Here's my take: Obama is an extremely ambitious man. He's been interested in a national political career for many years. It's not that surprising that he wouldn't find Ayers and Wright objectionable company--in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he's traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian. That itself makes Obama far more liberal than the image his campaign attempts to portray.
But what is interesting to me is that not only did Obama not personally find anything especially obnoxious about Wright's radicalism, anti-Americanism, ties to Farrakahn, and so on, or Ayers' lack of regret for his terrorist past, he apparently didn't expect that much of anyone else would care, either. How else do you explain why he didn't jettison these individuals from his life before they could damage his presidential ambitions? How else do you explain how his campaign seemed to be caught flatfooted when Obama's ties to Wright and then Ayers became campaign issues? And, perhaps most tellingly, how else do you explain that when Obama was asked in a debate with Clinton about his ties to Ayers, he analogized his friendship with Ayers to his friendship with Senator Tom Coburn, as if being friends with a very conservative senatorial colleague is somehow analogous with being friends with an unrepentant extreme leftist domestic terrorist?
In short, Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright suggest to me NOT that Obama agrees with their views, but that he is the product of a particular intellectual culture that finds the likes of Wright and Ayers to be no more objectionable, and likely less so, than the likes of Tom Coburn, or, perhaps, a Rush Limbaugh. Not only that, but he has been in his particular intellectual bubble so long that he was unable to recognize just how offensive the views of a Wright are to mainstream America, or how his ties to Ayers would play with the public, especially post-9/11.
Does that mean that Obama would be a bad president, or an extremist president? No, or at least, not necessarily. One 20th century president--Reagan--had a rather extreme worldview, but he was a good enough politician to govern reasonably close to the center, and have a successful presidency. Obama may have similar skills, though he lacks Reagan's advantage of having been an ideological convert from the other side. But in any event, he is clearly not the mainstream partisan of nonideological change that he is running as, and it at least seems worth pointing that out.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Which One of These Is Not Like the Other:
- One More Reply to Orin:
- A Reply to David:
- Response to Orin:
- Obama and Liberal Culture -- A Response to David B:
- More on Obama as a Product of a Particular Liberal Culture:
- What is the Significance of Obama's Ties to Ayers (and Wright?):
As far as Ayers he did his time, and its now an asset to his community. No Christian would hold this against Ayers (well a good Christian) so exactly why would any of them expect Obama to?
These are non issues for anyone really concerned with issues that matter today.
How many people did the Weather Underground kill?
How many innocent civilians has Isreal killed in the past 30 years? (I am sure you have a sack full of reasons why it was fine and dandy for Israel to kill those innocent civilians, but that's a different question, isn't it?)
So, should people distance themselves from Israel because of the innocent civilians it has killed?
Yes, but Reagan's stated policy objectives, positions on most issues relating to government and record as Governor of CA were more right-center than extreme. Obama's corresponding positions (and record) are definitely not left-center, but rather far to the left, and his attempts to use the law to stifle criticism open very real questions of whether he might use the official forces of government to stifle criticism as President.
Frankly, the possibility scares me; the apparent acquiescence of the MSM and much of the Democratic Party to this sort of thing scares me even more....
It seems like people are making it bigger than it is to slime Obama which is pretty damn sad.
Ayers was involved in a misguided anti-war movement, didn't really hurt anyone, and was let off. McCain on the other hand and many other politicians (including Obama to some extent) cozy up to Israel because of the Jewish lobby - and this is somehow acceptable. Even though Israel is occupying a land that wasn't there's and is torturing and murdering countless Palestinians.
And that may be why Obama isn't particularly concerned with how his ties to Ayers play on Main Street--because he's got so many other hurdles to overcome that spending time worrying about his ties to some guy who might or might not be his good friend and is unrepentant about nasty stuff he did 40 years ago would just be a waste of time.
Yes. Obama's failure to understand how dangerous radical liberalism is to American freedom, to the economy, and to world peace is a serious liability. He's probably revitalize the FARC, numerous Islamic terrorist movements, Russian nationalism, and would plunge Cuba into another dictatorship - by permitting and actively encouraging all of the leftist elements of those movements. Additionally, his socialist ideologies would seriously destroy the American economy. He'd do nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would probably encourage the systemic flaws that brought the credit markets down.
Obama is a lot like Ellsworth Toohey.
That says a lot more about you than it does about Coburn.
