Sometime back, I ask a question: What would Ayers (or anyone else) have to have done and what unrepented beliefs would he have to still hold, such that Obama’s supporters would consider it a fatal lapse of judgment for Obama to have associated with Ayers?
To this day Ayers has never refuted his Maoist beliefs and he has only weakly repented of his violent acts. Just to tally up the list of Ayers’s extremism:
1) During the early ’70s, Ayers’s Weathermen cell attempted to burn a judge, his wife and three children alive with three gasoline bombs. A neighbor risked his life to prevent the largest bomb from detonating.
2) Ayers personally designed a large anti-personal fragmentation bomb (a mass of explosives surrounded by nails) that he intended to detonate at a dance attended by U.S. Army personnel and their dates. Instead, the bomb exploded during its construction killing two Weathermen.
3) Ayers was/is a radical Maoist communist who sought/seeks the complete destruction of America. He sought to destroy liberal democracy, basic human rights and institute Stalinist/Maoist totalitarian rule.
4) In service to his goal (3) he sought the invasion of America by communist powers in the Soviet Union, Mao-ruled China, Castro-ruled Cuba and other communist states. (see 5 below)
5) He calmly contemplated the mass murder of 25 million Americans [h/t Instapundit] who would refuse to convert to communism following the revolution.
Honestly, what more could he possibly do to place himself beyond the pale? What more would he have to have done such that Obama supporters would consider it unacceptable that leftist Chicago embraced him? What more could he have done such that they would say, “Okay, Obama’s association with Ayers casts doubts on his fitness to be president?”
What? What? What? What?
Even more disturbing than the truth about Ayers, is the face that 3,000 “academics” have signed a pro-Ayers petition: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
And these are the people who are teaching American young people?
Shortly after 9/11..when leftist denunciations of the U.S. began to reach a fever pitch..it struck me that the Islamic radicals who had attacked us were a “perfect enemy.” That is: Suppose a supernatural being wanted to construct a group which was so repulsive to the stated vaues of the “progressive” movement that it would lead the “progressives” to put in abeyance their quarrel with American society and work together with other Americans to defeat the enemy. The result would be something very like Al Quaeda. But even this “perfect enemy” wasn’t enough to bring the “progressives” to a reconciliation or even a truce with the larger society.
Pretty much the same phenomenon with Ayers, who isn’t quite as perfect an enemy (from this standpoint) as AQ.
Here is a conspiracy theory. Ayers and Dorn are revolutionaries. They attack the Pentagon but the workers and peasants fail to cast off their chains and rise up. So they decide to attack the US from within. To use jujitsu on the US government — to use its power against itself.
They plan to overload the welfare system. Ayers decides to teach black people that they are victims, oppressed by white people who want their slaves back. He develops an educational system around this idea. His friend, Saul Alinski, tells him about an ambitious charismatic young radical socialist student of his named Obama. At this time Ayers runs the Hyde Park ward and sponsors Obama to the Chicago machine. He gets him elected to the State Senate. In return Obama provides funding and programs to support Ayer’s educational initiatives. Together Ayers and Obama recruit Acorn as the vehicle they will use to get so many people enrolled in the welfare system, at the greatest cost to the US government, that the very government wil be weakened financially and morally.
Together Obama and Ayers convert Acorn into a radical, nationwide organization designed to undermine both the welfare system and the integrity of elections. To this end they allied with Acorn leader Madeline Talbott. In 1995 they decided they could better achieve their goal of destroying America by attacking the banking system. Specifically, by overloading it with Ninja loans (No Income No Job or Assets). They dusted off Jimmy Carter’s old 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and bully Chicago banks into making Ninja loans. Obama, Frank Raines and Jim Johnson sell the plan to Chris Dodd and arrange for legal authority for a pilot program in which Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy the Ninja loans from Chicago banks. Now local banks become more willing to make the Ninja loans Ayers needs to destroy the banking system. The program is a big success in Chicago. The pilot is a success. It is rolled out nationally. Acorn Housing Development works with homeless people and illegal aliens across the nation and gets them 5,000,000 Ninja loans by 2007, all purchased by Freddie and Fannie where they are securitized and sold into the banking system.
