Why I Give Obama a Pass on Ayers
In his latest column, PoliGazette managing editor argues that Obama should get a pass on his connection to Ayers.
Trailing in the polls, the McCain campaign has increasingly sought to highlight Obama’s links with Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers as a means to call into question Obama’s judgment and candor. While understandable as a political tactic, these attacks are ultimately misguided as an attempt at substance.
Let me first be clear about something. Bill Ayers was and is detestable in his beliefs, statements, and actions. The Weathermen group that he led during the 1960s and 1970s was a militant off-shoot of radical anti-war groups that actively cheered for the victory of the Communist North Vietnamese over the United States and ultimately for the victory of the Soviet Union as well. Believing the justness of their cause to be sufficient reason to cancel any conventional moral obligations (which were just the self-serving creations of bourgeois traditionalists anyway), they planned and carried out a string of bombings and robberies designed ultimately to bring down the American political system by force of a violent revolution.
After the Weathermen “movement” (it was never much more than a small group of radical narcissists, actually) collapsed after much of its membership was killed due to an accident with a bomb they were building for the purpose of attacking American draftees on a military base, Ayers spent many years underground, sheltered by fellow travellers sympathetic to the radical anti-American cause and willing to tolerate and even endorse the violence of the Weathermen. After emerging from hiding after the heat was off in the post-Vietnam political malaise, Ayers openly bragged about how he had cynically exploited American freedoms to attack the American system and his political opponents.
In spite of the vileness of Ayers and his contemporaneous enablers who offered him and his allies support and shelter at the time, I cannot extend responsibility to all those who might happen to associate with him since he emerged from the fog of his Weathermen days. In particular, I cannot accept as valid the attempt to condemn Barack Obama for his association with Ayers.
First, some of the attempts to link Obama to Ayers are just so rhetorically over the top as to call into question the critic’s judgment more than Obama. For example, the allegation “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” implies that Obama and Ayers were associates at the time of Ayers’ violent antics. While I would agree that it is fair and proper to condemn those who, like TMV’s Shaun Mullen, willingly agreed to provide support and shelter for Weathermen terrorists during the time of their terrorist activities, the same taint does not extend to those like Obama who’s association comes only decades later.
Second, the evidence for a true Obama-Ayers link is non-existent. Obama’s relationship with Ayers is limited to shared membership in some community groups and shared service on the boards of charity and activist groups. If such shared memberships were to be taken as grounds for condemning all those that held them, well, I guess I myself would have to stand condemned as a communist due to the fact that I have shared membership in some academic groups with avowed communists. Indeed, the prime exhibit in the Obama-Ayers case is a single gathering held in Ayers’ home where Obama launched the early stages of his political career as a neighborhood activist in exactly the same way as dozens, if not scores, of other aspirants to a political career in Chicago’s notoriously nepotistic and cynical political culture — hardly evidence of deeply shared ideological commitment. I would prefer to believe that people are responsible only for their own beliefs and actions and not those of the person who might be sitting next to them on some board or at some conference.
Third, there is no sign that Obama shares Ayers’ militant and violent anti-Americanism. To the contrary, all of Obama’s statements even from the time of his association with Ayers indicate views that, while often quite liberal, are in no way radical or violent. Given the brevity of Obama’s political career, it is unlikely that he has hidden a true radical core for over two decades out of a Machiavellian plan to gain power before revealing his true colors. It is much more reasonable to take Obama’s relatively conventional liberalism on its face and to reject suggestions that his social and institutional associations with Ayers are indications of ideological affinity.
The bottom line is that Ayers is slime, but Obama is not coated with it. Criticism of Obama for his policy proposals or for the way his campaign chooses to pursue its goals is legitimate, but criticism premised on guilt-by-association is not. And I just don’t agree with the spin that the issue isn’t the association itself, but rather with Obama’s “lying” about it. As far as I can tell, Obama’s characterizations of his relationship with Ayers are objectively accurate — he shared membership on some boards and community groups, but did not share in Ayers’ radical and violent ideology by doing so.
The McCain campaign and Obama’s other critics would do well to give up on the Ayers bit and move on to more fertile ground if they hope to persuade those who are persuadable. Continuing to focus on the Obama-Ayers link only appeals to those who weren’t voting for Obama anyway and it appears to those in the middle as a desperate and dated attempt to play the kind of 1960s politics that normally is only the domain of aging and unrepentant hippies who refuse to leave their romanticized childhood of 1968.
