... "on a regular basis".
Boy, that wasn't a good answer.
It didn't help that Obama followed up by analogizing Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist in question, to a fellow Senator who vociferously opposes abortion, with whom Obama is also friendly. One man advocates legislation to criminalize abortion, the other is an unrepentant ex-terrorist from the Weather Underground, there is no difference in moral judgment in deciding to befriend either of them, right? (H/T Instapundit).
UPDATE: A reader protests, "Obama specifically mentioned [Sen. Tom] Coburn's statement that capital punishment is appropriate for abortionists. The issue is that Coburn advocated killing people for something Obama doesn't even believe should be illegal."
But the main reason people might be troubled by Obama's friendship with Ayers is not because Ayers has radical political views, but because he's an unrepentant ex-terrorist. The analogy would hold water only if Cockburn had been involved in bombing abortion clinics, escaped prosecution, and now publicly says, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
And now that the transcript is available, you can read the full context.
Moderator: And I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.
And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly."
Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.
The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either.
What an absurd statement. Obama did not analogize Ayres with Coburn. He simply stated that he associates with people he deeply disagrees with.
Ha ha!
Brilliant!
Obama is a clown, a nothing. I did like his answers on the capital gains questions. It reaffirmed what I already knew: he's a Socialist.
What did he say? That capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as those who actually earn their income through working?
It shouldn't. If BHO had any economic literacy he would oppose an increase in capital gains tax.
In 1998 most industrial and developing countries tax individual and corporate capital gains more lightly than does the United States. If you tax something you generally get less of it. We need more savings and investment in the US, not less. We shouldn't tax work either. The income tax needs to be replaced by some kind of consumption tax. A capital gains tax is also a tax on inflation. At a minimum we should adjust the current capital gains tax for inflation. Why would someone want to hold a depreciating asset? That's what happens when you tax inflation. Even the European Social Democracies understand this. But but not BHO.
He and his supporters have a lot to learn about economics. But what would you expect from someone who hasn't even run a candy store?
This is necessary because of the wonderful combination of self-righteousness and persecution complex evinced by so many of his followers (and no, I don't mean "supporters"). Not only is it unfathomable to them that you could possibly not support Obama for any legitimate reason, but any questioning of his stances or statements is clearly the most unfair attack ever perpetrated on a candidate. I literally don't think I've seen a single McCain or Hillary supporter complain about the any of stories about their candidates but every single Obama story has one or more Obamites complaining about how this site is "nothing but anti-Obama news" or "too right wing". If criticizing the Chosen Candidate gives you high blood pressure, I strongly suggest you stick to dailykos and make us all better off.
Exactly. Wage income tax rates should be lowered to match capital gains tax rates.
Obama is right. Bill Ayers' opinions and life experience should no more be imputed to him than Sam Walton's opinions and life experience should be imputed to Hillary. (Obama was paid to serve on the board of the non-profit anti-poverty grantmaker Woods Fund; Hillary was paid to serve on the board of the pro-profit discount seller Wal-Mart.)
Further, had government done their job, Bill Ayers would not be living in Obama's neighborhood at all. His presence there reflects the failure of the Federal government and the governments of New York State and New York City to prosecute and imprison Bill Ayers after he and his wife turned themselves in to the authorities in 1981. But the real cause of Ayers' living in Obama's neighborhood is another government agency, the University of Illinois, which hired Bill Ayers and made him a tenured English professor. In Hyde Park, university professors are as common as leather-patched sports coats, used bookstores, or Harold's Fried Chicken shacks. Further, I strongly suspect that Bill Ayers and his wife were introduced to Barack as the English and law professors, respectively, that they are, instead of as the 70's terrorists they were.
(Imagined sign in a university departmental office: "You don't have to have been a long-haired 60's radical draftcard burner to work here, but it helps.")
Obama specifically mentioned Coburn's statement that capital punishment is appropriate for abortionists. The issue is that Coburn advocated killing people for something Obama doesn't even believe should be illegal. Honestly, there really is no answer Obama could possibly give to placate those who actually believe that being friendly with Bill Ayers despite his not repenting for forty-year old crimes of which he was never even convicted reveals some pernicious character flaw. There goes the Sean Hannity vote.