In the meantime Obama is elected US Senator and gets Federal money to finance Ayer’s plan use Acorn to destroy the banking system and Capitalism. Obama runs for President, and using classic bear raid tactics, prepares the battle field by bad mouthing the economy. When the moment is right, Acorn cuts off the financial assistance it has provided to help people pay their Ninja loans and the subprime loans collapse driving the banking system into bankruptcy. Obama emerges as the savior of the American and the world economy. Raines is given Treasury,
Johnson the Federal Reserve, and Ayers Homeland Security. Al Sharpton gets Justice.
You left out the part of the conspiracy that underlies everything else: developing an educational system that is corrupt and dysfunctional but most of all emphasizes indoctrination instead of education, recycling instead of thoughtful reading, and manages to teach anti-American American history, literature, and studies. Instead of encouraging self-reliance and respect, it has prepared a couple of generations to accept the arguments of Ayers and his acolytes.
And, of course, this all answers Barone’s question “Who sent him?”
Last week I was irritated at the 9/11 conspiracists. But minds I respect believe in a vast conspiracy by the Clintons. It gave me pause. By now I’ve gotten into more of a conspiracy mode, I guess.
On the other hand, this isn’t exactly a conspiracy: Obama has dodged and evaded, but it’s been obvious his mentors are far left from Hawaii on. Sure he keeps redefining himself, but much is public – in public sources. The next Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth is likely to be someone who couldn’t get a low level security clearance in that government.
The conspiracy theory I’m pulling for is the one where it turns out Ayers himself co-wrote Dreams from my Father. That would really catch Obama in his Big Lie, and in a very creepy way.
Gosh, I’m such a gossipy Gertie.
> Honestly, what more could he possibly do to place himself beyond the pale?
Duh.
“Endorse Sarah Palin”
LOLOLOLOLOLOL…
> Here is a conspiracy theory…
Less freaky than you think. I’ve posted this before, but:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The description there doesn’t require all that many people actually push it or know about it, which is the standard argument against conspiracy theories.
> The conspiracy theory I’m pulling for is the one where it turns out Ayers himself co-wrote Dreams from my Father.
Research Notes: William Ayers in “Fugitive Days” Part IV
(see also parts I,II,III immediately preceding)
Frank says he’s going to try and do a literary forensic analysis, but he hasn’t coughed up anything yet, but does note he’s finished reading them:
Ok, thats the last time I do that.
(and Frank’s not a conspiracy nut by any of his previous postings, either).
I sent this out, adding the following as a further comment:
===========================================================
What does it take to make people see Ayers for the slime he is?
What does it take for OBAMA to see Ayers for the slime he is?
Or Jeremiah Wright?
Or Tony Rezko?
Even IF we give Obama the benefit of ignorance, and not assume his complicity and agreement with them and their ideas….
What does that say about his capacity to be President of the USA, and make hard decisions about the people he deals with, and the national leaders he finds agreement with?
At what point do you ask — Is this a man we can trust to be President?
[Comment deleted by Jonathan. We do not allow comments that incite or suggest violence, even if made in jest.]
“What More Could Ayers Have Done?”
1. Actually kill people.
2. Get convicted and go to prison.
Even then, he would probably still be treated well, as a liberal-in-a-hurry and a domesticated remnant of the romanticized era of protest and associated violence.
“What More Could Ayers Have Done?”
There is nothing so loathsome that anyone can do that the Left will not embrace him (so long as he remains a Leftist). Nothing. The very existence of such a large Marxist cohort in the academy, after a century of Marx-inspired genocide, attests to that.