I agree slightly, You might be able to give a pass on one unsavory association.. As you indicated, we all run across these people in committees, etc that we may sit on.. but Ayers although closely tied, is not the only problem in Obama’s associations… On Top of Ayers, what of the fact that Obama spent decades listening to sermons by a Reverend Wright? Why won’t Obama talk about Columbia? Both of these questions are discussed in greater detail the article below:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=
Here is a synopsis.. …"Obama and Ayers shared all kinds of views. That is why they worked so well together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), funding the likes of Mike Klonsky, a fellow SDS and Maoist associate of Ayers who, as Steve Diamond relates, used to host a “social justice” blog on Obama’s campaign website. With Obama heading the board of directors that approved expenditures and Ayers, the mastermind running its operational arm, hundreds of thousands of CAC dollars poured into the “Small Schools Workshop” — a project begun by Ayers and run by Klonsky to spur the revolution from the ground up. Precisely because they shared the same views, Obama and Ayers also worked comfortably together on the board of the Woods Fund. There, they doled out thousands of dollars to Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church to promote its Marxist “black liberation theology.” Moreover, they underwrote the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by Rashid Khalidi, a top apologist for Yasser Arafat. As National Review’s David Pryce-Jones notes, Khalidi once directed WAFA, the terrorist PLO’s news agency. Then, like Ayers, he repackaged himself as an academic who rails at American policy. The AAAN, which supports driver’s licenses and public welfare benefits for illegal aliens, holds that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate “catastrophe.”…
and
…"Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him “want to puke.” The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental “change.” But what they’re talking about is not materially different. Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable. So, when it comes to his own radical moorings, Obama is engaged in classic liar behavior. He changes his story as the facts change — and the burden is always on you to dig up the facts, not on him to come clean. Yesterday, asked to comment on the Ayers relationship, David Axelrod, Obama’s top political adviser, hilariously chirped, “There’s no evidence that they’re close.” Translation: Get back to us when you can prove more damaging information — until then, we don’t need to further refine our perjury."..
On top of these associations, what of the Acorn ties as MVDG wrote about here:
http://poligazette.com/2008/10/09/acorn-already-guilty-of-voter-fraud/
Everything just bounces off him in a dismissive manner, as if we don’t need to know the details. If McCain had and dismissed with flimsy general explanations all of these ties, He would be three or four times as low in the poles (or lower). It seems to me that MSM covers some of Obama’s ties, but only at a surface level. Of the ties that McCain has, there is a much deeper analysis. I think these associations should not be taken in piecemeal; these associations paint an overall picture creating a theme, and not a warm fuzzy, positive one.
I have a somewhat different take on this.
I do agree that there are some inappropriate ways that the Ayers connection is being raised (Obama loves terrorists!)
But I think you are being too dismissive of it, Jason. Have you read Stanley Kurtz’ stuff? The coverup alone is concerning IMO. If there wasn’t anything inappropriate or embarrassing about the CAC project, then why were the records concealed?
Ayers fingerprints really do appear to be all over that project, so it wasn’t just a coincidence of the two men being in the same place at the same time. The project itself deserves some scrutiny too, since a lot of money changed hands to left wing activist groups that served as ‘external partners’ and the goals of the project had a decidedly political bent rather than an academic focus.
And Ayers also appears to have had a larger role in introducing Obama to the powers that be in Chicago than has been admitted. That fundraiser was Obama’s coming out party, and from there Alice Palmer ended up choosing him as her successor. Obama had a meteoric rise from an unknown outsider to the chosen one among the political elite in Chicago, and that doesn’t happen just because you’re smart, talented and likeable.
The pattern of associations for Obama is very questionable for some voters because he definitely seems to overlook extremism and radicalism in favor of finding common ground to work for the greater good. Now, you may agree that that’s a good approach but some voters don’t and everyone at least has a right to know the background and formulate their own opinion (the way I see it, Obama is at heart a center left ideologue with a few positions further to the left, and he’s adept at reaching to those further on the left but only really pays lip service to reaching to his right.)
The overlooking of extremism though is considered a fault by me and others though as it will play out in his implementation of domestic agenda (working with corrupt groups in many cases) and in foreign policy (being too conciliatory to radicals who wish to do us harm.) Again, you may disagree with that assessment, but we each have the right to get to the facts and then assess according to our own judgment.
There hasn’t been nearly enough transparency for us to do that, and instead when even legitimate questions are raised a smokescreen goes up.
Oh, I meant to add a couple of other points:
First, I want to stress that in no way do I think that Obama actually sympathizes with or agrees with the Weathermen groups activities. To me it’s as I described above, a question of judgment of whether someone who is unrepentant of those activities can become a trustworthy partner for political activities.
And second, the greater pattern here as I see it is that Obama benefitted greatly from the influence of the highly corrupt and sometimes radical left wing politics of Chicago. That boosted him very quickly through the ranks to tha national scene, yet now he doesn’t want anyone to see that part of his background. IMO he can’t have it both ways- he must take the bad with the good. If he truly only allied himself with such people for political expediency and will work to correct that form of croneyism that infects our system, then he would have to work longer in the US Senate to prove this in order for me and many other voters to believe where his loyalties really lie.
I think that’s key right there. The entire approach of the Obama campaign, the lying, the distorting, the refusal to be open and honest. It’s breathtaking, really.
As for sympathies: honestly, I think that all the associations, all the boards Obama served in, all his community organizing work, all his relations, his endorsing a radical book by Ayers on education (read some excerpts from it, it’s extreme alright)… Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Obama is far more radical than he is willing to admit, and the burden is on him to prove he’s not. So far, he has not done so in the Senate, where he was one of if not the most liberal senator.
Giving Obama a pass on anything is, in my opinion, utterly wrong, especially because he has been so deceptive and because this man will be the next president. If he’s not honest now, what do you think will happen once in power.
