Will Obama's Association with Bill Ayers Scuttle his Candidacy?

[Brainster]

Andrew McCarthy, writing at NRO:

There were lots of bombs. There is no remorse. “I don’t regret setting bombs,” he told the New York Times in 2001, sorry only that he and the others “didn’t do enough.” Like what? We can’t be sure, though National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg recounts Ayers’s sentiments back in the day: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”

Ayers and Dohrn have done the actual dirty work of terror, while Jeremiah Wright draws the line at waving pom-poms. But the prism through which they assay the dirty work is precisely the same: America has it coming.

 

[Puppycow]

Andrew McCarthy, writing at NRO:

Joe McCarthy would be proud.

 

[Brainster]

Another non-issue. This is the old politics. The politics of smearing and mudslinging and guilt-by-association. The American people are sick and tired of this cynical, paranoid style of politics.

Assertion without evidence? This is a skeptic board. If you believe that things have changed and that associations don't matter, present something that backs up your claim.

Evidence that it does matter?

1. It was brought up in the debate (by ABC, incidentally, not by Hillary Clinton).
2. Hillary's campaign is now using it.
3. It has been the subject of dozens of articles and blog posts in the last several days, by both liberals and conservatives.

Those who agree with Obama on the issues are already Democrats, and those who agree with McCain on the issues are already Republicans. So it's all about the people in the middle, and to those people it's less about the issues and more about the person. These associations (and we'll find out more about them in the next couple of months) are absolutely toxic. Did you know that Michelle Obama picked Bill Ayers to participate in a panel discussion with her husband on Juvenile Justice in 1997? That's a new data point I just learned from the McCarthy article.

 

[hgc]

Evidence that it does matter?

1. It was brought up in the debate (by ABC, incidentally, not by Hillary Clinton).
...

By that standard, you also have evidence that lapel flag pins matter. I think it's time to get to the bottom of the boxers-or-briefs situation.

 

[President Bush]

Did you know that Michelle Obama picked Bill Ayers to participate in a panel discussion with her husband on Juvenile Justice in 1997?

But that won't keep Obama from the presidency I'm afraid. I don't think they're going to let the six year olds vote this time.

 

[corplinx]

Another non-issue. This is the old politics. The politics of smearing and mudslinging and guilt-by-association.

Guilt by association is only a fallacy if the association is meaningless. I haven't looked into this Ayers/Obama thing figuring its just more wishful thinking like the Tony Rezko stuff.

So would someone lay out what the Ayers-Obama association is please?

 

[latent aaaack]

yes damn that there enthusiasm...stupid enthusiasm. ridiculous hope....get back to same old same old...darn dems!

TAM

My point was that Obama's vulnerabilities will take at least a few percentage points away from him in November. This will be another very close election like the last two, so his historically exceptional obvious handicaps will cost democrats the election.

The comparison to a teenage kind of misdirected heady enthusiasm is right because this behavior is working directly against the democratic party's interests and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the real world works, how to win elections, and how to responsibly nominate candidates that actually have the best chance of winning rather than a candidate you think is 'cool.'

I, on the other hand, will be feeling very cool in November when all these posts turn out to be right.

 

[T.A.M.]

Thank you for your honest opinion.

I however, do not see the enthusiasm, as you do. I see it as an invigorated public, with a lot of young, and enthusiastic new voters, who finally see a chance for real change, both in leadership, and perhaps in politics. I think the fact that the other two candidates, Hillary much more so than McCain (all though his surrogates and mouth pieces are the worst), have failed to try and carry themselves differently has hurt them with these new voters. Unfortunately, it has also taken some of the enthusiasm out of these new and eager voters.

TAM

 

[The Painter]

He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that

You Obama defenders don't seem to care that this guy bombed buildings. Suppose his bombs had the same impact as McViegh's bomb? What if a Republican candidate had a friend and supporter who bomb an abortion clinic? Would that be OK? There comes a point when you must condemn those close to you when they do wrong. Obama won't do that unless he is forced, because he thinks he is better than everyone else.

 

[T.A.M.]

Painter:

That is unfair. Us Obama defenders do care about people getting bombed. The debate here is not over whether or not Ayers was wrong in what he did...that is obvious.

The debate is on the relevance to Obama as a person and a leader. On this point I personally feel it is irrelevant.

As for REP supporters, well Minister Haggee, a preacher whom John McCain et al actively courted for support, believes that Hurricane Katrina was brought to bare on New Orleans because they were going to hold a gay pride parade.