It may well be inconvenient to point this out but consider how many *more* liberal newspaper columnists Gordon Liddy would have to plan to murder for McCain to not be “proud” of him? How many more felonies would he have to be convicted of? How many more kidnappings would he have to propose?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column
It’s easy for Palin to get worked up in a lather but the point is that politicians come into contact with many people, some of who turn out to be unsavory. Obama does not appear to be a friend of Ayers. Liddy calls McCain “an old friend.” Should we excuse this relationship because Liddy is a Republican?
Sean F,
Gordon Liddy thought about killing journalist in a moment of impulse. He’s never actually committed any acts of violence. He didn’t actually try to kill people and fail. He never published a manifesto outlining his hopes for the destruction of America.
More importantly, Liddy recanted. He doesn’t swagger around saying, he “wishes he could do more.”
…but the point is that politicians come into contact with many people, some of who turn out to be unsavory
(1) Obama comes from a subculture in which Obama is an accepted and respected figure even though he still clings to his Maoist beliefs and seeks the destruction of America as a liberal-democracy. (2)Ayers isn’t just someone Obama bumped into. Ayers plunked Obama out of obscurity and put him on the board of the Annenburg Challenge project. Obama began his political career in Ayers’ living room.
If Liddy was unrepentent. If Liddy had been McCain’s political patron. If McCain had launched his first bid for office in Liddy’s living room, then you might have grounds for comparison.
There are in fact hundreds of former and current communist knocking around the American left and people like you are absolute okay with that.
You still didn’t answer the question. What would Ayers have to have done/do for you consider damning that he was so close to a potentional president?
In short, do you have any standards? Is there any leftist beliefs or actions you feel are beyond the pale?
Shannon,
See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Ayers didn’t kill anyone, claims that he intended to cause only property damage with his planned bombs, and that the NYT article on him (published on 9/11/2001 based on an earlier interview) deliberately distorted his views. Why is it fair to minimize Liddy’s acts but not those of Ayers?
>>(2)Ayers isn’t just someone Obama bumped into. Ayers plunked Obama out of obscurity and put him on the board of the Annenburg Challenge project. Obama began his political career in Ayers’ living room.
This is incorrect. Obama met Ayers through their mutual involvement with the Annenburg Challenge. Walter Annenburg was, of course, a prominent Republican, and his wife is a current McCain supporter. See link above; http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers. There was no “plucking from obscurity” going on. Obama had already been “plucked” by Walter Annenburg.
Obama has called Ayers acts “despicable” and has never expressed any support for these acts or Ayers views in general. On these facts, why is it fair to try and tar Obama with guilt-by-association?
>>There are in fact hundreds of former and current communist knocking around the American left and people like you are absolute okay with that.
Assuming your statement is true, yes, provided they were former Communists and not current ones. The fact that they were gullible enough to fall for Communism makes me question their judgment and good sense, but I don’t consider them morally damned for all eternity. If much or even a substantial minority of the American left were former Communists, I would be concerned. In my experience, thankfully, they are not.
>>In short, do you have any standards?
Yes. Having said that, I’m guessing this was a rhetorical question?
>>Is there any leftist beliefs or actions you feel are beyond the pale?
You know, it’s easy to say “leftist” and “rightist” but I’m kind of tired of politics as tribalism or sports teams. That’s bullshit. There’s no “leftist” bad behavior and “rightist” bad behavior, there’s just bad behavior period. A six year old without a political point of view has a pretty good grasp of right and wrong. And both Liddy and Ayers were far into the wrong side.
> Ayers didn’t kill anyone, claims that he intended to cause only property damage with his planned bombs, and that the NYT article on him (published on 9/11/2001 based on an earlier interview) deliberately distorted his views. Why is it fair to minimize Liddy’s acts but not those of Ayers?
What part of “unrepentant” do you NOT get? The claims you quote are CRAP on every level. He designed the bomb which blew up in Greenwich Village. He himself wrote parts of the Prarie Fire manifesto. He was involved in the discussions which Grathwohl has indicated all involved had no problem with the idea that 25 MILLION American citizens would wind up dying in “re-education camps” after his vaunted revolution. He’s openly supported Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez as “his kind of guy” — since 9/11.