Coburn has spent his entire life working within the framework of the political system, while Ayers threw a tantrum as well as bombs, and tried to justify it. Ayers is willing to live by majority rule, Ayers wants to overthrow democracy, years ago by bombs, now by subverting the educational system and brainwashing children. But of course it's for a good cause.
How is deciding to launch your political career from someone's HOUSE not a close connection:?
You ignorant. Launching your political career would only be a close connection if McCain had launched his career from an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber. Only in that situation would there be justifiable outrage. Get a clue!
"Didn't really hurt anyone..."
Bob Van Burkleo - I'm glad you're sure it's not serious. Given the way that you twist facts, I am supposed to believe you - why?
But who said democracy is the right way? You can't just assume that. Democracy very, very often leads to bad results. Slavery??? Are you saying that anti-slave people who committed violent acts were "wrong?" Please.
The problem in trying to shame the left with terrorist associations is that the left isn't shamed by them. The left likes terrorists. They're big fans of Che Guevara, who murdered hundreds of innocent civilians that didn't subscribe to his revolutionary ideology. They love Lynne Stewart, who of course passed messages from the blind shiek terrorist. They're enthralled with Sami Al-Arian, who ran organizations linked to Hamas. They love the FARC. They love Castro. They don't think the war on terrorism is a "real" war.
So leftists like Obama see nothing wrong with paling around with terrorists like Ayers. They think they're chic and it's great fun. They don't give a crap how murderous those people are. They. Don't. Care. The only difference is that while the terrorists have the stomach for violence, people like Obama do not.
Er, McCain bragged about voting with Bush 90% of the time on national TV. How is bringing that up "smearing" McCain? Also, Bush is still the leader of the Republican party no matter how much Republicans are trying to run away from him now.
No, he's not. He is reminding us that McCain's policies are similar to Bush's and look where that got us. That's a fact.
If someone who had once manufactured bombs intended for abortion clinics and still has no regrets about it today were to cofound a public-private outfit intended to endow educational efforts, would it be immoral to serve as an officer of said organization?
Somehow, I doubt any of the conspirators will condemn her behavior here.
Oh hon, don't worry I don't care if you believe me. My only obligation is to tell the truth, not convince you of it. Of course the real way would be for you to have talked with pastors who use this kind of service rhetoric (I had a discussion with one claiming AIDS was deliberately targetted against black men - turned out he meant it metaphorically). But most likely that is far more effort than you'd be willing to invest.
Not blaming the Jews at all. Just pointing out the biggest example of hypocrisy here: it is "mainstream" and okay (in fact it's probably politically suicidal to not) to support Israel, a nation that has no legitimate/democratic/laws of nations/etc. reason to be where it is, and yet it is - and furthermore it has a horrible human rights record.
And yet the suggestion is that Ayers, a former radical who disregarded the rule of law and was undemocratic, is somehow horrible. But Israel is not. Mmmkay.
I'm NOT saying there's not a defense of Israel. It's for the greater good. They stand for democracy. Great. But Ayers thought he was doing that too. And he's at least nominally reformed himself from his old ways.
I can't wait to hear this, if anyone has the balls to try.
Considering the Obama campaign thinks it can pickup at least one EV in Nebraska, I'd say the McCain camp is plenty worried. In fact, the McCain camp is worried enough they sent Palin to Omaha today to try and rally the Palindrones.
The fact is that you are placing blame on them (jews) but under cover of Israel and/or Israeli's. Small 'difference' there.
Your comment thread had no direct connection to the Ayers topic, rather it was failed effort at redirection.
(1) The only reason WU did more damage to its own membership than the public is incompetence. The WU intent to commit mass-murder at Fort Dix has been well-documented and admitted to. The base was spared only because the bomb construction operation ended with several WU members stuck to the ceiling of a Greenwich Village townhouse.
(2) Ayers wasn't "let off" because he was innocent. He was "let off" because of prosecutorial misconduct. His first comment outside the courtroom was a public admission of guilt.
My law prof
The Viet-Nam era had many people who openly challenged the war, and they did so by marches, speeches, placards, etc. (I believe this is protected by the First Amendment). Only a very select few took their challenges to an "explosive" level (I am not aware of the Supreme Court ever having decided that facilitating exothermic reactions is a recognized form of expression protected by the First Amendment).
