William Ayers on NPR

[Lonewulf]

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.

And you're right; where's the criticism of all of these organizations that had much more intimate dealings with Ayers -- far more than Obama ever had? This seems to point to an ungodly amount of bias right here.

 

[Tricky]

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.

Interesting connection. Von Braun was principally a scientist. He wanted to study missiles. Yet he could not have been unaware that his studies were being used to send buzz-bombs into England, striking nearly randomly (they didn't have great guidance systems then) and definitely terrorizing non-combatants. Yet he has a place of honor in American history because of his work with the space program. He was a guy who did some terrorist things, reformed and did good things.

Anybody see a parallel?

 

[gdnp]

Interesting connection. Von Braun was principally a scientist. He wanted to study missiles. Yet he could not have been unaware that his studies were being used to send buzz-bombs into England, striking nearly randomly (they didn't have great guidance systems then) and definitely terrorizing non-combatants. Yet he has a place of honor in American history because of his work with the space program. He was a guy who did some terrorist things, reformed and did good things.

Anybody see a parallel?

Of course not. Von Braun never worked with Obama. Obama, being the messiah, only takes on the sins of those he works with. Well, or those that he has never met but who endorse him. Or those who have a relative who once worked for the same lawfirm as his wife. Or lived within a several block radius in a densely populated urban neighborhood. Those sins Obama is responsible for.

Since Von Braun fits none of those criteria, his example, although clearly similar to that of Willaim Ayers, is entirely irrelevant.

 

[WildCat]

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

Wow, so now you have to commit an act as bad as 9/11 to be a terrorist? Those goal posts must be somewhere halfway to the moon by now.

 

[WildCat]

He has clearly expressed remorse for the criminal way his protests took place. He has not abandoned the political stances which led him to take those criminal actions.

His remorse or lack of it seems to be something that is dependent on which way the wind is blowing. From a NY Times review of his 2001 book "Fugitive Days":

But his partial retelling reaches fraudulence when he writes, ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' then backs and fills, saying that he bombed it, not literally but metaphorically, as part of the Weathermen group in charge of the operation. He says that he needed to ''claim'' the explosion in order to write about it, and he adds later that he is not ashamed of any of the bombings and would not rule out planting another bomb someday; ''I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.''

Amazing how his writings over the last 35 years is deemed irrelevant because of a damage control appearance on a talk show by those desperate to absolve him.

 

[Ausmerican]

I am confused. Terrorism is the use of fear to cause people to change the political and social fabric of the way they live is it not?

And then there are people here that seem to be suggesting that Obama should not have joined a school board because it contained a former teerorist. This board was a step, not a major one but a step none the less, on the path that eventually took Obama to the position of POTUS.

So are people here really saying that the mere presence of an old terrorist on this board should have been enough for Obama to change the political and social fabric of his life? Not join the board because of the perceived association?

Is this not the oft heard phrase "letting the terrorists win"? I would suggest that, if you are one who holds this view, it is YOU that supports the terrosrist in this case rather than the people who treat him as irrelevant to lifes progress.

I should point out that, despite the constant attempts by the likes of BAC, this perceived association did not prevent him from winning a sizable victory in his election as POTUS. So those saying that Obama should have been more careful in his judgement? Apparently not.

 

[Tricky]

Wow, so now you have to commit an act as bad as 9/11 to be a terrorist? Those goal posts must be somewhere halfway to the moon by now.

You certainly have to be actively engaging in terrorist activity. True, there are some designations that carry a lifetime label, like "murderer", but even murderers who have done their time usually get referred to as "ex-convicts" and such. No such "elder status" get's applied to Ayers. He's just as much a terrorist now as he was in the sixties. Maybe more.

But the point which you seem to have missed is that neither you nor anyone else here seemed to give a rat's patootie about Bill Ayers for thirty years. Now, all of a sudden, he is Satan's minion, a creature of pure evil who destroy's a politician's credibility by sharing a few moments of his company in a charity project. From whence came this wave of horror at the unrepentent sinner (No, not you US)? Could it be that somebody told you to be offended? Do you respond slaveringly to the Pavlovian bell of the political slime machines? I can't seem to see any other reason for this upwelling of historical outrage.

 

[WildCat]

You certainly have to be actively engaging in terrorist activity. True, there are some designations that carry a lifetime label, like "murderer", but even murderers who have done their time usually get referred to as "ex-convicts" and such. No such "elder status" get's applied to Ayers. He's just as much a terrorist now as he was in the sixties. Maybe more.

He's unrepentant, and has even said he wouldn't rule out future bombings. Why the hell should I forgive him?