> Obama has called Ayers acts “despicable” and has never expressed any support for these acts or Ayers views in general. On these facts, why is it fair to try and tar Obama with guilt-by-association?
Oh, I dunno, his mother was a communist, his father was a communist, his original mentor was a communist, his pastor is a communist, and his business associate — Ayers — is a communist.
Anyone besides me starting to see a pattern forming here?
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
– Thoreau –
I’m sorry, the trout in the milk leads Obama’s claims to pretty much stink like 14-day old haddock.
One bad association I can see. An endless series of associations with communists and socialists? In someone aiming towards a political career? Who clearly OUGHT to grasp that appearances, in politics, count for a lot?
For Obama to have THAT MANY bad connections is stupidity, political incompetence, or open support for the principles — or some combination of all of them.
Which one do you think it is?
Which one(s) do you think identify him as a particularly bad choice for PotUS, especially at this point in time?
And let’s not forget his Joe the Plumber gaff.
And I really, really suspect it would be interesting to hunt down that crap that they’ve been hiding from us all along — regarding whatever he wrote about in the HLR, his theses, etc.
Also — as far as support for the socialist basis for Obama’s own policies and views? I suggest you go out and find the linkages between him and the Socialist “New Party” in his early political career. Do a search on “obama new party links”
> I don’t consider them morally damned for all eternity.
Neither do I. But I do consider them to be morally damned at LEAST until they show that they’ve actually Figured It Out. Damned at least until they actually express some grasp that the things they did and advocated were WRONG. This is not something one can find the least evidence of in regards to Ayers. Ayers and Dorne both still believe in everything they believed in then — they’ve just learned to be a bit more circumspect about it, is all.
>>>>Is there any leftist beliefs or actions you feel are beyond the pale?
> You know, it’s easy to say “leftist” and “rightist” but I’m kind of tired of politics as tribalism or sports teams.
OK. Fine. Are there any CONSERVATIVE beliefs or actions which Ayers might have performed which you would class as beyond the pale?
:-S
*snort*
You know, I haven’t seen this much tap dancing since the last time I saw “That’s Entertainment”.
> Yes. Having said that, I’m guessing this was a rhetorical question?
Actually, since you’ve managed to utterly dodge the question entirely, I’d say it wasn’t on that level.
JUST WHAT WOULD AYERS HAVE TO DO TO GET YOU TO CONDEMN HIM?
Answer the #$%#$^^$%& question.
“Not one thing” is the answer I’m seeing so far.
Anonymous,
I noticed you did not answer the question of the post but merely tried to excuse Ayers. From that, I infer that there is nothing a leftist could do that would put him beyond the pale.
To your specifics:
FactCheck.org is the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a fact which raises the issue of conflict of interest. The article itself is clearly biased, going so far as gratuitously repeating the Obama’s campaign talking point that Obama was only eight when Ayers tried to kill people. Obama supporters hammer on the idea even though no one ever suggested that Obama had any association with Obama when he was eight.
In general the article accepts at face value anything Ayers or Obama says and declares their statements as “fact”.
Ayers didn’t kill anyone…
Only through his own incompetence and the bravery of other did his attacks not kill.
…claims that he intended to cause only property damage with his planned bombs,
Well, that settles it then because obviously we can trust his all of Ayers self-serving statements. On the other hand, the last bomb Ayers designed was a nail bomb i.e. an anti-personal bomb designed solely to kill human beings by spraying a lethal hail of nails over a wide area. Why did he design and have his friends build that type of bomb if he did not intend to use it? Occam’s Razor says that he did intend to kill large numbers of people but failed to do incompetence.