What concerns me about Obama is that he doesn't seem to know many people outside of government and academia. He has no reason in his own experience to doubt that Tony Rezko is a typical businessman. And his contact with ordinary Americans - people will less education and less money than him - seems to be mostly in their role as victims or objects of government aid.
Frankly, my concern is that Obama will be a successful President - that he will, like Reagan, successfully advocate his world-view to the American body politic.
Exactly.
No, he said it was because we didn't have enough troops in Afghanistan to do the job right. With enough ground troops we wouldn't be depending on air attacks with inadequate intelligence... If we are going to conduct a war we need to do it right.
How do you know this? Do you associate with people who hold some views you find obnoxious?
Besides, what was Obama supposed to do? Issue denunciations out of nowhere?
You are simply rationalizing McCain's dishonorable decision to base his campaign on personal attacks rather than his own policy ideas, which btw vary not much from Bush's.
Is there anything McCain can do that you would disapprove of? Are you going to give us your opinion of his father-in-law's mob ties?
Natural law in response to a far right loon post. Karma's a bitch ;)
In 2001, Ayers stated his regret that he hadn't set off more bombs. In 2001, Ayers posed for a photograph while trampling an American flag. Another Weather Underground member is still associated with the campaign.
Obama until very recently has lived in the heart of a radical community, and as other commenters have shown, had close working relationships with Ayers, a terrorist, and Wright, an outspoken anti-American.
Obama's ties to these people are extremely relevant - to anyone who cares what sort of ideas Obama deems okay, and what sort of people he will surround him with if elected!
Obama is the most radical presidential candidate of the last 75 year. This unfortunately has not been revealed to the public by the media, and of course ont by Obama or his campaign, except by his mistakes - like not realizing that ordinary Americans would be greatly offended by Wright or Ayers.
As for the WU being a "misguided anti-war group" - no, they were a terrorist group intent on bringing down the US government by violence. They killed innocents in their rather incompetent attempts. They worked with the enemy in a time of war. They weren't just "anti-war activists" - they were way beyond that. They were a more extreme splinter of the extremist pro-Communist SDS.
Only to someone with an axe to grind. No 'all', just an example of undesirable consequences from not adequately engaging in the theater.
No, and he's not going to render an opinion on McCain's sister-in-law's cousin's friend's apparent friendship with the Hamburglar either.
You're surprisingly curious for someone who's busy telling us we shouldn't wonder why Obama is friendly with someone who touts his own history with a domestic terror group.
So they worked at the same charity. How is that evidence that Obama felt comfortable with Ayer's extremism? How does it demonstrate closeness between the two? Why isn't it just evidence that the two share charitable interests? It seems unlikely that Obama took the position to get close to Ayers, or that Ayers' position with the charity was at all on his radar when he joined up. Probably he joined because he thought the charity was a worthy one, looked good on his resume, whatever. Do we have any evidence to the contrary? Besides the fact that Ayers is on the board?
Then there is the party at Ayers house. Blogs tend to paint it as if he chose the place out as the proper place to launch his campaign. The truth seems to be something more passive - if I recall correctly, it was his superior, who was in effect passing Obama her spot as she moved up the ladder- who was throwing the party and making the announcement. He could have thrown a stink and demanded that the announcement happen elsewhere, perhaps, but likely he felt obligated to show some gratitude to his boss.
At best, the evidence may suggest he was willing to tolerate Ayers presence when protesting it would have slowed up his political career.
I agree that Obama is far left, and it is possible that he is indeed good friends with Ayers, but the evidence I keep hearing doesn't get us there.
The evidence doesn't matter, it's the repetition that counts. McCain's campaign manager is on record saying this campaign is not about the issues. Republicans have nothing left after the last eight years so the best they can do is offer character attacks.
Hopefully Obama will win in a landslide and the Republicans can do some serious soul searching. If Republicans figure out that they should run (and really mean it) on a platform of smaller government and leave behind all of the divisive wedge issues, maybe they will regain the majority and we'll all be better for it.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION??? This is (unfortunately) a two-party system! One party has been in power for 8 years, has passionately supported its historically damaging executive, helping him get re-elected, and it's a "smear tactic" to bring that up in this election???
Of course every major network wants Obama to win. It's the same reason that every other civilized country in the world wants the Democrat to win. The incumbent party and its leader have caused pain and hardship for millions, have enraged millions of others, and have done so with a combination of corruption, stupidity and apathy for the rest of the world.