But the point which you seem to have missed is that neither you nor anyone else here seemed to give a rat's patootie about Bill Ayers for thirty years. Now, all of a sudden, he is Satan's minion, a creature of pure evil who destroy's a politician's credibility by sharing a few moments of his company in a charity project. From whence came this wave of horror at the unrepentent sinner (No, not you US)? Could it be that somebody told you to be offended? Do you respond slaveringly to the Pavlovian bell of the political slime machines? I can't seem to see any other reason for this upwelling of historical outrage.

And no one gives a rat's patootie about Charles Manson until he comes up for parole.

Funny how that works, lay low and people forget about you. Get your name in the headlines again and suddenly people give a damn again. Ayers isn't special in that regard.

And please answer the question about Ahmed Ressam you've avoided twice now. By your standards, he is not a terrorist since he never actually killed anyone, correct?

 

[gtc]

Can you please explain when and how the subject would have had to come up?

Ayers makes no secret of his past and his actions are well known. Obama is a smart man who doesn't not appear to lack a knowledge of recent American history.

A claim that Obama could be ignorant about Ayers and remain so just doesn't make sense.

 

[gtc]

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

All of those people and organisations showed poor judgement too. Your suggestion is akin to a Tu Quoque argument. Also, how do you know that there weren't protests?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.

No it is not. Firstly, there is a big difference between UN Sec. General and University Professor and there isn't much that Carter could do to avoid working with the UN. When Kurt Waldheim was elected President of Austria he was effectively banned from travelling to the US (and most Western nations). Secondly, there is no evidence that Kurt Waldheim was anything more than a junior army officer whereas Ayers was the principle person of his movement.

 

[gdnp]

Ayers makes no secret of his past and his actions are well known. Obama is a smart man who doesn't not appear to lack a knowledge of recent American history.

A claim that Obama could be ignorant about Ayers and remain so just doesn't make sense.

How well known were they back when Obama was working on the board with Ayers? Clearly not well enough known that the republicans on the board refused to serve. Clearly not well enough known that the Annenberg fund refused to give him money. Clearly not well enough known that there were mass protests when Chicago named Ayers Man of the Year.

ETA: Lots of prominent people, Republicans and Democrats, did not shun Ayers over the past 20 years. There are two possible interpretations. Either they should have but didn't know his past, in which case it is unfair to blame Obama, who was not a close friend, for not knowing his past, or you can claim that they knew but didn't care, in which case it is unfair to blame Obama for his peripheral association with Ayers when no one is criticizing the people who were much more intimately involved with him: the Annenberg fund, the city of Chicago, the University of Illininois, etc.

 

[gtc]

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

A former Nazi who tried to stop the use of slave labour during War, was arrested by the Nazis for criticising the War and went over to the Americans at the earliest possible time.

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.

The difference is that Ayers has shown no remorse for his past.

And then there are people here that seem to be suggesting that Obama should not have joined a school board because it contained a former teerorist. This board was a step, not a major one but a step none the less, on the path that eventually took Obama to the position of POTUS.

So are people here really saying that the mere presence of an old terrorist on this board should have been enough for Obama to change the political and social fabric of his life? Not join the board because of the perceived association?

Are you really saying that Obama had no other choice but to associate with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rashid Khalidi? That the only way that he could become President was to work and socialise with them?

Is this not the oft heard phrase "letting the terrorists win"? I would suggest that, if you are one who holds this view, it is YOU that supports the terrosrist in this case rather than the people who treat him as irrelevant to lifes progress.

I would suggest that this argument is BS.

I should point out that, despite the constant attempts by the likes of BAC, this perceived association did not prevent him from winning a sizable victory in his election as POTUS. So those saying that Obama should have been more careful in his judgement? Apparently not.

So? Doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to associate with those people.

 

[WildCat]

Clearly not well enough known that there were mass protests when Chicago named Ayers Man of the Year.

He got the "Citizen of the Year" award for securing a $49.2 grant to the Chicago Public Schools which hasn't improved student performance one bit.

If no one protested it it's likely because no one even knew he was given such an award. A search of the Sun Times archives shows no news story mentioning it. I can't even find evidence this is an annual award given by the city.

 

[Ausmerican]

Are you really saying that Obama had no other choice but to associate with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rashid Khalidi? That the only way that he could become President was to work and socialise with them?

Nope. I didn't say that. I am saying I don't know. The whole socialising thing is debatable with regards to Ayers for a start and the other two were not under discussion. But are you saying that Obama should not have joined that board? Are you saying that he should have put whatever good he thought he could do and whatever improvements he thought he could make to education aside, not to mention his own ambitions and aspirations, because of one member of that board?

So? Doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to associate with those people.

How is it ever wrong to "associate" with anyone? People associate with people they don't agree with all the time, every day, in every country, for business, religious and personal reasons. Prosecutors associate with criminals every day. Every member of the senate associates with Robert Byrd and used to associate with Strom Thurmond, does that make them KKK members or segregationists? Several people I went to school with and even socialised with are in jail for robbing banks and others are heroin addicts. It means nothing. Whats that old saying? I will join with any man to do good and with none to do evil, or something like that. Bottom line is association does not mean acceptance or support of ones views.