I do, I have to admit, look forward a bit to the day on which moderate Americans supportive of Obama or at least not distrustful of him will say ‘man, were we wrong!’
Quite sure that day will come.
Does this help you at least see a far left , true socialist pattern? How many independent voters are aware of this information. Let the US make a real choice between socialism , educational indoctronation and capitalism, free thought.
"Here’s something I also haven’t mentioned. Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers were practically best friends. People don’t know this, and I’m actually saying this for the first time. I haven’t written about this. They were best friends, and we know that Obama had interactions with Khalidi, that Khalidi had held the coffee that kicked off his Congressional campaign, I believe. And Ayers and Khalidi were extremely close if you look at the acknowledgements in their books." Stanley Kurtz
"While Barack Obama once downplayed his relationship with Ayers, today his campaign took that deceit one step further. Barack Obama now denies he was even aware of his friend’s violent past when, in 1995, Ayers hosted a party launching Obama’s political career. Given Ayers’ celebrity status among the left, it’s difficult to believe. The question remains: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? When did Obama learn the truth about his friend? Barack Obama helped Ayers promote his book in 1997, served on charitable boards with him through 2002, and regularly exchanged emails and phone calls with him through 2005. At what point did Barack Obama discover that his friend was an unrepentant terrorist? And if he is so repulsed by the acts of terror committed by William Ayers, why did the relationship continue? Any honest accounting by Barack Obama will necessarily cast further doubt on his judgment and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.In the person of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, we most certainly see someone who held influence with Barack Obama, so much so that Obama titled his second book, The Audacity of Hope, after one of the reverend’s sermons. To believe that Sen. Obama would be able to listen attentively enough to draw "wisdom" from one of Wright’s sermons so to include in a book while sitting in the pews of Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years but not understand that Wright was a racist is to believe that the American public is completely devoid of intelligence.
ACORN. "I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois. Obama told ACORN members in November.
Small Schools Network run by Ayers’ comrade from the 60s, ex-Maoist Mike Klonsky.Sam Graham-Felsen - joined Obama for America in March 2007 where he works for the New Media department as the official blogger Now he’s under fire for his reputed Marxist sympathiesSenator James Meeks - Barack Obama said was a spiritual adviser and/or guide. Father Michael Pfleger you’ve seen the video. What about Obama’s mentor "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis, who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Marilyn Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.
More news that is intersting: Found this out for myself today, but this guy is better at putting it together:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/08/edits-needed-s-snapshots-of-2001-reality-is-not-what-it-seems/
.."I do, I have to admit, look forward a bit to the day on which moderate Americans supportive of Obama or at least not distrustful of him will say ‘man, were we wrong!’ "..
I hear you, talk about buyers remorse!
I hear what you all are saying, I just disagree with it based on a fundamental principle that I hold to be true: Having friends that are radicals doesn’t make you a radical.
This seems to me a necessary principle for political pluralism and civil debate. I have friends who are radicals and members of socialist parties. I have one associate (used to be a friend, but had a falling out unrelated to politics) who I served on a board of a debate organization (aka an educational foundation) for an extended period. The fact that I can associate with them and even cooperate with them on some limited areas doesn’t mean I agree with them ideologically. One of my closest friends at work is so liberal that I would have to so she is borderline socialist. We disagree with each other vigorously on politics and even from time to time agree on some things. That doesn’t make me a socialist.
Ronald Reagan used to do drinks with Tip O’Neill. That didn’t make Reagan a liberal Democrat. Dan Quayle worked closely with Ted Kennedy on the Job Training Partnership Act. That didn’t mean Quayle was committed to Kennedy’s brand of economic statism. And as a student noted this morning, John McCain served on committees and cooperated on numerous pieces of legislation with Strom Thurmond, but that didn’t make John McCain a racist.
Imagine what kind of political world we would have is everyone who aspires to office must disassociate from and publicly condemn everyone who might hold detestable views. We would wind up turning what is already a stunted and lame and polarized political discourse to the complete ABSENCE of discourse. It would (ironically) mean the final victory of the fundamentally leftist political proposition that “the personal is political”. That’s unacceptable to me and I will reject it even in regards to one of the political figures I find most detestable in all of American politics, Billy Ayers.
I will even try to be more tolerant in the future about Jay_C’s association with Ron Paul.
Jason. They weren’t just ‘friends.’ That’s the point. They worked together. They were colleagues. That’s, again, the point. They worked together, not merely on an isolated project, but on an organization for which Obama worked for years, based on Ayers views on education (read up on them Jason, seriously, that stuff is [censored]).
I agree with the general principle you’re laying out there, Jason, but Tip O’Neill didn’t have a history of neo-Marxist writings or bombing government buildings. If a Republican candidate had worked on projects with an unrepentent abortion clinic bomber, I’d feel the same way- a line had been crossed there which is much different than accepting an endorsement or even pandering for votes from such a person. Working with people who hold such radical views (especially with a history of justifying violent terroristic tactics) legitimizes them in a way that I think should be completely unacceptable.