Where was the outrage of Republicans when Bush, who they supported at every turn, was indisputably damaging this world?
In the same way I wonder why there is barely any outrage by moderate Muslim societies at the extremist Islamic terrorists, I wonder why there is no outrage by American "conservatives" at a government that has destroyed our economy, killed thousands of American soldiers, ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-Americans, ruined our global reputation and faced no accountability.
Republican politicians and voters can't separate themselves from Bush now because he's "unpopular." They made this happen. They enabled it at every turn. McCain SUPPORTED BUSH in 2004, for chrissakes.
There is NO reason they should win this time.
More slanting generalities "our efforts". Our efforts are to drive out the Taliban and this effort had a result very different from that - something didn't go right, we can agree on that I hope?
Remember, we're talking about Afghanistan here (not even Iraq) from which the 9/11 attacks were launched.
Yep and we are talking about a wedding party and children mistakenly attacked by air. That you would suggest that should be ignored or pretend it didn't happen is mind boggling. The truth is never inappropriate - you can't fix a problem if you pretend there's no problem at all.
Frankly, I don't see what possible significance this has. I don't care about associations and (assumed) motivations, I care about what people are doing. Are we supposed to believe that any Ayers proximity means Obama is going to bomb the WH once he's inside? Appoint Ayers to the Supreme Court?
Similarly, I don't care about Palin's associations. That she was a member of the same church as John Ashcroft makes me wonder if she has similar values as him, though. I don't care about McCain's associations, but I do care that he is so chimeric. Biden? Old-school power-whitey. Yadda yadda.
So it's an attack when the person is proud of the association? I guess the only question left to ask is: Why is John McCain using a guilt by association attack against John McCain?
/snark
McCainThe Republican Party has consistently tried to disassociatehimitself from the Bush administration and its policies during this campaignFixt. I wonder why that is? As Baseballhead pointed out, has the entire Republican Party caught a case of BDS?
Of course "trying to distance" is not the same thing as actually distancing. Looking at McCain's policy proposals I'm not seeing a big difference from the Bush agenda. From immigration to tax cuts, it's all pretty much the same.
If I met a terrorist in a dinner party, i would walk away from him, at the least. if he tried to get to know me, i would ask if he ever repened of his terrorism. if the answer is no (as it is, here), then i would tell him he is not worth knowing. that would be the polite way of putting it. i might tell him to fuck off.
I wouldn't associate myself with him at all.
But Obama is so deformed in character that he doesn't care, fundamentally about his terrorism. Not even after 9-11, where he would have an excuse for a change in heart. Nope, he only cared when he discovered it was a liability.
Either he is a radical, or a very craven politician. neither one seems like a very appealing explanation.
The same analysis applies to McCain's very belated recognition that he needed to reject Hagee's endorsement, right?
There was an event at Ayer's house. Please show your proof that this event was the "launch" of Obama's political career. And please show your proof that it was Obama, not Palmer, who chose the location for this event.
Ask Arnold R. Weber, an adviser to Nixon and Reagan, and someone who has contributed $1,500 to McCain, and who also did "serve as an officer of said organization," along with Ayers and Obama.
aw:
You should have a chat with Mr. Weber.
I read VC because usually one can find informed and thoughtful ( and snarky ) discussions with from liberal, libertarian and (mostly) conservative viewpoints. The anti-obama crap is starting to look like parody (lives with radicals, hates America, blah blah blah) Ellsworth Toohey? That's a joke, right?
What "has not been revealed to the public by the media" about his plan to destroy America?
The Ayers slur is "guilt by association". It's an attempt to connect Obama to bombings that occurred when he was 8 years old.
McCain's association with Bush happened in real-time when McCain supported Bush's policies and legislation by voting for them and talking them up on the TV.
Not the same.
Given Truman's own struggle over the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, not to mention the fierce moral debate that rages to this day, this seems sort of foolish. But suffice it to say that you cannot compare WWII with the current conflict in Afghanistan. We are not engaged in all-out war with the likes of Nazi Germany, but rather a limited conflict with insurgent elements that threaten the stability of a country in which a friendly government has been established. In that respect, excessive civilian casualties pose a serious threat to our interests there. It's a legitimate issue, and Obama isn't the only one to raise it.
For some strange reason Palin seems to not care about being seen accepting a blessing from a witchhunter (video).
And for some strange reason you seem to not care about the part where he talks about "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today." Maybe a President Palin could enlist the witchcraft guy to help out with the wicked Israelites on Wall St.