The fact that they were gullible enough to fall for Communism makes me question their judgment and good sense, but I don’t consider them morally damned for all eternity
But would you extend the same forgiveness to former facsist? I doubt it. More importantly, Ayers still describes himself as a “small-c” communist and fawns on Hugo Chevez. He shows every sign of holding the murderous totalitarian philosophy that drove him to wage war on America 30 years ago. Indeed, he shows every sign of merely having shifted tactics. You don’t think it’s accidental he went into education, do you?
Ayers is a matter of concern not because of what he believed and did 30 years ago. He’s a matter of concern because he has never repented of his acts and ideas of 30 years ago. Had he done so long before it became expedient for him, he would not today be an issue.
Ayers is clearly an accepted member of the sub-culture of the Chicago left and through them Chicago politics in general. The Annenberg article describes him as a “prodigal son”. That means that the same political subculture that accepts the still radically anti-American Ayers as a respected figure also nurtured Obama.
>>In short, do you have any standards?
Yes. Having said that, I’m guessing this was a rhetorical question?
No it wasn’t. I have spent my entire life watching the leftmost 20% of the American political spectrum fawning over leftist dictators, ideologues and terrorist. They have repeatedly made heros of people like Ayers. I think you follow the old adage, “no enemies on the left”. As long as someone is on the left, you will tolerate any act on their part. Certainly, nothing you’ve said here changes my mind sense you’ve spent your entire comment excusing Ayers. Never once did you condemn him.
There’s no “leftist” bad behavior and “rightist” bad behavior, there’s just bad behavior period.
And no one ever said there was. Instead, I said that leftist will tolerate and excuse any bad behavior on the part of leftist.
And both Liddy and Ayers were far into the wrong side.
Yes, but no where near on the same scale. Liddy never actually committed an act of political violence he just thought about it. He recanted. All the objective evidence says that Ayers is still the same sociopath he was 30 years ago.
Hey Shannon and O’BloodyHell,
If it wasn’t clear from my post, I think any sane person would condemn Ayers acts. I do. Obama does. It should go without saying.
But I also condemn Libby. The tradition of right-wing extremism embodied by Libby led to the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City bombing. I don’t think it is excusable any more than Ayers acts are. My point above, which I’m glad you agree with, was that politics should not interfere with our evaluation of right and wrong.
The argument is not about respective personal histories, its about whether Ayers and Liddy shuld be “shunned” for their pasts to the extent that public figures refuse to be associated with them in any way. Both McCain and Obama appear to think that they’ve managed to rehabilitate themselves past this point.
We might disagree with one politician and agree with the other, but it is hard to establish how much of that disagreement is motivated by partisan considerations. To take another example, Chavez may be an example on misguided support on the left, but there is a comparable tradition of right wing support for South American banana republic dictators like Pinochet.
So it’s probably worthwhile to think about our politics affects our point of view. I dislike both Fascism and Communism. But yes, it probably would be harder for me to like an ex-Spanish-Fascist than, say, an ex-Chinese-Communist. But that just means I have to try harder to be objective and look at the facts. For me, reading conservative sites forces me to seriously consider other points of view and helps me achieve that.
Sean F,
If it wasn’t clear from my post, I think any sane person would condemn Ayers acts.
How about the beliefs that drove him to those acts? The beliefs he still holds today? Do you condemn those? Do you think those ideas should cause his exclusion from serious political society.
I do. Obama does. It should go without saying.
Yes, it should go without saying that but then one would expect that someone who seems to go without saying that someone who still dreams of the destruction of America would be relegated to hiding in cabin in the woods.
But I also condemn Libby.
I think this is profoundly dishonest. Equating Libby to Ayers is like equating someone who threw a punch in a bar fight to a serial killer. Libby never actually tried to hurt anyone and, I can’t emphasis this enough, he recanted decade ago of merely having the thoughts. Ayers by contrast still smirks about wishing he could have done more. If Libby had actually attempted to carry out the acts he contemplated and if he still bragged about them, you might have grounds for comparison.