I’m not even saying that a casual relationship with Ayers would be a problem for me, but it’s this overall pattern and the paucity of more mainstream associations in Obama’s background that I find so unacceptable. It’s one thing to be highly tolerant of even extreme viewpoints, but it’s another when ALL of your associations seem to involve people who hold extreme views from one side of the political spectrum.
And again, it’s the coverup too- if there really isn’t a problem with these relationships, then why obfuscate?
BTW, have you seen this?
Excuse me but this is about working with political radicals on political and social issues. You don’t have to ‘disassociate’ from anyone, but you should not work with those radicals either. That is a choice. And if you make the choice to work with them nonetheless, you should be held accountable.
Especially when you pretend to be a moderate, but all the available evidence signals you’re not.
This isn’t about ‘friendships’ or accidentally working at a same organization. It’s about working for an organization founded by Ayers with the purpose of reforming Chicago schools as he believes necessary according to his radical views.
Michael, I work in academia. I have colleagues who are socialists or other kinds of radicals all over the place. I work with them on projects, including a decade-long project for an organization that holds a national debate championship. That organization has been lambasted by its critics for supposedly attempting to “radically transform” intercollegiate debate.
Does that make me a socialist?
If so, that’s news to me, as well as to the many far lefties who hate my guts because of my political disagreements with them, including some people in that same debate organization. Our mutual participation in the organization did not, in fact, “signal” a shared radical commitment to anything, political or otherwise.
Do you work at organizations founded by those individuals and which organizations have the expressed purpose to bring about radical, socialist change?
If so, damn right I wouldn’t vote for you if you were running for office in my country. Especially not if you lied and deceived about the relationship you had with those people, and left it up to me find out what the relationship was all about.
This isn’t "ah, we served on a board to do academic research!" this is "we worked for an organization dedicated to bring socialist, anti-capitalist change to the American education system, trying to raise students believing capitalism to be evil, and socialism to be the cure from the oppression of (white) capitalism."
Jason: I presume you also associate and work with some more mainstream, moderate, or conservative folks, no?
And that if you were planning a political career perhaps you’d be cautious about appearances and realize that at the very least, your working relationships have to be out in the open so that people can judge them as they see fit?
And no matter how far left the people you refer to are, have any of them incited or participated in violent protest against the government of the US?
Yes. A socialist and myself were among the co-founders of the organization. The socialist has long expressed a commitment to using debate as a tool of political transformation. I cooperated in that organization because I believed it could serve completely different and non-ideological ends.
Different people can have different reasons for participating in the same organization, Michael. The only way I would think it appropriate to assume that they have the exact same purposes is if they say so.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece and this is beginning to sound personal, so I’m going to leave it at that pending what I hope will be some perspectives from other readers once the link from RCP appears sometime this afternoon.
To Christine:
God, I should hope so. Is it your claim that ALL of Obama’s friends and associates are radicals like Ayers? If not, I don’t see how this question is relevant.
Sure, but no amount of openness is ever enough to meet the standard of proving the negative that Michael demands above. No one can prove that they aren’t hiding something or that they don’t secretly harbor some bizarre belief. The charge of concealing something is self-affirming, it can never be disproved to a critic’s satisfaction. Every attempt to disavow the radicalism is only interpreted as further attempts at “lying” — it is an imposed catch-22 that I find to be less than intellectually honest or charitable.
I wouldn’t put it past some of my associates, even including one or two that I have worked cooperatively with on some issues including a political issue regarding unionization.
Did the charter and written goals of this organization state that the goal was to reach those socialist goals of your radical colleague?
If so, yeah, when you would run for office and wouldn’t be honest about this, you would rightfully be criticized for it.
Your defense, for instance, is interesting; Obama did not use that defense initially. He lied, distorted, pretending there was nothing ‘there’ there. But now we know there is.
You are honest and forthright about it, and can make a plausible case for participating in this organization, Obama does not, because he refused to talk about it.
Again, with that organization, I’m wondering about the following: did this organization have a charter which explicitly said that the goal of the organization was to create socialist change? If so, yeah, I believe voters could draw conclusions on that when they vote.
I really believe that - when running for office, you should be prepared to take responsibility for the organizations you were a member of.
For your information, by the way, I was a member of the "Young Socialists" at the same time I was a member of the Young Liberals (meaning conservatives here). When asked about it when running for office, I would be honest about and explain why I was a member.
I wouldn’t lie, distort, pretend I never was a member of it.
And so on.
Another Ayers / Obama Association (due to that Google 2001 search:) I never knew about this anyway
http://web.archive.org/web/20010724094124/www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/97/971104.juvenile.justice.shtml
Different people can have different reasons for participating in the same organization, Michael. The only way I would think it appropriate to assume that they have the exact same purposes is if they say so.
But for Obama to say that he shares any of the far left agenda of Ayers and the other foundation members would be a statement against his own interests when running for national office, so how can you ignore the actual agenda of the organization and the groups which it funded?
P.S. to Jay_C: Until Larry Johnson comes forward with the proof-positive on the Obama-damaging video that he claimed to have over a period of weeks, I’m not inclined to read anything he has to say about anything at all related to Obama. As far as I can tell, Larry Johnson is the anti-Obama equivalent of 9-11 Twoofers. Because he has manufactured false evidence in the past, I think we should assume that anything that comes from him might be equally manufactured (or at least distorted) in the future.
thanks Jason, read what you want on your terms Jason, it is out there for everyone else to read weather you will or not.
I agree that the Ayers relationship won’t have a significant or long-lasting effect. To me, however, it is consistent with an image of a politician who doesn’t have a clear understanding of where the "center" is. It fits with his relationship with Rev. Wright, his "cling" statement and other "soft" indicators.
I firmly believe that if he sees/hears relative reason in what someone is saying and that the statement comes from any point along the center to left continuum, he (Sen. Obama) can "appreciate" the sentiment. (I’m sure Mr. Obama heard Mr. Ayers statements on educational reform as kinda reasonable.) Further, when certain statements are pointed out as being outrageous (i.e. "God d**n America") I believe Sen. Obama struggles to reconcile his previously being "ok with the guy and his words" and the now vocal dissent to such statements. Its as if there’s an inner voice that says "well I was OK with the guy and I’m not radical so it must be ok".
I’ll admit I had so many mixed emotions/opinions about the Wright affair (issues between congregant and pastor are tough and complex issues) but I could never escape the notion that Sen. Obama felt that the affair impugned his nature/judgement and that even Rev. Wright was impugning his judgement (from the "other side of course"). I say that because:
1) It took Sen. Obama several tries at "getting it right" before he clearly "understood" that the statement whether in or out of context were outrageious
2)Rev. Wright seemed so determined to exacerbate the situation with his his now infamous press conference. (i.e. "Barack, I know the conversations we had in the past, either you are with me or against me!!")
And so who cares?
If he stuggles mightly with his compass in these relationships how will he do when the Democratic leadership in Congress tells him "this is the right thing to do"?
Remember one of Clinton’s first actions as President was to end the ban on gays in the military. He got a lot of crap for that but he rebounded and seemed to gain a better sense of where the "center" was and over time actually "stole" ideas from the right (i.e. "Ending welfare as we know it") ….and I don’t mean just the words but the policy.
Will Presideent Obama’s administration be a series of "ending the ban on gays in the military" missteps?
Jason:
A few comments:
If Ayers had been firebombing black churches, do you think your opinion would be different? Do you think the handling of this issue by the major media would be the same?
In the final analysis, it really is not Ayers. It is the string of datapoints that begin to create concern. Is this guilt by association or guilt by agreement? Did he really believe the filth being spewn by Ayers, Wright, and the host of others in his past? If it were one person, I think you might be right to give him a pass.
Regretfully, Mr. Obama has been running from his past, and himself, for many months now.
This is a race that Mr. Obama, and the rest of us, will lose- eventually.
JJC.
Jason:
Should McCain’s relationship with G. Gordon Liddy be put under the smae microscope? Here we have a true thug - convicted for his role in working to undermine American democracy - just as foul and evil as Ayers - if more so because he served time and then came out to broadcast his unaplogetic views and yet - not a peep from the right wing on THIS assocation of McCain’s - far deeper than Ayers to Obama…
JJC: Clearly, you didn’t read my post before commenting. I don’t give Ayers a pass on anything, so, no, if he had been firebombing black churches I would think of him exactly what I do now — that he was a detestable and violent thug and that he is a detestable and unrepentant intellectual thug even now. I just see no evidence that Obama shares Ayers’ views and I am not willing to assume that Obama shares Ayers’ views just because of an association on a few boards and committees.
Fred: I don’t believe in guilt by association for McCain either. Even if I did, I know of no evidence to support your assertion that McCain is linked to G. Gordon Liddy nor that McCain endorses anything Liddy did nor that McCain shares any or all of Liddy’s political views. Since “the other side did it too” isn’t an excuse for anything after kindergarten, I don’t even know why you brought it up.
One might make a case for "excusing" Obama for his association with Ayers, but when one connects the dots on a whole string of very questionable past/present associates (Auchi, Rezko, Khalidi, Wright, Pfleger, ACORN, etc.), a distinct pattern emerges. In this pattern, one can readily see anti-Americanism, Socialist/Marxist leanings, anti-white racism, and other less-than-mainstream (radical) viewpoints.
Is Obama a Trojan candidate, groomed and supported by this aforementioned bunch to really "change" America to something most of us wouldn’t want or recognize? (Read: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/23/the-trojan-candidate/ , a scholarly, well-researched article that ties much of this together.
Or, was Obama, because of his background, so dreadfully needy for approval that he fell in with what he perceived were respected politico-academics, who utilized Obama’s neediness to groom him as a political puppet they could control to pull off the biggest hoax in history– destroying America from the inside. One need only look back at the last century to find examples of this strategy in other countries.
Either way, it doesn’t say much for Obama’s judgement. I think the American people have a right to know more about this.
The earth is flat and Democrats are for poor people. Obama and Ayers make their living on the backs of the poor in Chicago.
After spending over $100 million dollars on Chicago city schools, the schools are as trashed as ever?
The schools that Democrats push onto poor people graduate only half of the kids in Chicago and in Baltimore only 33% of the kids who want to graduate can pass 9th grade level tests. I’ve heard that 75% of African American males drop out of school in Baltimore City. They compete with illegal immigrants for jobs in 1 of the 4 states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. No, Democrats don’t like poor people. They use poor people like a commodity to enrich their unions, enrich their buddies who bring "development" to the city, enrich their organizations who provide "services" to the poor, and enrich the businesses hire illegal immigrants. If poor people had any idea how much money is supposedly spent on their behalf and NEVER reaches them, I believe they wouldn’t vote for Democrats for a generation.
Oh God! I watched a McCain representative say in the very same breath that Obama was palling around with terrorists, but that America doesn’t care about these issues. Meredith Vierra tried to call her on it, but the McCain campaign is so geriatric in thier function. They’re like Jerry Sienfelds nanna who still thinks it’s 1950.
If a Republican candidate had worked on projects with an unrepentent abortion clinic bomber, I?d feel the same way- a line had been crossed there which is much different than accepting an endorsement or even pandering for votes from such a person.
Umm, please do check out the following links:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=35900831 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abotion-bombers/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDlpWfLyYss&eurl=http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/john-mccains-domestic-terroris-1.html
Are you ready to criticize McCain as strongly as you have Obama? Ready to pledge not to vote for him, considering his working with and support of a former bomber?
Jason,Thank you so much for your sober, rational input on all of this. The hysteria over Obama seems to be reaching a fever pitch (on both sides). It’s nice to hear a voice of reason.
Although I’m following politics pretty closely this year, I haven’t read up on the Obama-Ayers accusations, and I’ve only seen a few articles in the last two days. So perhaps I can be of assistance as a more casual outsider perspective. That said, what do I see in all these accusations? Conspiracy theory.
The entire Obama-Ayers issue reeks of it, primarily because it follows the central structure of all conspiracy theories, an obsession with minor details of questionable veracity, and a blindness to the larger narrative. The assertion is essentially that based upon selected snippets of information about Obama’s former associates, I should believe that he’s a secret anti-american radical bent on destroying us from the inside. I’ll admit that many of these snippets do make me raise an eyebrow and wonder a little. But in the end, in order to believe all this, I have to swallow the concept that fringe political players with little power somehow foresaw the rise of black man to the Presidency at a time when such a thing was a fantasy, and then somehow gained access to all the strings necessary to engineer the meteoric rise of Obama’s political career. I have to believe that Obama has radical left wing anti-american views which he has almost superhumanly concealed for decades, which never revealed themselves to his law school collegues, or to his collegues in the state legislature, or in his writings, or to anyone else. And since I already believe that he’s clearly displayed a willingness and a character that is not opposed to talking or working with people whose views he opposes, I have believe that even that was a show. In short, I have to believe that he’s the ultimate Manchurian Candidate in the Hollywood style.
In the end, it’s just too much to swallow.
Nice conversation everyone. I enjoyed reading the original piece by Jason, which I disagree with heartily, and all of the responses. Obama’s ongoing obfuscations and the media refusal to pin Obama down with direct questions about his radical associations go hand in hand to create a political atmosphere that cheats the voter. I wouldn’t want to shake hands with Ayers, Rev. Wright, Khalidi, etc. and I can’t vote for someone to be President of our United States who has chosen to have relationships with these people. Who one chooses to have relationships with tells others a lot about that person, especially when a pattern of individuals can be clearly seen.
Sphere,
Obama chose his associations precisely because they were not "Fringe" political players, they were major political players within the Chicago/Illinois political structure in which he was working and attempting to gain power. He needed these people to help him rise in the political ranks. In addition, the media has not done its job and reported on his earlier years so his past views and comments, many of which are indeed radical and far left, have never really been brought to the publics attention. I’m not claiming he is a "Manchurian Candidate" and I am not a believer in conspiracies, but much of what you cannot swallow is indeed true about this man and you don’t have to scratch too far below the surface to find it.
Jason, thank you so much for commenting on the Ayers debate. Before Senator Obama was attacked for associating with Ayers, I had never heard of the latter. From what I have learned since, it seems to me that Ayers was "re-integrated" into genteel society long before Barack Obama met him. I believe that, in general, communities have great powers to ostracise unwanted persons. This is not what has happened here. So, to those who get on Senator Obama’s case now - why not blame those people who helped Ayers to blend in with the rest of us - it seems that was not what Barack Obama was doing! Or the person/entity who gave him a job at the University of Chicago - not Barack Obama’s doing either. Senator Obama is emphasizing again and again, that he will first exhaust all the means to achieve peace/agreement, including communicating with the most despicable adversaries, before committing valuable resources to war/attack. This is just one more example, where helping the less fortunate was important enough for him to go beyond his comfortzone (not working only with his "buddies" = a fertile ground for corruption). Do you know what integrity is? If you feel Barack Obama is to blame for his "association" with Ayers, please note that he is pretty much at the end of the line of many more effective "associates". So why don’t you get those first who are ahead of him.
I agree with Sphere’s comment (29). It reeks of conspiracy theory, mingled with the stench of political desperation. The McCain campaign announced they were going negative, and said if the conversation remained focused on the economy they would lose. So, it seems, trying to make Obama out to be the boogeyman is McCain and Palin’s only hope of winning. Fairly obvious what’s going on, to everyone except McCain supporters and/or the "anybody but Obama" crowd.
kevin munn, you are a poster child for the Obamabots.
"Working with and support" for a former bomber? Except when I went to two of the links you provided they accused McCain of not voting to federalize crimes that were already Capital crimes in all 50 states. (I didn’t waste my time with a third) How this equates to Obama’s association with Ayers is never made clear, because it doesn’t equate. No surprise there.
Jason, I appreciate your positions but you are missing the piece that ties the question of Obama’s associations together. Since Obama has such a small history he has been telling us that he is the judgment candidate. Since he has no record of, well, anything, the ONLY thing we can judge in relationship to his true positions is through the company he keeps.
As has been pointed out, his denials are meant to hide, not enlighten. You easily placed your position in relationship to the socialist you co-founded the organization with in a sentence or two, because you WANTED to do so. Obama first says he is "only neighbors" and then that he was "only 7" when Ayers plotted murder, and then admits that well, maybe we worked together a time or two. This is not because he has nothing to hide. Look how you responded and how he has and tell me again how it is the same thing. It isn’t. And one reason it isn’t is because your socialist associate has probably never plotted the murder of people they didn’t even know, and I seriously doubt that you would have anything to do with them if you knew that they had. Vandalism is one thing, the conspiracy to commit murder is quite another.
And what about Rezko?
Marshall- the post was made in jest for that very purpose. Left-wing bloggers are trying to equate McCain’s votes on those bills to Obama’s association with Ayers (which as you pointed out is non-sense). The third link was to a fake satirical article substituting McCain for Obama and using an abortion bomber instead of Ayers (it also calls Puerto Rico the 57th state in the Union).
What ties does Barack Obama have to non-radicals? And what evidence does he have of ever compromising on any issue or working with Republicans? The only groups on the "other side" are on the other side of the Atlantic. And he also routinely stated how he’d sit down with radical leaders without preconditions. Tie his relationships (Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and Kenyan leader Odinga) with his record (most liberal member of Senate, opposition of born alive bill), education, volunteer status (ACORN), and employment activities (more involvement with ACORN), and I think we have a pretty clear picture of who Barack Obama is. He is different. And dangerously so.
And I didn’t even mention his policies. You will notice that Obama is only passionate and truthful about three things - every other issue he blows in the wind, having to rely on advisors and polling to make up his mind. Here are the three issues:
1. Income redistribution (a socialist tenant)
- His tax policies accomplish this well
2. Health care for everyone
3. Ending the war in Iraq
I could also add "educational indoctrination" for his involvement in remaking the Chicago public school system’s curriculum, but that hasn’t seemed to be much of a focus in his campaign.
I see McCain’s decision to focus on Ayers as damaging, because if it does help McCain win, the country will be more polarized than ever as Democrats will believe McCain won by distracting and using dirty tactics.
There are much more direct ways to go after Obama, even about his past. Call him out as a Chicago politician.
Though I plan to vote for Obama, this troubles me. Someone on here asked a question I do not have a good answer for: if McCain had the same relationship that Obama has/had with Ayers (whatever that is/was) with someone who bombed a black church in the 1960s and remained unrepentant about it to this day, how would I react? Would I demand more info on what he knew and when? Would I be so willing to give him a pass? Do I have a double standard? This is a legitmate issue Obama needs to address clearly and precisely, even it was raised as a political last gasp of a losing campaign. It can be both a legitmate issue and an act of desperation.
In the American Thinker, Jack Cashill makes the rather extroardinary allegation, using various linguistic study methods, that Ayers may have ghost written Obama?s first book. This is an extremely detailed study… and will be the next big story on Obama/Ayers in the media.
This debate is all quite surreal. Obama has worked closely with Chuck Hagel in his short term in the Senate — does that make him a Republican-by-association? Clearly, none of you have read the scathing critiques of Obama from those "radical leftists" you excoriate. We feel Obama is very comprised, centrist candidate, not even a real liberal democrat of the Edwards or Kennedy sort. Any look at his record will reveal that. If anything, we’ll be more disppointed in his presidency should he win than you. You can relax - no socialist revolution is upon us. Among his biggest campaign contributors are the same Wall Street firms now getting government bailouts. McCain’s past associations, indeed, clear involvement, in scandals, such as the Keating Five, are far more serious than Obama’s alleged close ties to a 60s radical who went too far in his protests against a criminal war in Vietnam. And who was participating in the bombing of civilians at that time? McCain — who has said he regretted what he did at some point. Somehow that’s not even fair game. This is a pathetic attempt to distract from the grave issue facing us all — our crumbling financial system, and we’re having a discussion on Obama’s past ties to one of MANY people, left to right, he has had? What about the extremely poor judgements McCain has made throughout his career? Voting 90% with Bush is the reason he’s down in the polls and cannot extricate himself from a failed presidency, not because of overblown and hyped connections of Obama to a highly regarded Professor of Education in Chicago who once was a 60s extremist.
If the facts were reversed, and Obama were as conservative as he is liberal, and the dubious personal/professional association were, say, an unrepentent black church bomber or abortion clinic bomber, the people who now say, "What’s the big deal?" would be screaming bloody murder. Shit, Obama himself called for Don Imus to lose his livelihood for using the phrase "nappy-headed ho’s", even while attending a racist church run by a deranged and shrieking racist. Alas, honesty is non-existent when the battleground is political ideolgy.
Amazing comments. I don’t even know where to start…
How about:
1. Obama working with Hagel - only because Hagel agreed with him first
2. How could Obama be centrist? What would lead you to believe that?
3. Obama’s ties to radicals in education, employment, current and previous campaigns, and books he’s written don’t lead you to believe that he’s a socialist?
4. Among those duped by Keating was Alan Greenspan and four Democratic Senators.
5. Voting with someone 90% of the time fails to show any source of bad judgment.
6. Obama’s economic policies will be disastrous, which is one of the reasons that the economy is collapsing as we speak.
7. William Ayers is not a highly regarded professor, but a member of the left wing, anti-war fringe. He would not be working anywhere other than the most liberal colleges.
8. Obama’s involvement in the current economic crisis through ACORN and Fannie Mae shows that he has no concept of how the economy works. He is only interested in promoting his agenda of a "class-less society", of which socialism is perfectly suited.
McCain camp doesn’t really have any solution to the current state of affairs of this country. I’m really get the feeling that the Repubilicans are out of touch with the rest of America. Because there losing and the only way to stir up the pot is character assassination. Shame on you John McCain when you lose this election he should gracefully retire from polictics. Here is a part of a Commentary by CNN report Roland Martin on this very subject " If we are to use the association tag as evidence of a candidate being unfit for president, what about McCain serving and working alongside people with virulent bigoted pasts like Sens. Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd?Do we have evidence that these individuals committed specific acts against African-Americans during Jim Crow? No. But we do know that their hateful words, and willingness to uphold laws that were absolutely anti-American, did not represent the best of this nation. Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat in 1948 with a platform of maintaining segregation. Based on Helms’ policies, he didn’t see blacks as full Americans. Bombing the Pentagon is horrible and indefensible. But declaring yourself a patriot while you speak such hateful and venomous words against your own countrymen, who just happen to be black, and then trying to oppress them, is just as indefensible.So, did McCain work with them? Did he not speak with them? Should McCain have declared that he would not work alongside these men because of their past? Should the self-described maverick who believes in integrity and character have taken the honorable stance of resigning from the Senate to protest these hateful characters serving in the U.S. Senate?No. And this is why this association argument is so weak and impotent.For goodness’ sakes, Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a domestic terrorist organization!Now, if Ayers was involved in these despicable acts today — or Byrd and his late Senate colleagues — then it is fair game.But no candidate should have to be held responsible for the actions of someone else that took place years ago." And let’s not try and spin it with the judgement tag.
It is not the associations that bother me,it is the double standard. If a canidate from the right was a member of a church for twenty years that condoned the teachings of a David Duke or Daniel Carver they would not have made it to the level of the U.S. senate. The media would have crucified them. Now we have a canidate for the POTUS,should he not be held to the same standards.
Juan,
I do not hold myself to that standard,but I am not asking you to let me make desisions for you that could affect your life. As far as Mcains associations with Byrd,Thurmon,Helms or any other elected senators,he did not seek them out to further his political career.
He doesn’t deserve a pass on his lies or the garbage being foisted on taxpayers as education.
Get real, Obama has lied by first saying Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood, then he lied again by saying he barely knew him, then said they just worked in the same company, then said he never knew what Ayers and his wife did, then said he thought Ayers was reformed. So, if Obama never knew what Ayers did, what did he think he was reformed from? If he had nothing to hide, why did he lie? If he didn’t agree with Ayers why after he read Ayers book and saw the pic. of Ayers on the front cover, standing on our American flag, did he still back the book? And why is it that Obama has such a huge pattern of his friends and mentors all being radical, racist, anti Americans? Coincidence? I don’t think so. Just as with Rev. Wright. Obama lied to everyone’s face by saying, I never heard Wright say those things, then he proved he lied, by saying that he did hear it but don’t agree. So, please tell me, if, as Obama admitted, he did hear the racist, anti American things Wright spews, then why if he didn’t agree, did he stay with him for over 20 yrs. and why, just days before Wright was exposed, was Obama telling us all how great his friend and mentor was? Obama said he voted for the 2nd amendment but it has been proven that he voted against it every time. He promised when he ran for senate that he would not vote to raise taxes but voted almost every time to raise them, and against the tax breaks for the middle class that he now says he cares about. I could go on all day, but the bottom line is, the democrats seem to accept and believe everything this liar says even though it has been proven that he lies almost every time he opens his mouth. The rest of us see the FACT that Obama has proven, ALL BY HIMSELF, that he is a liar, a sneak, he has very bad ties, and cannot be trusted.