Barack Obama didn't see a problem with Ayers.
Barack Obama didn't see a problem with Wright.
Barack Obama didn't see a problem with Rezko.
Barack Obama doesn't see a problem with sending lawyers to shut down people who criticize him.
Do we see a pattern here?
I find that deeply disturbing.
How does that compare with someone who sends armed government agents "to shut down people who criticize him?"
This is exactly the type of post that is counterproductive to your assumed goal of moving public opinion against Obama.
When posting partisan hack material you and Zywicki need to be more subtle. Anyone with half a brain sees through this BS for what it is. It is beneath you and the Conspiracy.
If the AP really wanted to be balanced they would have pointed out Palin’s own ties to “terrorist organizations.” I am sure those facts are readily available to you and readers of TVC. If you need more info simply google “AIP and Todd Palin.”
Yes and it will fail because the Obama campaign is always just that one step ahead:
McCain officials had said early in the weekend that they plan to begin advertising after Tuesday’s debate that will tie Obama to convicted money launderer Tony Rezko and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.
But Obama isn’t waiting to respond. His campaign is going up Monday on national cable stations with a scathing ad saying:
“Three quarters of a million jobs lost this year. Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy. No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject."
“Turn the page on the financial crisis by launching dishonorable, dishonest ‘assaults’ against Barack Obama. Struggling families can't turn the page on this economy, and we can't afford another president who is this out of touch.”
When one side openly calls the other side unpatriotic for their mainstream political views, that cannot go unchallenged or it is death to democracy. The only way democracy and the rule of law can flourish is if both sides recognize that the other side has the country's best interests in mind and are just misguided. If your country is being taken over by traitors, the only appropriate response is to rise up in arms against them, and that is the end of democracy. So if you truly believe Obama is an anti-American radical traitor, it is your duty to shoot him. Otherwise, shut up with the bizarre invective and argue against him on the issues.
That's a non-sequiter. I really don't see how questioning Obama's association with Ayers is racist.
So if you truly believe Obama is an anti-American radical traitor, it is your duty to shoot him. Otherwise, shut up with the bizarre invective and argue against him on the issues.
Ethics and judgement are issues in and of themselves. Maybe you don't think they're important, but I do. It matters to me what people do when they think nobody is looking (see ref. Watergate Tapes).
It's not his patriotism I question. It's his judgement.
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it does to me.
It matters to others as well.
I'm not calling him a traitor, and I don't think he is one. I'm calling him a fool, and I think the record clearly supports that, in spite of his clear intelligence.
What is the Significance of Obama's Ties to Ayers (and Wright?)
Simple: we are known by the company we keep.
That is an extremely heavy-handed, terrible thing that the Bush administration did.
However, are you implying that because John McCain voted for a lot of legislation that George Bush signed or opposed, that John McCain would use the Secret Service in the same manner as George Bush? I mean, you wouldn't be using a silly guilt-by-association attack to deflect from Obama's assault on the first amendment, would you?
Also, if calling someone involved in politics "unpatriotic" is the "end of democracy," then what is the appropriate response to someone who proudly poses for a photograph while standing on an American flag (and who himself engaged in violence against an elected US government he disagreed with and says today that he regrets not doing more)?
I can't accept that my only moral options are to either shut up or engage in terrorism. I'm really not sure what it is about Obama that causes some of his supporters to hold such views - I've never heard him say anything remotely like this. Its disturbing.
What makes you think that anyone political in the Bush administration was involved in the cited event? From what I know about the organization of the Secret Service (no inside knowledge, just what I read and what I've seen at political events) they typically deal with things like this without consulting outside their organization. I personally think its the right approach because it (1) is at least a little check on misuse; and (2) aviods being under-active in order to avoid the appearance of heavy-handedness.
When I was in college (early 80s) my fraternity had a couple of British members. We were following the Falklands War in the news. One night, we decided to declare war on Argintina, and mailed their Embassy a letter to that effect. We were young, and probably drunk. A few days later we got a visit from a couple of guys in dark suits and narrow ties. No further action was taken. We later learned that the US Gov't was providing itelligence to Britain, so its pretty clear they weren't secretly in bed with Argentina.
Point is, it isn't Jack Boot Fascism for regular non-secret police agencies to show up and ask, politely, if reports that you intend to commit a crime are correct. And, just because they do that doesn't mean they're driven by political opposition. Maybe they're just trying to prevent crime.