The tradition of right-wing extremism embodied by Libby led to the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City bomb
This is completely untrue. Libby has no links to the militia movement. Indeed, the militia movement is powerfully anti-semitic and the last time I looked, Libby was a staunch supporter of Israel. Indeed, the militia movement had little to do with the mainstream American right. It was anti-Israel, anti-corporate, anti-banking, anti-free trade etc. All the militia/neo-nazi/KKK groups vigorously opposed the liberation of Iraq. Indeed, strip out the racism and they probably share more policy goals in common with you than with someone like Libby.
But it does raise an interesting question. Would you be so cavalier if Timothy McVeigh had failed to kill anyone and then showed up 30 years later in the orbit of a Republican candidate. Would it concern you if looked into the candidates history and found numerous instances where his path crossed with people who had been in the militia movement. Would it worry you if the general community of rightist that the Republican came from seemed very comfortable with the former militia members?
If you can relate to that then you can understand why I am concerned about Ayers.
The argument is not about respective personal histories, its about whether Ayers and Liddy shuld be “shunned” for their pasts to the extent that public figures refuse to be associated with them in any way.[emp added]
No, its about whether they should be shunned for not recanting of their past beliefs and actions. If they still hold the same beliefs as they did back then they should be shunned. Anyone can redeem themselves. America is all about forgiveness and second chances. Ayers gives every sign of being the same evil little toad he was back in the 70’s and people like you don’t hold him accountable.
The real thing about Obama that worries people on the right is that he seems to have a large number of far left connections of which Ayers is only the most disturbing. His voting record alone puts him in the 10% most leftist politicians in America. Then you through in all these dubious people that he and the subculture around him tolerate and even respect and you begin to form the picture of a candidate who is really a stealth radical.
People tried to warn the democrats about the Clintons and leftist mocked them. You’re now hearing the same thing about Obama. His radical associations will damage his Presidency and perhaps the office itself.
Shannon,
I think you’re minimizing what Libby did and maximizing what Ayers has done.
I suggest you visit Ayers blog, read his own explanations of his actions (rather than relying on inflammatory second hand information) and judge for yourself. http://billayers.wordpress.com/. He no longer advocates the use of violence to attain political ends.
Liddy, on the other hand, appears unrepentant. Here’s some Liddy quotes on dealing with federal agents:
“If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they’re wearing flak jackets and you’re better off shooting for the head.”
“They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/33205099.html
Again, my point is it’s easy to get all worked up over the moral inferiority of your political opponents; they feel exactly the same way about you, and with probably the same amount of justification.
While it may not be initially as much fun, try and get into their heads for a change and see what that feels like. This country could do with a little more understanding and a little less outrage.
Also, overall, I’d say we were better served by the Clintons (no warnings required) than by Bush. Given his recent numbers, I’d say a lot of people agree with that point of view. It’s warranted by the evidence. Remember the definition of an ideologue: when reality doesn’t match ideology, an ideologue is someone who blames reality.
Liddy (not Libby) is in no way responsible for the OKC bombing. Or to put it differently, if conservatives like Liddy are responsible for murders committed by McVeigh then leftists like Obama are responsible for murders committed by Ayers and the Weathermen. You can’t have it both ways.
Ayers committed bombings and worked with other bombers. Liddy did nothing of the sort.
Your Liddy quotes are taken out of context. I used to listen to Liddy’s radio show and I remember this controversy. Leftists falsified Liddy’s meaning then and you are doing so now. Liddy was speaking at around the time of the Waco massacre and other widely publicized violent raids by federal agents in which innocent people were killed. Liddy said that if agents broke into your home shooting you should shoot back. The fact that federal police agencies subsequently revised their procedures is a strong tacit admission that their previous procedures were faulty. IOW, Liddy was making a reasonable point, however offensive it may have been to people who believe that it’s always a citizen’s duty to trust and defer to government agents.
Liddy is a red herring, and the concerns about Obama’s values and judgment in collaborating with Ayers are still valid.