That will increase consumption not investment, unless directed to the high income earners, which is politically impossible.
I can only assume that Prof. Bernstein will be calling for his fellow Volokh Conspirator Prof. Lindgren to resign from that tainted institution.
However, if I wanted to up the rhetorical ante here, I could say something like, "I suppose Prof. Lindgren can do what he wants, but if I found myself teaching side-by-side with an ex-terrorist, and greeting ex-terrorists at faculty receptions, and sitting on faculty committees with ex-terrorists, I would resign from that school."
Does Prof. Lindgren really do all these things? I think the picture painted by that hypothetical comment is probably vastly misleading, but it's also probably true that Prof. Lindgren treats Prof. Dohrn with normal collegial courtesy that would be open to this sort of distortion. Unless Prof. Lindgren actually goes around slamming doors in Prof. Dohrn's face, it would certainly be hard to "prove" these unfair insinuations are false.
No one could really disagree that you might be able to learn something about someone by looking at the people with whom they associate. At the same time, guilt by association can readily degenerate to Calvinball, where rules are made up arbitrarily as we go along. The distinctions raised by Prof. Bernstein in his 9:19 a.m. comment have just that Calvinball quality to them: again, while I don't believe that Prof. Lindgren ought to resign from Northwestern, whether or not he's running for President has nothing to do with it.
While I disagree with the decisions by the faculties to hire convicted terrorists in the first place, I defend the rights of Ayers and Dohrn to retain their posts, as they have been hired and tenured through the appropriate process. However, Berkeley is being contacted repeatedly by faculty calling for the dismissal of a tenured faculty member, John Yoo,a faculty member who has not even been charged with a criminal act. I'm not sure I would want to associate with any of the three, all of whom strike me as morally bankrupt. But,fair is fair. If the faculty nation wide think tenure should not apply to people they call 'criminal', then why should tenure apply to people who are actually convicted criminals? Likewise, people with political ambitions may sometimes discover that the unsavory persons they associated with become political baggage.
problem is, Ayres, Dohrn, et al, did things which a certain proportion of the liberal population can't really, really condemn. Not in their heart of hearts. So the difference in treatment between them and, say, Yoo is understandable.
Are we going to talk about Patty Herst next?
If Obama goes down, it should be because his policies are bunk. Not because his pastor is a relic of the 60s.
Do you respect the flag? Does your pastor love America? What a bunch of BS.
"Cockburn" should be "Coburn". Not a big deal, but since you added the comment to the post, you might want to correct it.
Most people who still know right from wrong would have nothing to do with a terrorist.
Actually, I think the consensus position on legal academic blogs is that even if it's too bad Yoo is tenured, his tenure can't be questioned this point on the basis of the "Yoo Memos," etc.
I don't really know why Ayers and Dohrn were tenured; it's really before my time, even though I'm closing in on 40. I am aware of at least one contemporaneous column criticizing it (by liberal columnist Michael Kinsley; it was entitled "Dohrn Again," ho ho ho).
The lot of them can be roundfiled for all I care.
William Ayers is a Professor of English. What could be more harmless than that? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.
As Obama likes to say, "Let me be clear."
This guilt by association stuff is stupid regardless of who it's aimed at.
The Hagee stuff is stupid. It's a distraction from the real issues. Such as:
1. McCain is viewed as an expert on National Security.
2. McCain has advocated for the same disastrous National Security positions as W., for the past 8 years.
- one could argue that McCain would pursue different policies then W., and that he adopted those positions because he was being a loyal republican - which cuts against the Maverick meme. But given that his foreign policy advisers are from the same small pond of Neo-con think tanks, I doubt there'd be much of a change. This more than anything else, is why I'm likely to support Obama in the fall.
But this is a debate I'd rather have then which random person said what and how tenuously they are related to so and so's campaign.
As an aside, does anyone know how McCain voted on the creation of Homeland Security? I think of the creation of DHS - as a gigantic expansion of government, that gives out our tax dollars for little return - as symbol for just how much the republican's strayed from their conservative values and small government underpinnings. Big praise to McCain if he voted against it.
Now, there is "unfairness" in the tax treatment hedge fund managers' "earnings" (that's what they are, not true long-term gains on investments as such). This is truly unjustified and unjustifiable from any perspective, but some of those champions of the common man, like Chuck Schumer and Christopher Dodd, are handmaidens of the heavyweight Wall Street types who funds the senators and like that special tax treatment just the way it is.
No, he would oppose an increase in capital gains tax rate. Neither he, nor anyone else, has any control over whether or not an actual tax is increased.
Ayers is a terrorist and attempted murderer who has found a living and some degree of professional comfort based upon these acts. That Obama could find anything to say to this scumbag is beyond me; this has nothing to do with his politics and a lot to do with his integrity and character.
I simply do not want the POTUS having a free-form idea-driven relationship with a man who really doesnt want to walk back on his murder-oriented background. Ever.
As a Dem., these sorts of "he's not a bad guy in private" type relationships with the tenured nutbag set is just instant, and justifiable, chum for the RW.
also: the coburn analogy sucked. Coburn made an idiotic statement for which he is justly marginalized; Ayers tried to kill people.
Presumably, Obama's statement about those in the stock market being taxed less than their secretaries comes from Warren Buffett's comments that he (and 400 of those he was addressing) did so. Buffett stated he was taxed at a 17.7% on $46 million (without trying to avoid paying higher taxes), while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30%.
Presumably, Buffett was including social security tax.
Isn't this a little bit like saying that both the wealthy and the poor have the same right to spend their nights sleeping under a highway overpass should they so choose? True in the abstract, but besides the point in the real world?
While I think there are a lot of perfectly sound policy reasons for keeping the rate on capital gains low, I'm unsure its politically wise to maintain a tax system where Paris Hilton and Theresa Heinz Kerry pay lower marginal rates on their incomes than the guy who mows my lawn.
After we deal with the "gotcha" issue, maybe we can come back to talk about going "negative" and "the politics of personal destruction" which we hear about when supporters don't like the attention that their candidates are getting. I have my doubts about those as big concerns, though from time to time there are campaign tactics that are contemptible.
Coburn: said he thought it ought to be a law --- passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court --- that abortionists should be executed. Dumb? yes. Bloody unlikely? yes. Illegal? No.
Ayers: Supported and participated in the construction of a bomb that was going to be used to murder servicemen and civilian bystanders at a Fort Dix dance, but which went off early, so it only killed three people including his then girlfriend, and now says he doesn't regret it. Dumb? yes. Bloody unlikely? No, it happened. Illegal: exceedingly.
In other words, Coburn: political jackass. Ayers: accessory to murder, felonious murderer, and only by luck not a mass murderer.
How about a question aimed more at enhancing the moderators fame by inciting public controversy and endless media replays of the question, than at giving ordinary members of the public a chance to actually determine how a candidate's presidency would likely differ from his or her opponents?
That distinguishes "Wouldn't you want the death penalty for someone who killed one of your little girls?" from something like "Would you extend the US nuclear retaliatory umbrella over Israel?"
How about if we call for Dohrn to resign in order to stop tainting the institution?
Not everybody thinks Dohrn is a taint.
Might have been a more apt analogy, but then the West Virginia primary is coming up.
"Coburn answered that 'while abortion is not against the law now, if it were, states could use death penalty laws to punish the taking of innocent life.'"
not quite what obama said, is it? what does that do to his parallel?
But in referring to Professor Lindgren's possible association with Ayer's wife Professor Bernstein says
So, which is it??? Is the problem the friendship or the answer? Or does that depend on which comment you're responding to at the time?
Since when does the federal government control all the factors that determine marginal tax rates?
Quite true. It's really creepy. DailyKos has a post up now where the proprietor of the site (Kos) agrees with a statement that Hillary is not a democrat anymore. Apparently, attacking Obama in any way gets you converted into a Republican, even if your position on the major issues is nearly indistinguishable from Obama's.
HRC and McCain supporters seem to remember, for the most part, that we live in a decent country and the USA is not going to fall into the ocean and be swallowed up a la Atlantis if their candidate does not get elected. Some of the Obama people seem to believe the only way to avoid the apocalypse is to elect Obama.
While we could account for inflation by indexing the amount taxed on capital gains to inflation over the relevant time period, that idea has not found much favor yet due in part to the administrative hassles it would cause. Thus, a simpler, albeit imperfect, solution has been to tax long term investments at a lower tax rate.
Raising the long term tax rate on capital gains to the income level without adjusting for inflation would result in capital being taxed at a higher effective rate (since a potion of the gain simply reflects inflation and not an actual increase in relative value). That same tax rate would also chase more capital overseas.
via GatewayPundit
And the idea that being in favor of punishing murders is somehow morally equivalent to unrepentant domestic terrorism is deeply offensive.
What is clear is actually that those who defend BHO just don't really have that much of a problem with Ayers. Which is deeply troubling.
So, are there any chits that Ayers can call in to President Obama? Maybe a pardon for Ms. Dohrn, so she can be licensed to practice law?
Republican supporters arent as dire about the consequences of electing a Dem? You cant be serious.
Of course I meant "rate" and that should have been clear from context. Usually people leave off "rate" when it's obvious that's what they mean.
In a normal year, I'd say you were right.
But the sort of Republicans who believe in shrill hyperbolic nonsense aren't exactly enthusiastic McCain boosters. And aside from a small fringe of aging feminists, the shrill hyperbolic left seems to have rallied around Obama and spurned Hillary in a big way.
I am a Republican. I support John McCain. If Barack Obama is elected, I do not think the world will come to an end. I do think that we will have had an election where the best candidate was not elected. I am also concerned about the consequences of a Supreme Court where a Goldberg/Brennan/Marshall/Douglas clone replaces John Paul Stevens, let alone Anthony Kennedy.
I note that your response was to a post that claimed that Kos agreed that HRC was not a Democrat anymore because she dared to attack Barack Obama. If Kos did do that (out of principle I avoid his site like the plague; why should I help line his pocket by being counted as a visitor for ad revenue purposes?), it was such a monumentally stupid statement that it deserves all the scorn it receives.
So if, say, Ronald Reagan in 1980 refused to disavow any association with Begin, that would have been a reason not to vote for him?
(Unless of course terrorist campaigns which end in success are judged by different standards.)
Cough!
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/04/question-for-th.html
Are you saying there's more left wing sympathy for Ayers and Dohrn than right wing sympathy for Yoo? If so, what's the evidence that's true?
Are you saying McCain/ Hagee gets anywhere near as much play as Obama/ Wright?
That is the Dailykos post I was referring to. The bolded part is his language, the non-bolded text in the middle is what he was commenting on.
I'm saying the left condemns Yoo for his supposed sins and does not condemn A &D for theirs. Was not referring to conservatives and Yoo.
There was a Law &Order piece some time back based loosely on the discovery of that hippy/yuppy bomber now living the upscale life.
The younger--always female--assistant was playing hard core, while McCoy, the scion of those days was being sympathetic.
So L &O thinks there are a number of their viewers who would sympathize--the woman was a sympathetic character--with the idea that eating granola for forty years excuses a good deal.
c.gray,
Nice theories, but at least for the Democrats, the polling says otherwise. Significantly more Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary than Hillary's will vote for Obama.
I thought you were making a different point. My only objection to what you are actually saying is your over inclusive reference to "the left." I don't doubt you're right as to some minority of the left.
I do remember some commentor, though, who, with a straight face, tried to argue that the McCain/Hagee association was somehow worse than the Obama/Wright association.
Thank you for doing what I refuse to do and providing the Kos quote. What an amazingly dumb thing for Kos to say.
I have no fear of President Obama unless an arrogant leftist like Markos Moulitsas actually has his ear.
I would worry more about George Soros.
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before Barack Hussein Obama.
II. Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below except for Barack Hussein Obama. Thou shalt not bow down to them or worship them; for I, Barack Hussein Obama, am a jealous God.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of Barack Hussein Obama in vain.
IV. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor to pay your taxes to Washington DC and your state government, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Barack Hussein Obama on which thou shalt campaign for his election.
V. Honor Barack Hussein Obama so that you may live long upon the land that you think you own but you really do not pursuant to Kelo v. New London.
VI. Thou shalt not kill any Jihadists who even now are plotting to attack America.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery with any other political organization or societies other than those led by neo-communist liberals like Barack Hussein Obama, Markos Moulitsas (a/k/a DailyKos), Reverend Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and other rejects from the Comintern.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal because only your federal government and state government are entitled to steal your money via ridiculous taxes so that neo-communist liberals in Congress can transfer whatever they steal from you to their cronies.
IX. Thou shalt not give false testimony against your neighbor unless you are a card carrying member of the Democrat Party like President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, or Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
X. Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor because it is already coveted by the neo-communists in the Democrat Party who are always scheming new ways to pilfer personal property belonging to individual Americans.
And as to the "issues." Putting aside the likelihood of getting stuff passed, what specific policy initiatives does Sen. Obama propose? His website is "a chicken in every pot drivel."
At least McCain admits he doesn't know economics. Neither does Obama.
Well, he might be saying that there's just as much, but Ayers and Dohrn distinguished themselves by blowing shit up and killing people.
The three of them were mentioned together for the purpose of defending Yoo, not the others. And nobody has even hinted that their behavior is comparable. But don't let that get in the way of a good stereotype.
"I wonder if the attack pieces on Obama on this blog will ever get around to discussing his positions on issues."
a third of the comments are about his capital gains stance...
and, I'm sure someone has mentioned it, but Obama misrepresented Coburn's statement (in much the same way he did his grandmother's views)... One of the old saws in the pro choice side's arguments is to ask about whether a change in Roe would make providing abortion criminal.. He simply addressed that, probably to put it behind him and move on with his argument, and said that was a possibility if the people in states wanted that. He didn't endorse the idea of making it capital crime in the quote I’ve seen regarding this.
Ya all were misdirected by Obama again. Even the basic facts of his argument were bogus.... analogies aside…
Actually, he's not. And nobody's disputing the distinction.
"Are you saying there's more left wing sympathy for Ayers and Dohrn than right wing sympathy for Yoo? If so, what's the evidence that's true?"
Are you comparing the two? Too funny. Keep digging...
Yoo wrote a dumb memo supporting too much executive power... that lead to zip. Even if he is somehow responsible (which is debatable) the pentagon rules that resulted said things like you could switch prisoner sleep cycles (while specifying no sleep deprivation).. et cetera... nerf bat stuff.
In some sort of PC Orwellian doublethink he is responsible for every prisoner abuse done by anyone in the military… to people so inclined to PC Orwellian doublethink…
How about reading the thread and then telling me if that's what I'm doing?
How about if Terry Nichols hosted a campaign event for Obama? Both Nichols and Ayers bombed Americans. I think the difference is that Nichols hasn't said he wished he had bombed more. Would Obama get a pass if he said he and Nichols didn't exchange ideas?
Or maybe Richard Reid? OK if he hosted a campaign event for Obama?
1. I find Ayers lack of repentance detestable, and I agree it's too bad that he and his wife are where they are and not in prison. Their connection to Barack Obama is pretty tenuous, though.
2. I always ask people who want to index capital gains if that goes for the mortgage interest deduction in the other direction. At that point, where indexing <i>increases</i> their taxes, they tend to lose interest.
3. Charlie Gibson knows nothing about how changes in tax rates can have different short-term and long-term consequences. He also knows very little about income distribution if he thinks $200K is a common family income.
Not predominant; but not exactly uncommon. In high cost of living areas--like NYC and surrounds--a cop/nurse couple, a firefighter/teacher couple, or similar occupations (with overtime) could have $200K in combined income. They won't be living like the Hollywood celebs, either.