PS: I drove a vehicle for some Bush campaign events and chatted with a few of the Secret Service grunts early in Bush's first term. Did they like Bush? Yes. Why? Not because of his politics, but because he liked to be on time, which made the mechanics of their job a lot easier. Clinton made them stand around for hours because he was often hours late.
2. How're the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going to be won?
3. What's going to happen to their healthcare?
and
4. What should be done about Gas prices
To his credit, Bernstein has looked past the Republican campaign talking points to figure out that the issues that really matter are
1. Does Obama associate with terrorists?
2. Is Obama a Muslim?
3. Is he the AntiChrist?
4. Where is the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape?
i look forward to more detailed, repeated and ultimately inconclusive examinations of these claims by Prof. Bernstein in the days to come.
Perhaps you would like to post something substantive, and worth reading? Or maybe not.
Carry on.
"How does that compare with someone who sends armed government agents "to shut down people who criticize him?"
In these times anything that even remotely smacks of a threat to the life of a candidate will draw an over reaction. Look at what happened to performance artist Yazmany when he set up an exhibition called “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama.”Note that nothing in the exhibition actually advocated the assassination of anybody. But in your example the students actually saidwhich could be construed as a threat when taken out of context. Of course both incidents were unnecessary over reactions. But I could say that "someone sent armed government agents shut down an art exhibit about Obama, chilling freedom of expression and a violation of the First Amendment."
Don't you think you're being quite a bit one-sided here?
Stipulate that Barack Obama is highly intelligent, patriotic, and acting in good faith.
Stipulate further that his statements about "Not the Tony Rezko I knew" are correct.
Stipulate that he did not know Rev. Wright is openly racist, and openly speaks about the US as evil.
Stipulate that he didn't see any problem with Jim Johnson's history as a Washington fixer and being generally corrupt.
Stipulate that he's not bothered by Ayer's history.
The logical conclusion is that somehow he missed the problem.
People claim this isn't an issue.
I say it is. The man is a fool.
Would he ever have noticed the problems with Rezko if his attention hadn't been called to it?
Would have kept Jim Johnson in his inner circle of advisors? Oh, oops, Johnson is still there.
Do you think this man can be entrusted with any serious decisions?
No matter how smart he is, he still can't tell when people are lying to him.
He is a fool.
All the attacks on Bernstein, McCain, Joe Schmoe, or whoever won't change that.
Barack Obama is a fool.
Really!Well said. The ranting about Ayers reveals most of all the chronic naivety that exists in American conservative circles when it comes to militant activism. The US hasn't experienced a gun-and-bomb campaign outside of the erratic acts of cult leaders and pro-life fanatics. McVeigh was something of an exception and imagined he was acting to defend the Constitution. Sure Ayers and co stirred it up but compared to an intensive IRA campaign lasting many years it was a mere blip on the radar.
The history of this type of thing in the States relates mostly to loony fringe behavior. So naturally American conservatives tend to conflate Ayers into their very own dreadful lefty terrorist - a sort of prototype of all they fear. It's so silly. If these people had lived in N.Ireland for a few months during The Troubles in the 70's, they would understand the meaning of a society in conflict - they would also understand the dynamics that come into play.
Of course the greater irony is that America is gun central - there is a sort of tyranny-of-the-gun which has become a bizarro symbol of freedom etc in the minds of flag waving NRA members. When you couple the gun bearing proclivities of the right with their criminal free marketeering that Buffet likened to 'madmen planting nukes' you realize that perhaps the real terrorists are the right wing nutbars who are into license-to-bear-arms-and-fleece. They are the real threat to America. Their neo-con foreign policy has also taken the world to the brink - and what .... Obama is the guy we should all be afraid of because he had some social contacts with Bill Ayers. It is truly beyond idiocy.
What is the Significance of
Obama'sPalin's Ties toAyers (and Wright?)A Witchcraft Obsessed Pastor?Is that a fair question to ask?
People keep trying to make something out of the fact that a party at Ayer's house had something to do with Obama. So, all you people who are trying to do this: Are you going to tell me that you have NEVER been to a party at your boss's house, or a co-worker's house? As to announcing one's political career, again, this is an event in one's PROFESSIONAL life, not one's personal life. If they had held a baby shower in Ayer's house, that would be a different story.
forget his past, IT'S HIS PRESENT THAT IS THE PROBLEM- HE'S STILL A RADICAL RED JACKASS, AND MORE INFLUENTIAL NOW THROUGH ACADAMIA AND HIS WEALTHY FAMILY THAN WHEN HE WAS BLOWING UP POLICE STATIONS.