Sean F,
I think you’re minimizing what Libby did and maximizing what Ayers has done.
Funny, I think your doing the reverse.
I suggest you visit Ayers blog, read his own explanations of his actions (rather than relying on inflammatory second hand information) and judge for yourself.
I have read Ayers writings over the last 30 years. I studied the Weathermen in college 20 years ago. I have read what he has written long before he became an issue in the current campaign. Ayers only turned soft and cuddly when he got dragged out into the limelight.
My argument remains that no one on the left saw Ayers as disreputable figure until he became inconvenient. Until then, he was well respected.
Liddy, on the other hand, appears unrepentant. Here’s some Liddy quotes on dealing with federal agents:
I remember when Liddy made those comment. He apologized. And again, Libby never actually hurt anybody. Do you seriously want me to drag out all the leftist in the last 30 years who have somehow urged violence against the police? Do you want a pissing match on that basis?
The point the fail to grasp is that a profound double-standard exist between how the left and right tolerate their prospective extremist. Ayers is simply the most glaring example of legions of extreme anti-american leftist whom the more moderate left happily tolerates and even respects. Look at the list of Ayer’s actions, look at his continuous record of extremism over the last 40 years. You don’t see anything even approaching that on the right
This follows a pattern that dates from the late 40’s when all the members of the Joseph Stalin fan club got purged from American institutions. Almost all of them landed on their feet, most of them got cushy jobs in education where they trained the next generation of radicals. The same thing happened with the Weathermen. They’re all setting pretty today.
So, I’m sorry. There is profound differences in behavior between the left and right and a massive double standard in the way that the media and academia treats their respective extremist. End of story.
If John McCain had been peripherally associated with someone who bombed abortion clinics you would down check him on that basis alone and you know it.
You still haven’t answered the main question: What would Ayers have had to have done for you to consider him beyond the pale?
Your unwillingness to address this question leaves me to believe that you would accept Ayers no matter how monstrous because, hey, he was just a progressive in a hurry.
Shannon,
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree since we don’t appear to be convincing each other.
Who would I “shun” solely on the basis of past political views, even ones no longer held? Anyone, left or right, who believed that their cause was furthered by the killing or torture of innocents (or even potential innocents, in the case where suspects are denied due process) and actively promoted such violence.
Currently, the only person I have (limited) personal contact with, and to whom that label applies is J*hn Y*o. So far my shunning has consisted of ignoring him in the elevator. Would I decline an important charitable board position, where I could make a real contribution, because he was already on the board? I don’t know with absolute certainty, without knowing more about the position, the board etc. but I’d certainly consider it. If I were to accept, calculating the collective good outweighed my individual distaste, I certainly wouldn’t appreciate being smeared by association.
david foster,
RE: “… a group which was so repulsive to the stated values of the “progressive” movement that it would lead the “progressives” to put in abeyance their quarrel with American society and work together with other Americans to defeat the enemy.”
Not likely.
That reminded me of the old Orwell essay “Notes on Nationalism.”
Excerpt:
“It is, I think, true to say that
the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war
than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan
feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance,
that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun
Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands
they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was
making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because
his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British
plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be
swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have
heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had
been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English
revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things
like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. ”
– George Orwell, 1945 (emphasis added)
– http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html
America will always be the great satan to some people.
“What More Could Ayers Have Done?”
Release his video tapes of him and Obama planning the collapse of the banking system.
> Indeed, the militia movement had little to do with the mainstream American right. It was anti-Israel, anti-corporate, anti-banking, anti-free trade etc. All the militia/neo-nazi/KKK groups vigorously opposed the liberation of Iraq. Indeed, strip out the racism and they probably share more policy goals in common with you than with someone like Libby.
More critically, the only militia group that McVeigh actually tried to join kicked him out, IIRC. He was in the Army for a while, though… :^P
I’m sure there are militia groups who would commit extreme violence, but most of them are much more of a “leave us the hell alone!” attitude than a “You must think and act as we do!” attitude, from everything I’ve seen and read. As extreme as I suspect I’d find the ideals of both the Waco and Ruby Ridge people — both were responding to the intrusive acts of the Feds, not the other way around.
