessarily too close to each other. After he takes office, there's going to be a bit of a shakeout as we figure out where we all stand on a lot of serious issues. But at the same time, people are going to find their own ideologies changing under the impetus of political realignment and, more important, of the earthquake that's going on in the financial system right now. A lot of traditional rhetoric about government vs. free market solutions is now obsolete, and people are going to have to figure out what they think in a new environment.
I believe that Obama belongs to the left wing of the Democratic party base even though he is trying to hide it somewhat during the campaign. I think that he along with Pelosi and Reid in charge of the federal government will lead to an abandonment of free market principles and a strong shift to a centrally planned economy and protectionist trade poliicies.
I suppost that is an experiment worth having. I just don't know what we do if the experiment fails.
I think that he along with Pelosi and Reid in charge of the federal government will lead to an abandonment of free market principles
In other news, did they start spending the bailout money yet?
On trade I think Obama is slightly more protectionist than Bush was but probably won't be as much. Everyone on the Democratic side pandered to the Lou Dobbs mindset but I think there are powerful institutional forces that would resist full blown protectionism.
The expansion of free trade is another factor. NAFTA probably wouldn't pass today which is why even Hillary attacked it from the stump. But I don't think Obama will really gut it. On the other hand if McCain was elected I couldn't see him getting something like NAFTA passed. So while I am no fan of protectionism I don't see Obama as much of a problem.
Uh ho!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccains-trumpets-endorsem_n_132954.html
Looks like McCain has accepted the endorsement of Leonore Annenberg, widow of and President of the Annenber Foundation!!!!! The VERY SAME FUND THAT GAVE TERRORIST AYERS $50M! WHAT'S NEXT WILL MCCAIN ACCEPT BIN LADEN'S ENDORSEMENT!!!!
didn't read the whole thread, but just to interrupt the massive circle jerk--
nobody gives a shit about Ayers. Really. NO. ONE. GIVES. A. SHIT. this is the mccain campaign's fifth or sixth desperate hail mary pass and just like all the rest it's an epic failure.
you wingnuts come back in a few years after President Obama saves the economy and everything else Bush has screwed up, and then we'll talk about the scary terrorist turned professor of education Ayers.
I saw a report somewhere that the people who think O’bama (Yo mama) is Qualified, are the same ones who though OJ was innocent.
I saw a report somewhere that you suck your boyfriends cock straight out of your own asshole Mr Reality.
Same report perhaps?
This is very frustrating. I've had no outlet to be an obnoxious cunt now for over 48 hours.
Megan, your illness is physical, but mine is mental. Much longer, and I cannot be held responsible for my own actions.