 

[Uzzy]

Why not just say that Ayres did some terrible things in his youth, but reformed and is now a very helpful and respectable member of the Chicago Establishment, as well as being an acclaimed Professor.

Heck, Mandela established the Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa, but no one says that friends of Mandela associate with terrorists, do they? That's surely because the man has changed, no?

 

[gdnp]

He got the "Citizen of the Year" award for securing a $49.2 grant to the Chicago Public Schools which hasn't improved student performance one bit.

Noted.

Oh, and BTW. After winning a lawsuit about the state formula for school aid, NYC this year got an increase in their state aid of $644 million dollars. My guess is that NYC schools have more students than Chicago, but still that's 13 times what Ayers grant was. Add in Ayers matching funds and it comes to about $160 million. Oh, but how long was Ayers grant for? 7 years? Gee, that's $23 million a year. Let's correct for inflation. $23 million in 1980 is worth about $60 million today. Or about 10% of the increase in state aide the NYC schools got this year.

Can we expect, therefore, the Chicago public schools should have gotten 10% the increase in performance from the Annenberg Challenge money that NYC got out of it's increase in state aid? How much would you expect that to be?

Looked at another way, the Chicago public school budget in 2007 was 4.8 billion dollars. I can't find numbers for 1980, but if it rose with inflation it would have been about 1.9 billion in 1980. So the $23 million a year in Annenberg money (with matching contributions) would have come to about 1.2% of the school budget. Wow. I'm expecting big results from that.

If no one protested it it's likely because no one even knew he was given such an award. A search of the Sun Times archives shows no news story mentioning it. I can't even find evidence this is an annual award given by the city.

The people giving the award presumably knew they were giving it. Might there have been a ceremony or dinner? I wouldn't think this would be the kind of thing that would be done without any notice. It kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[BeAChooser]

And seeing as how Obama's relationship with Ayers has nothing whatsoever to do with any allegations of murder or attempted murder

Oh. So now you are claiming that as long as Obama and Ayers were just working on teaching social justice, racist and communist notions in the schools, it doesn't matter if Obama might have known at the time that Ayers and his wife were earlier involved in bombings that killed people ... and unrepentent about it?

 

[gdnp]

Oh. So now you are claiming that as long as Obama and Ayers were just working on teaching social justice, racist and communist notions in the schools, it doesn't matter if Obama might have known at the time that Ayers and his wife were earlier involved in bombings that killed people ... and unrepentent about it?

I wonder if I was the only one who thought of BAC when Obama made this comment:

By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.

 

[Cleon]

Oh. So now you are claiming that ....

Thus confirming that you don't actually bother to read the words other people post. Thanks, this saves us all a lot of time.

 

[BeAChooser]

What there wasn't, was a lot of terror.

Tell that to the thousands of people the weatherman bombings caused to be evacuated from numerous large buildings back then.

They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Sorry, but "crazy kids" didn't write "Prairie Fire". Crazy kids might moon or streak. Ayers and Dohrn declared war on the US and built bombs designed to kill people. And Ayers wasn't just some "guy" living in Obama's "neighborhood", either.

Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years.

Nonsense. He's been a topic all along. In August of 2001, Chicago Magazine (which surely Obama or his staff read) published an article on Ayers which talked about the bombings ... where he stood on an American Flag and in which he said he had "no regrets". Concurrently, the NY Times was doing an interview/article. It was published days after 9/11 ... and again he admitted he "set bombs" and said he "didn't do enough". Sorry, but Ayers was being discussed in 2001 and he was still being discussed in 2006, well before Clinton brought up Ayers. In fact, in 2006, Ayers felt it necessary to publish on his own website a letter he claimed he sent the NYTimes in 2001 to rebut the continuing attacks on him. And during the campaign, before Hillary mentioned Ayers, he was being mentioned in forums like this. Sorry, Tricky, but your historical revisionism isn't going to work here. There are too many sources to prove you are wrong.

People had to be told who he was.

Well if the Zogby poll of Obama voters after election day is any guide, most Obama voters would have to be told who Pelosi and Reed are too. And what Biden had done or said. And even which party controlled Congress leading up to the election.

He wasn't important.

If Ayers wasn't important back in 2001, that is only because he wasn't then a "family friend" of the current President ... like he is with Obama. Only because he hadn't shaped the education policy notions of Bush ... while he spent years using Obama to promote his education notions. Nor was he chummy with the education advisors of Bush ... whereas Obama's top education advisor during the campaign even coauthored books with Ayers. Again Tricky, your spin just doesn't cut it. Ayers is indeed important NOW ... even after the election.