The Obama campaign (and its press enablers--I was particularly disappointed to hear Kristen Powers do this Saturday night) treats us like morons by continually repeating the "I was eight years old" mantra. Well Victor Davis Hanson has a question:
...why would anyone in a post-9/11 climate continue to communicate with such a loathsome character for four years, when it was common knowledge that Ayers had approved (no, was proud) of his past terrorist tactics of bombing buildings?
Someone should ask him at a press conference. They should also ask him if he's going to pardon Tony Rezko.
Oh, wait. He doesn't do press conferences any more. That's Sarah Palin's thing.
Some weeks back, Robert Bidinotto iced this whole issue in two sentences:
"This is not about guilt by association. This is about associating with the guilty."
For Billy:
Seemingly pithy, but actually useless. No one disputes the guilt. For the association to be worth mentioning, you need to establish the implications of the association. And that's what the debate is about.
Here's one way to answer Hanson's question -- listen to Ayers.
Here's a letter to the editor of the NYT he wrote on Sept 15, 2001.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/clarifying-the-facts-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/
Just like many conservatives, he claims the New York Times didn't report accurately. He sounds a bit more reasonable, like someone worth talking to although not someone to agree with, when you hear his side of it.
Yeah, we can't have a president who associated with the guilty.
So why (in a post-9/11 climate no less!) would John McCain attend a fundraiser held by a man who is unapologetic about planning to firebomb the Brookings Institute, and why would McCain say (a week ago!) that he's proud of such a man?
I don't get why Hanson thinks 9/11 should make a difference in Ayers' political radioactivity. We should be more outraged by Ayers' actions because Arab terrorists attacked us? Bombing buildings somehow became more of a bad thing on 9/11 (a day on which no buildings were bombed in a conventional sense)? You'd think he'd reference Oklahoma City, which was a closer parallel to Ayers' actions (domestic terror group bombing a U.S. government building to advance domestic political goals).
The fact that Hanson feels the need to bring 9/11 into the argument suggests it's a weak argument to start with.
It's a "weak argument"? Good God, man, it's not an argument at all. It's a testament to the depths that Obama will lie to get his way.
First it was "I hardly knew the man", then when that didn't work it was "I was only eight years old", and now we get "I thought he was reformed".
Just what the fuck is the real story, then? Obama's just a typical Chicago Democrat (I should know), and has thoroughly earned every bit of the contempt I have for him as a "constituent".
Ayers didn't blow things up, he tried to KILL PEOPLE. And would do it again if he thought he could get away with it, like he did before.
The issue is character, and Obama has less than none. THAT is the argument.
Okay Bob, under what conditions would YOU associate with an unrepentant terrorist bomber? There ARE none for me. That should be Obama's response too. One trip to see Chavez be enough too.
This guy may not be bombing anymore but he is still trying to hurt our democracy.
Ha! The first answer that came to mind was that I would associate with an unrepentant terrorist bomber if I were his lawyer.
But seriously: I attended two of the schools in which the president of the school was on the board with Ayers. If either university president has asked me to sit on the board with him, I suppose I would have.
The Annenberg Challenge was supposed to work with groups like the Coalition for Essential Schools. When I was in school, I read an article by Ted Sizer (the coalition's founder), and I liked what read. If I thought I could be a part of improving education the way Ted Sizer thought it should be done, I would have gladly joined the board.
Read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_Essential_Schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
Bill:
Are there any excuses for associating with an unrepentant wanna-be terrorist bomber? It's okay for John McCain to say he's proud of Liddy just because Liddy didn't get around to planting his bombs?
The guilt-by-association case against Obama proves too much.
Jim, keep that moral relevance coming. Liddy didn't plant any bombs and he sure as hell isn't loving on Hugo Chavez. Al Franken liked him enough to let him guest star on his show. So what you are saying about McCain should apply to Franken as well?
Bill, I think the words you're looking for are "moral equivalence". And yes, I see a substantial moral equivalence between Liddy and Ayers. Liddy has a lower body count (although it's difficult to know exactly how many people Ayers hurt or killed), but he was ready and eager to kill, and his actual negative impact on American democracy was greater.
Liddy planned to firebomb the Brookings Institute. He was serious -- just ask him. If he isn't a terrorist then the guys who planned the Millenium Plot weren't terrorists either.
And McCain doesn't just associate with Liddy, or invite him on a radio show -- he says he's proud of Liddy. That's a direct endorsement of Liddy's behavior -- Obama does not talk that way about Ayers.
So either it's sometimes okay to associate with an unrepentant terrorist, or it isn't -- but if it isn't, that rules out both McCain and Obama (and lots of other people, including Al Franken, Walter Annenberg, etc.).
> Obama does not talk that way about Ayers.
Instead, he doles out earmarks and foundation money to Ayers cronies.
McCain and Liddy don't work together. Obama and Ayers do, and Obama supports Ayers work.
And we're back to Obama's "success" - he spent $150M and didn't improve Chicago education.