-that is the Ayers Obama knows.
Myopia is great, you can just focus on what you want to see.
It seems to me that quite the opposite is true, that the public schools are ruled by teachers unions and other players who support and are supported by D's such as BO. I agree with you that the school system is in bad shape. Here is another other thing. It appears from what research has been done that Ayers and BO (as board memebers of Annenberg) largely ignored requests by groups that wanted to focus on hard sciences such as math and english language skills and instead focused their largess on groups that sought cultural awareness and Peace Studies, etc. If illiteracy is as rampant as you suggest then it seems to be that you would agree with me. I guess, just like me, you are a right wing wacko after all.
jukeboxgrad, your event happened in 2004. Did you not read the time?
And as many have pointed out, it was most likely the Secret Service, not the Bush Administration that sent agents out to check out a potential threat to the life of the President.
LOL, you win the prize for compelling advocacy and argument. Maybe we can call it the Andrew Sullivan award.
I can understand that if true and Mr. Ayers had pursued an unconventional approach in cirriculm that was acutually used, it would an important facuet of the failure.
Oh, and I left you a message on your other post. A couple, actually. It hurts when you don't write back, Professor Bernstein. It makes me wonder if you've run off with some other antagonist moderate, spending all day going back and forth with him, responding to his factual dispassionate analyses with more snark and hackery...
It just makes me so jealous!
preemption is warranted - so long as we're talking about attacks on the Obama campaign - but not attacks on the USA
See here for more on "The Obama Doctrine"
I see the Kos kidz and/or the Huffington paint-huffers have discovered the existence of your Conspiracy.
But has any one ever met a professor of law who hasn't published a single scholaraly article. Not even one. At any law school I've ever been associated with, you are a nothing in the academic legal field without articles. NOTHING! No legal scholar would ever take you seriously without at least a significant body of publications, not to mention not having a single one.
There are no fraternity brothers, team mates, Boy Scout leaders, neighbors or class mates who gave come forward. In fact, Hussein has done everything to conceal who he was and who he is today.
Everyone we know of from his past is not a nice person. Even his wife is a flaming racist. And, yet, we do not know who is really manipulating him and pulling his strings. Ayers is important because he is not a nice person but one of the few from Hussein's past that we know about. Who are the South Chicago Daley pols that we haven't met yet?
Meanwhile, McCain has chosen not to discuss any serious issue that affects the future of the American people, in favor of turning his campaign towards these flimsy character attacks. Palin flat out lies again and again and nobody here blinks an eye, but we have to endure post #578 on Obama's questionable associations. Rather than furthering the McCain talking points this week, how about someone explain why Sarah Palin said that she was pushing for Alaska to divest from Sudanese interests? A bald-faced lie, since her administration has killed that bipartisan proposal. However, I'm sure she'll repeat it with impunity because nobody calls her out on the lies. We're too busy worrying about this trivia about Obama.
BT:
Becky:
elim:
See, I find this fascinating. Each of these comments offers a substantive, issue-oriented assessment of the Obama-Ayers relationship. All four raise questions about how Obama is likely to tackle educational policy, an important part of the president's portfolio and an area in which he has left a paper trail of positions and accomplishments that could be explored and debated.
In short, each of these commenters, excessive capitalization and grammatical manglings notwithstanding, provides a more substantial, more relevant, more serious take on Bill Ayers than either Bernstein or the McCain campaign have chosen to offer.
The voters are interested in talking about the issues facing this country. McCain and his media/blogosphere mouthpieces aren't.
They just aren't.
The US does not have "rampart rates of illiteracy," and the problem students are largely confined to the underclass. An underclass that would perform poorly in any school system. As such we have student population that's essentially bimodal in character, and as we all know the average is highly atypical of a bimodal distribution. If you look at (say) the upper quartile of student performance it's actually very good, one of the best in the world.
Once a man is running for president, voters can't really trust what they say. Look at their past, who are their friends and associates. What did they say and stand for before running for president. That's how you can find the true man.
If so, they're like Columbus to the Vikings/Freepers.