Obama did not actively court Ayers, and has a civil and distant relationship with him at best. You wanna start an investigation as to all of the relationships, civil and distant, that McCain has...lets start with Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and I am sure we can go from there.

You were saying?

TAM

 

[Brainster]

Painter:

That is unfair. Us Obama defenders do care about people getting bombed. The debate here is not over whether or not Ayers was wrong in what he did...that is obvious.

The debate is on the relevance to Obama as a person and a leader. On this point I personally feel it is irrelevant.

As for REP supporters, well Minister Haggee, a preacher whom John McCain et al actively courted for support, believes that Hurricane Katrina was brought to bare on New Orleans because they were going to hold a gay pride parade.

Yes, and the noble Obama supporters have failed to bring this up time after time, despite many opportunities. Well, except for here and here. And here and here and here (but that's a Hillary supporter, so it doesn't count), and here and here and here.

But aside from those instances, and this one, and this one here, nobody's brought up this irrelevant man's name. At least as far as I can tell with the search engine here; some other references may have slipped through as misspellings like your Haggee above.

Look, the idea that anything is irrelevant in considering which candidate to support is ridiculous. Hagee is relevant, Wright is relevant, Ayers is relevant, Cindy McCain's painkillers are relevant. Keating Five is relevant, Rezko is relevant. If Hillary somehow comes back to win the nomination, Whitewater is relevant (although nobody's going to want to rehash it).

 

[Cain]

I have to give it to Republicans. The Weather Underground are/were supposed to be a terrorist organization ready and willing to commit incomparable atrocities (much like the ALF/ELF today), yet the U.S. government murdered at least 2 million Vietnamese (I know, I know, not nearly enough). If only the Weather Underground figured out a way to stuff innocent Vietnamese women and children into those buildings... How has Ayers done anything as remotely bad as our international war criminal president? I know, I know, that sounds strident, moonbatish, because there's a natural distinction between private and state-sponsored terrorism that makes all the difference -- assuming of course a powerful state -- our state, specifically -- is sponsoring terrorism.

This goes to a fundamental split in values. The party/ideologues tirelessly condemning "big" government worry mostly about "their" money being used for education and medicine. The government is not supposed to help people (and besides, we're told, it's doing more harm than good -- not really helping people at all). Yet when it comes to expanding the government's power to obliterate and terrorize others, well, they're all in favor of it. Sounds swell. I mean, historically government is the most violent institution on the planet, so I suppose this is its "proper" domain.

Has anyone read the libertarian e-mail painting a scenario where five thugs decide to take your car? Then you're asked to imagine the moral difference if 100 people decided to take your car. Then its 1000. The difference is, you know, the government is just one big mob taking "your" money. I realize that taxation is supposed to be slavery and all that jazz, but I wonder if, you know, the same applies to killing people. Twenty-five people deciding to bomb empty buildings is totally wrong (or torch a Hummer dealership), but for a government -- not even necessarily more people -- it's OK. If we don't go along with the violence and terror campaign, premised upon scandalous lies, then we're morally deficient in some sense ("unpatriotic").

These are such ****ed up values. OK, OK, so more than 10 years ago Obama held a fundraiser at the house of a guy who 20 years earlier had resorted to violence against property in order to stop violence against people. I agree that bearded college professors are evil n' stuff, but c'mon, have a sense of proportion. If we're going to play this silly association game, I still think it's crazy how Bush got a free pass on ol' Kenny Boy. Oh, but wait, that was completely different... in that that type of connection arguably had an impact on policy.

 

[LawnOven]

The distinction is an inside, outside group thing. Ayers was an american bombing americans, our government was a american, bombing the godless commies to stem the evil domino effect of communism.

The five thugs are actually family members taking the car for a purpose that they the feel is for the benefit of the family.

Ayers was using the means which were bestowed upon him by being born into a free society, to attack that society. He punched his mom, in the face; whether he was right or wrong, that's what he did.

 

[Cain]

The distinction is an inside, outside group thing. Ayers was an american bombing americans, our government was a american, bombing the godless commies to stem the evil domino effect of communism.

I agree with your spot-on diagnosis why this inspires special moral outrage, but I think that tribal mentality is exactly part of the problem. I teach an American government course right now (college) and the vast majority of the students in one particular class are A-OK with a law prohibiting flag burning. "If you don't like this country, leave." Well, this goes to the whole idea of gaining a sense of perspective. Is a person going to be limited to "my country, right or wrong" or does she possess moral values that can trump country, even blood relations? This perceived "disloyalty" is actually loyalty to an even higher value. The problem is that these higher values tend to be more abstract, which makes it difficult for people to understand -- especially the shoeless, embittered hicks in rural PA clinging to guns and literal religious interpretation. *elbow poke*

"Well Cain, what's the difference between your precious violent left-wing terrorist groups and the Christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors?" Well, I have seen at least one documentary on the Weather Underground (featuring music from Ian MacKaye) and I recently say the documentary Lake of Fire. The difference, apart from violence against sentient life, is that type of people in the Weather Underground, though varied, seem more reflective/independent-minded, and it's true that they do gravitate toward academia, which might reveal a personal bias on my part. Some of them regret their involvement in the group, others were clearly naive college kids playing revolutionary, and still others have definite, well-formed moral values. The religious fundamentalists have an over-riding sense of purpose that comes with being a true-believing follower (compare with the Camden 28).

 

[T.A.M.]

brain:

I agree, that the Obama supporters are not perfect, far from it. I guess I was just trying to say, RISE ABOVE IT. I would love to see proponents of all of the candidates RISE ABOVE all of this nonsense...I know, always an idealist...oh well.

Haggee, Hagie, Haggy, what ever.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

"Well Cain, what's the difference between your precious violent left-wing terrorist groups and the Christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors?" Well, I have seen at least one documentary on the Weather Underground (featuring music from Ian MacKaye) and I recently say the documentary Lake of Fire. The difference, apart from violence against sentient life, is that type of people in the Weather Underground, though varied, seem more reflective/independent-minded, and it's true that they do gravitate toward academia, which might reveal a personal bias on my part. Some of them regret their involvement in the group, others were clearly naive college kids playing revolutionary, and still others have definite, well-formed moral values. The religious fundamentalists have an over-riding sense of purpose that comes with being a true-believing follower (compare with the Camden 28).

LOL! So Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn weren't true believers? I suggest you watch that little video I included in the OP.

No, the difference between Bill Ayers and Eric Rudolph is that there are always liberals willing to excuse disgusting and immoral behavior on the part of the left. If Eric Rudolph were to be freed (not that it's likely), do you think any Republican would associate with him 20 years later, or hold a fundraiser at his house, or appear on panels with him?

 

[President Bush]

I think Brainster's argument just goes to show how sometimes it's easier to look at the man in the FBI files than it is to look at that guy in the mirror.

And I bet the motel owner is back there thinking to himself he didn't spend good money installing this two-way mirror to watch some putz rounding up the tadpoles as America's Most Wanted blares on the television.

 

[Shadowdweller]

No, the difference between Bill Ayers and Eric Rudolph is that there are always liberals willing to excuse disgusting and immoral behavior on the part of the left.

Yeah, the difference between vandalism and premeditated murder is insignificant.

If Eric Rudolph were to be freed (not that it's likely), do you think any Republican would associate with him 20 years later, or hold a fundraiser at his house, or appear on panels with him?

Henry Kissinger, Oliver North, Tom DeLay....

 

[Brainster]

Here's Ayers from last year. The video mostly has to do with Ward Churchill's claims to have taught the Weather Underground people how to use bombs (the event was taking place in Colorado), but note his current thoughts about capitalism:

"Hate it. You want me to elaborate the point? Down with capitalism!"



That's the sort of talk that should make any moderates nervous. Here's a clip from "Underground": a 1975 film on Ayers and his friends:



Money quote at 2:22: "We want to make a revolution. We think there has to be a revolution."

 

[Brainster]

Yeah, the difference between vandalism and premeditated murder is insignificant.

The Weatherman group plotted murder; they just did a lousy job of it:

MARK RUDD: The townhouse was part of a small autonomous group in New York City that was being led by Terry Robbins.

BILL AYERS: Terry more than probably anyone else represented the view that it was too late for any kind of reconciliation inside this country and that the best that we could do was to bring about a catastrophic series of actions that would get the attention of the world.

MARK RUDD: the group that was led by Terry in that house on west 11th street was building a bomb. They had decided to set off the bomb at a noncommissioned officers dance at Fort Dix. The idea being that there are no innocent in this war of aggression.

But they blew themselves up instead.