> To take another example, Chavez may be an example on misguided support on the left, but there is a comparable tradition of right wing support for South American banana republic dictators like Pinochet.
And I will personally take them to task for such things. One of the things which blasts massive holes in the whole “war for oil” meme so popular with the idiot Left is that, if it WERE a “war for oil”, then clearly, the fastest, easiest thing to do would have been to go in, take out Saddam, pick a local strongman, and back the SOB with weapons and oil contracts. We did NOT do that, and so, for once, I believe that Iraq, instead of being Immoral, has been one of the most highly moral actions the USA has taken in many decades. We did something for our own self-interest — remove a dictatorial thug who imagined us too wimpy to stand up to him. We took him out, and, instead of simply replacing him with someone alike but more sympathetic to our interests, we’ve spent the time, energy, money, and blood to restore things to normalcy the hard way. In short: We did the right thing, for once. For that, the left, demonstrating an astounding lack of principles of any kind, has vilified and smeared everyone associated with the event, and done everything possible to destroy their efforts, to denegrate their accomplishments, and to force their stupid “Vietnam, Again!” meme down everyone’s throats. And If Obama wins, it WILL all have been for naught, because I guarantee you, Iraq is not ready to stand up to the sort of onslaught which has been unleashed against Israel for the last 60 years. It will crumble and collapse and it will be because Iran and the other Arab states have been emboldened by the wimpy, chickensh** attitude of politicians like Obama. It’s an established fact, in bin Laden’s own words, that one reason he was sure he could get away with 9/11 was the lame, chickensh** response of Clinton in Rwanda. They are utterly aware that Obama is of at least the same tissue-paper cloth, and he will quite strenously object, with the very sharpest of words!!, acts of terrorism against Iraq, or predations by Russia upon her former client states. And that is ALL he will do. Bad dog! Bad! Bad! Oooooh!! Bad!
The key thing of relevance is that this is not a lone association for Obama — The most notable non-socialist association he DOES have is… Tony Rezko.
And it is singularly odd that a talented, capable politician would fail to grasp the importance of appearance in any effort to attain high political office.
So many bad associations shows either seriously defective judgement or abysmal incompetence. And either of those are singularly bad traits — sufficient unto themselves — to utterly disqualify ANYONE seeking the office of PotUS.
> Liddy, on the other hand, appears unrepentant. Here’s some Liddy quotes on dealing with federal agents:
Right. He talks about basically defending yourself against the depredations of heavily armed government officials ATTACKING.
He’s NOT talking about going on the offensive and — of critical difference — attacking innocent civilians.
That’s not just a matter of degree, it’s a matter of kind. It’s a 1A high school football team working against the Indianapolis Colts.
And the fact that you attempt to use such equivalencies shows either a massive defect in your reasoning capacity or an intentional effort to prevaricate.
So which are you?
An idiot or a liar?
> Who would I “shun” solely on the basis of past political views, even ones no longer held?
HE STILL HOLDS THOSE VIEWS YOU NIT.
He’s just gotten a lot more circumspect about expressing them.
That’s the part you REFUSE to grasp.
Sean F wrote, ealrly on in these commednts, “….how many *more* liberal newspaper columnists Gordon Liddy would have to plan to murder for McCain to not be “proud” of him? How many more felonies would he have to be convicted of? How many more kidnappings would he have to propose?”
Liddy’s relationship with McCain is not in doubt because of McCain’s forthrightness. Obama’s realtionship with Ayers is in doubt because Obama’s misrepresentation or prevarication.
This is the main point but Obama supporters, Democratcs, and enthusiastic youngsters (who are deciding where their political loyalty should belong) should also be taking the hint about their political choices from the current milieu that supports the Democratic party.