The Weather Underground, according to the entries on Wikipedia, appears to be responsible for the killings of 5 non-members, including 3 people who were killed after Ayers had left the organization. Israeli forces killed 34 American servicemen (and wounded another 170) during the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.
Forgiveness, whether by a Christian or a non-Christian, requires an admission that you're wrong. If Ayers had stated unequivocally that he now believes it wrong to kill his own country's civilians, and there was reason to think he's sincere, then it may make some sense not to hold it against Ayers.
But, of course, if we approach this as anarchists, why would we be discussing who to vote for?
Approaching this from within the consensual illusion of government, of course, Ayers is a terrorist, while Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, whatever the motives, was just government in action, to be debated from a policy perspective, not as an example of unapologetic mass murder.
What troubles me about Obama's tolerance, and more than tolerance, of Ayers, (And the tolerance of others, too.) is that it shows that Obama is not particularly troubled by people who resort to violence to advance causes he likes, even if they do so outside socially sanctioned channels.
What's he going to think about resorting to violence inside those channels, once he's Commander in Chief? Or maybe even arranging for a bit of it to happen outside those channels?
Obama seems to me to embody to a disturbing extent the crude act utilitarian tendency to view the end as justifying the means. Ayers' ends were good, so the means can be forgiven. The problem of course, is that Obama is, by definition, going to view his own ends as good.
Is there any reason, then, to think he'd hesitate to use any means whatsoever to advance them, that he thought might work?
Imagine the nerve of a candidate attempting to use McCain-Feingold against McCain supporters!
The wife of Rabbi Wolf, rabbi emeritus of KAM Israel, claims the honor for themselves, as recorded by the New York Times. Many people in Hyde Park-Kenwood hosted "meet the candidate" get-togethers.
McCain's votes reflected Bush's positions 90% of the time. In contrast, Obama has evinced no desire to plant bombs in the Pentagon. The Vietnam war is over. Note that the Iraq war has not inspired Ayers to restart the Weather Underground. He remains Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Our invasion of Iraq has inspired many Islamic terrorist movements, including an Al-Qaeda in Iraq where none had existed before.
Obama was 100% accurate as far as we know. Senator Obama chaired the BoD of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995, thirteen years ago. They have had no formal association since 2002.
This came up before for Wright. "Oh, come on, you don't really think Obama believes AIDS is a white conspiracy?" Of course he doesn't. He knows better. But he's so far to the left that he thinks that that belief is just a minor quirk that should be tolerated.
This is a good question. Does serving on the board of a non-profit that doesn't achieve its goals reflect poorly on Obama? At the time he was on the board of the Annenberg Challenge he was also on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the Woods Fund, the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center. Obama was also teaching Con Law at the University of Chicago, was of counsel at Davis, Miner, Barnhill &Galland, and became a state senator in 1997.
Of course between all of those duties I'm sure Obama and Ayers were bestest friends.
Perhaps he decided not to tempt fate a second time. That makes him careful, not correct. There never was a second Beer Hall Putsch, now was there? I'm sure you'd feel perfectly comfortable with Eric Rudolph being a "Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago." Your talismans won't work with me (I've been colleagues with people who actually earned the title of "Distinguished Professor").
Heck, some Republicans are even talking about 60 Dems in the Senate. You all need to stop these on-line blah fests if you want Obama to lose, and get out and agitate.
I'm sure Nixon would appreciate this sentiment. As would a Mr. Good Will.
None of them have.
Neither Bush nor McCain sent those agents. The Secret Service sent itself, because they never let the chance to use the expense account go un-utilized.
When you are taking flak you are over the target.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
PS Mr. Moore, who has the AIP tried to blow up?
Wright's views are not patriotic, Ayer's views are not patriotic. Like most leftists, they are "patriotic" towards an America that has never and can never exist. In Ayer's case, he attempted the use of murderous violence to try to create it.
Accepting that as mainstream is the death of what is worthwhile about this nation.
Obama is in fact just fine with that, as shown by his having no problems with Wright until he became a political liability, and likewise not yet admitted or exposed to just criticism his bathing himself in Ayer's tolerant ideologies.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Except that's not what Obama is doing. McCain/Feingold is bad enough--incipiently--while Obama is worse so far inpractice.
All other things being equal, I'd be perfectly happy for McCain to be listed MIA--the VC could have kept him for all I care...
...But the Democrats keep on managing to nominate people far worse than the Republicans do.
Why is that?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp