« OK, So About Me Gaining Respect For McCain Again... | teemunney's Blog | I Know Many Of Us Are Predicting A Landslide, But This Is Ridiculous... »
"Quite frankly, Dana, I don't give a damn about an old, unrepentant terrorist!"
Josh on the homepage mentioned seeing a CNN interview where McCain looks completely clueless.
I think this is the interview he was talking about. Or at least a good chunk of it.
He says he's repudiated any anti-Obama comment. Lie. Obama hasn't repudiated John Lewis's comments. Lie (well, a partial lie...the George Wallace bit was too far for Obama but his other remarks have merit). His comments are "too far out of line" because "that's not what America's about".
Words cannot describe how much this man just does not get it.
I think this is the interview he was talking about. Or at least a good chunk of it.
He says he's repudiated any anti-Obama comment. Lie. Obama hasn't repudiated John Lewis's comments. Lie (well, a partial lie...the George Wallace bit was too far for Obama but his other remarks have merit). His comments are "too far out of line" because "that's not what America's about".
Words cannot describe how much this man just does not get it.
Advertisement
Fine, it's your right to not give a damn about it. Just as it's others right to give a damn about it. You may think its meaningless and trivial. That's fine, each person has the right to their own opinion. Others have a differing opinion and they have just as much a right to it as you.
What if there was an abortion clinic bomber who admitted to setting at least 25 bombs. What if he avoided all punishment on a technicality and said this about it, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country." What if this abortion clinic bomber also bombed the private home of a doctor who worked in an abortion clinic while he, his wife and children slept inside. What if this abortion clinic bomber just a few years earlier said, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." If someone kicked off their political campaign in this abortion clinic bomber's house it would matter to me. It would matter to me even if that abortion clinic bomber was now an English professor. Would it matter to you?
October 13, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I can respect the fact that people take issue with it. That's not the problem.
The problem is when they distort Ayers UNTIL he's this caricature of a terrorist. It's when they pretend Obama SHOULD have treated a Citizen of the Year, University professor and local celebrity as if he's a pariah.
Bill Ayers sat on Walter Annenberg's board. Annenberg was a close friend of Reagan. I'm fine if that makes Annenberg a terrorist sympathizer, but lets apply the brush equally here. Set the bar the same height for Obama, not twice as high.
October 13, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of crooked politicians do in Chicago for the son of a rich well connected powerful member of the political machine is one thing. I don't live in Chicago and I have no ability to affect what goes on there. But any politician knows if he wants to have a national political career he's got to be careful how deeply he gets intwined in the sleazy political machine he comes from. Especially one as corrupt as the Chicago machine.
Daddy buys off the machine to get his son off scot free, not just scot free, he buys him a privileged spot. Well Smalltown USA isn't Chicago. The whole lot of them would have been voted out of office in most of the cities across this country if they tried that. People aren't holding Obama to a different standard then they would hold any one of the sleazy Chicago politicians if they were running for office in Smallville.
October 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Small town USA is worse when it comes to the corruption of local politicians. I grew up in "Smalltown Oklahoma" and have lived in "Smalltown Texas" and "Smalltown Mississippi". In the town I lived in in Mississippi, the county sheriff's brother was the owner of the only pawn shop. Above his pawn shop was one of two bars in the county, also owned by the brother. They allowed drug sales through the bar, took the users goods through the pawn shop, and controlled the dealers behavior through the county prison, all while milking the state for prison dollars. This happens everywhere in America. To attempt to paint Chicago as any worse than politics elsewhere is disingenuous at best.
October 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walter Annenberg is not a crooked Chicago Politician:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
He was an Ambassador AND confidante to a President.
Nor is Small Town USA the moral center of the universe, so let's avoid ridiculous surmise about what "most cities" would have done. What we know, is what the many millions in Chicago did - accept Ayers as Citizen of the Year.
That being said, as long as the Ayers brush is applied equally, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
October 13, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a certain level of corruption everywhere. But those who care about obama's connection to Ayers are not using a double standard. Ayers could come to my home town of Bethlehem PA and maybe get himself a cozy position with the liberal elite at Moravian College. But not a single Bethlehem politician would have anything to do with him. Any politician who tried would get voted out of office in the next election. People are judging Obama by the same standards they judge their local and state politicians.
If you think the Daley machine is the same politics as in most other parts of the country all I can say is you haven't looked into it very deeply.
October 13, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. I'm amazed that Obama came out of Chicago with so little dirt on him, actually.
It's fine if people think it's an issue, but the McCain campaign is completely distorting this. And McCain's dancing around the issue when asked about it. How can you "not give a damn" when this association is your only line of attack?
If this were a typical election year, Obama would probably be more hurt by it. But this isn't a typical election year; if you've seen your savings disappear over the past few weeks, the Ayers thing probably isn't the greatest concern to you.
October 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, its not the biggest issue nor is it likely to lose him the election. The crisis on Wall Street has created a big move to Obama and that's unlikely to change. But Obama's list of unsavory associations is a significant issue imo. Its fine if you think it meaningless though I'd venture to guess that if Ayers had fire bombed the home of a doctor that worked in an abortion clinic instead of the home of a NY supreme court justice most liberals would have a different view of how well his reputation had been liberated and how appropriate that rehabilitation was.
October 13, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's meaningless--in fact, I was very concerned about it (and Rev. Wright too) when it was brought up during the primaries.
At this point, I have decided to take his word on it. It's been months since this story broke, and not much new has been uncovered (yet the McCain ads have given the media to yammer about it ad infinitum). Because we need a change in direction so badly this election year, it would take something HUGE to be uncovered for him to lose my vote at this point.
October 13, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny you mention you live in PA. I currently live in Pittsburgh, and used to live in Philadelphia. All I have to say is Mayor Frank Rizzo, and if you understand the reference, then you should know "Chicago" politics is big city politics. Rizzo ruled Philly with an iron fist, and then some.
As far as the double standard, perhaps YOU aren't using one, but I can assure you that one is being used. I reiterate the Annenberg connection. Would your Bethlehem politicians have turned the Ambassador away? His widow has endorsed McCain, can I assume that this endorsement has made McCain toxic in your area? I think not.
And you mention state politicians. Clearly, none of you would take a visit from the Governor, who has praised Louis Farrakhan:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
Or how about Sen McCain, who's longstanding relationship with G. Gordon Liddy is well documented? Liddy, who plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution, among other things.
Palin's husband...a longtime member of the secessionist AIP, whose founder blew himself up with plastic explosives. Plastic explosives??
I could go on, of course. We live in a time of complex moral codes, and very few people can meet an absolute standard of purity. I'm frankly shocked that your local politicians are the last bastion of truth and honesty. Perhaps they are, or perhaps no one has dug deeply enough.
So I have to wonder, if there is no double standard, why aren't "He pals with convicted felons" stories running about McCain, or "Did her husband commit treason?" stories running about Palin.
I think we know why - because in those two cases, just as in Annenberg's, no one really cares about the anarchists they know.
October 14, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm frankly shocked that your local politicians are the last bastion of truth and honesty.
----------------------------------------------------
Did you even bother to read my post? Perhaps you can point me to the part where I claimed the local politicians of my home town are, "the last bastion of truth and honesty." Was it this statement, "There's a certain level of corruption everywhere."
As for the issues you bring up, I think some of them are valid. They have been discussed here and I have never been on any of those threads arguing that they shouldn't be discussed or that they are meaningless. I have not even defended the Palin's of McCain in most of those areas.
You bring up several issues in the most superficial way without any depth what so ever. I don't have time to respond to all of them with the fullness they require so I'll just choose one.
I think Todd's membership in the AIP is a legitimate issue. But Volger was murdered in that illegal explosives sale gone bad over 2 years before Todd joined AIP and there is no evidence they ever even met. Nor has the AIP ever been implicated in any bombings. If there were any evidence that Todd Palin and Volger had worked together or had meetings in their house I would consider it very serious. So while a legitimate issue I'm having some difficulty in seeing a meaningful comparison to Ayers who admitted to setting off a couple of dozen bombs and who obama worked with and met in his house.
Also I believe a candidate for president should be vetted much more deeply and broadly than the spouse of a vp candidate. Obama has not been seriously vetted. The coverage has been sensationalistic and superficial. These damaging associations burst onto the scene for a short time and fade away, having done what ever damage or not. But the truly informative, in depth story never gets told. The questions never get answered.
October 14, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Perhaps you can point me to the part where I claimed the local politicians of my home town are, "the last bastion of truth and honesty."'
With this statement: "Ayers could come to my home town of Bethlehem PA and maybe get himself a cozy position with the liberal elite at Moravian College. But not a single Bethlehem politician would have anything to do with him" it seemed to me that you were trying to convey some sort of superiority over Chicago (and by extension all big cities). In light of your earlier comment about Smalltown USA, I assumed you had the attitudes I implied. There is certainly a hint of condescension about the "liberal elite".
My examples were superficial because there ARE so many (I could have included more), and I wanted to paint the picture of the breadth of the issue. My purpose was to show that there is more equivalence than is currently portrayed.
Re: Todd and the AIP, Obama is tainted by association 40 years after the acts. Todd is tainted by association 2 years after the acts. I certainly agree that the Presidential candidate should be vetted more than the spouse, but back to double standards, I can't imagine the outcry if Michelle Obama had been a member of a Black Militant separatist organization!
As far as Obama being vague on Ayers I certainly agree. I still maintain that it's valid to criticize the relationship. I just want all candidates held to the same standard, and I simply do not see that.
For example, did you see Sarah Palin flat out lie about the contents of the Troopergate report? "No hint of wrongdoing" indeed. Let's see if THAT gets the legs that Obama's vagueness on Ayers does. I predict it will not.
October 14, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would care more about preserving the right to choice, personally.
October 13, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interview with Dana Basch, McCain repeated what his ad states --- that Obama *lied* about his association with Ayres. What is this supposed to refer to ? I keep up with things fairly well but obviously missed this story/theory/fact. I was itching for her to say "In what way do you say that he lied?"
Does anyone know what the lie is supposed to be?
The only thing I can figure is that he said in one debate, I think, that Ayres was "someone in the neighborhood" (true - that's why Alice Palmer arranged one of several coffees to be held in Ayres' apartment) but may not have added that he served on two boards (the Annenberg project and the Woods Fund or something like that) with him. Is that the extent of the lie? Or did I miss something big and scandalous?
If that's it - then Obama's "lie" is about as damming as Biden's "plagarism". If it's something else, why aren't they saying what the lie is?
October 13, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, there really is no "lie"; there is the assumption that there is unknown information about Obama and Ayers's relationship. We apparently don't know everything, but as far as I know there really isn't much more to uncover.
There's also a discrepancy regarding when the relationship started and when he knew about Ayers's past. And there's also a supposed link between Michelle Obama and Ayers's wife, just because they worked at the same law firm. Again, there's the assumption that there is more information and that he's not being truthful.
October 13, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just one more lie told by Obama about his relationship with Ayers. Alice Palmer denies that she arranged the get together in Ayers house.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/index.html?iref=newssearch
"Palmer rarely speaks to reporters. But she recently denied to CNN that she organized the political affair for Obama, although she said she attended."
October 13, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article you cite contains this sentence, "In 1995, months after the little-known Obama became Annenberg chairman, state Sen. Alice Palmer introduced the young lawyer as her political heir apparent. The introduction was made over coffee at the home of Ayers and Dohrn." And then the one you quote where Palmer is reported as saying she did not arrange the meeting.
There is, as I'm sure you know, reason that Palmer would not want to support Obama's account (She later changed her mind, decided to run for her old seat, and Obama challenged her - and won.) And I find it difficult to comprehend how the sitting State Senator "introduced" her supposed heir but have nothing to do with setting up the introduction -- unless it was set up by the party heirarchy? (Which is the way it's worked when I've been active in local politics.)
I have read elsewhere (still looking for it) that after Obama's campaign was launched at a local hotel, the first neighborhood coffee was held at the home of a local rabbi.
I hadn't seen that CNN reference - thank you for that. But before McCain put out ads talking about lies, I'd think he would be ready to identify what the lie was. As to who set up the coffee that was held at Ayres apartment, I think that still would have to be classified as "unresolved" based on what I've been able to find.
October 14, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting video put together by a young man that was a good friend of on of Ayers' children, and spent a lot of time in the Ayers' house when he was growing up. Nothing like hearing the perspective of someone who actually knows the situation, as opposed to wingnuts making uninformed judgements.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x213620
October 13, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That video was pap like the bullshit you push in the rest of your posts. Anyone who has studied the issue knows it is factually incorrect. Here is just one of the many errors. Your video claimed the weathermen only caused property damage to government buildings. The weathermen did not just cause property damage to government buildings. They claimed responsibility for bombing the private home of NY Supreme Court Justice Murtagh while he, his wife and children slept in their home. Three fire bombs, one at the front door, one at the back door and one under the gas tank of the family car.
October 14, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually, I don't believe they ever claimed responsibility for that bombing. There was a connection made between the Murtaugh bombing and the Weathermen because of the Weathermen's explosion which occurred shortly afterwards, but to the best of my knowledge there was never a direct connection made - or claimed. Since Murtaugh was presiding over a Black Panther trial, there could have been other groups more interested in him as a target than the Weathermen would have been. I'd like to know if you have different information.
Also, I don't understand how you, or anyone, can say that Obama has not been seriously vetted. He's been actively campaigning for President for almost two years and up against the Clintons and the Rove machine. I think it proves the *depth* of the vetting that very incidental connections, such as Ayres, have come under such a spotlight. Lord help Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Sarah Palin if similar scrutiny was given to their lives! Their good fortune is that Obama doesn't run to the press with every bit of dirty (or arguably dirty) laundry that he has or could obtain.
October 14, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a college writing teacher, and I have to tell you that one of the best books on teaching I have ever read is Bill Ayers' book "To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher."
Ayers has done a lot of research and teaching in inner-city Chicago schools and he really understands what is is like to be in the classroom. And he's incredibly idealistic about reaching struggling students, "at-risk" students.
So I can easily understand how the guy became a major force in Chicago education: he knows his stuff. And when I mean "knows his stuff" about teaching, I don't simply mean a lot of theory. He knows all the emotional struggles between students and teachers, between teachers and administrators, between teachers' idealism and their disappointment.
I heard an interview with Ayers about a decade ago on the NPR Show "Fresh Air" With Terry Gross. Ayers was amazing. The interview focused mainly on Ayer's work in the juvenile justice system as I remember it. Here is what some may find quite ironic: the guy was firm, extremely firm in dealing with students but he was committed to all aspects of non-violence in dealing with students. As in, when he confronted kids, he makes it clear right off the bat that he will not hurt them in any way. Listening to that interview had a major effect on my classroom style.
Not too long ago, I was teaching a GED class with a lot of students who were poor, unemployed, really marginalized. And drawing on Ayers (as I do for my college teaching), I was firm (not violent or threatening or nasty in any way), but if a student was inappropriately reading a newspaper, I asked them to put it away. And the vast majority of the students responded well to me.
It's not too strong for me to say that in Ayers I found a model for how to be a really demanding and tough teacher while working gently and compassionately with poor and low-income students.
I guess everyone along the political spectrum has some acts that they simply will not forgive. I never forgave Ronald Reagan for opposing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I never forgave him for giving a speech on "freedom" in 1964 and saying nothing about the violence and brutality and gross violation of rights that black people and civil rights workers were experiencing in the South and in Mississippi that summer in particular.
October 13, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, don't focus on Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. or William C. Ayers but what about Rashid Khalidi and particularly Khalid Al-Mansour? I did not see anything to qualify those individuals as terrorist but beliefs that are radical seemed appropriate and those beliefs are definitely socialistic. Not radicals but powerful in the Chicago political arena where Sen. Obama’s political career blossomed is Tony Rezko and Allison S. Davis. Rezko has been convicted of wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion and Davis who was in a partnership with Rezko appears to be under investigation for inappropriate actions while serving on the Illinois state pension board. Sen. Obama’s financial history is also at least shadowy. There is a succession of relationships and activities in Sen. Obama’s background that would generally elicit attention and in-depth investigation by the national media but for some reason has not
I don't understand why any questions or inquiry into Sen. Obama's background is immediately classified as racists or vicious or disrespectiful and therefore off limits. Why isn't an individual's background an open book when running for public office, particularly president?
October 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what's wrong with radicals? Are we not the party of strong dissent and freedom of thought? I always imagined it was the Repthugs who were supposed to think in lockstep.
As far as the Rezko thing, name a politician who doesn't have a shady associate. You certainly can't include McCain.
I suspect any Democrat can, at some point, be tied to persons who might seem unsavory when viewed from the Right. It's the job of the GOP to turn every Democrat (including our war heroes) into some sort of communist subversive. Speaking of which, here's the completely unsurprising attempt to smear Hillary in the same fashion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1852989/posts
It's what they do, to EVERY Democrat. Screw 'em.
October 14, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with radical thought. I don't have a problem with Hillary interning at a law firm were the major partners were members of the communist party nor do I have a problem with Obama being a member of the socialist New Party. But when people start blowing things up I draw a line. Unlike so many on the left I've never been a fan of Che Guevara either. Violent revolutionaries on the left are no more appealing to me than violent revolutionaries on the right. I guess that's what separates me from so many Obama supporters.
October 14, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your reasons for believing that Obama shares in any way the propensity toward violence that Ayres had at least in his youth are _____? Even if he had the connection in the 90s that has been established -- holding a coffee in his home (who arranged it up in the air), memberships on two boards, and at least one encounter in the streets during which they said 'hello' (per David Axelrod) -- with someone who was a violent revolutionary in the 60s, precisely what does that say about Obama's judgment that makes you doubt him? Obviously hundreds of other people -- faculty and students at UI, everyone else on all the Boards of Directors, other members of the Dem. party in Hyde Park, civic and business leaders in Chicago -- have had similar or more intense relationships with Ayres. Are they all suspect?
If Obama lied, I can see **that** as relevant. But without some reason to believe they share a propensity toward violence, I really can't see how his simply knowing Ayres and even working with him on NON-violent endeavors has any relevance to anything. A dentist who once cleaned my teeth wound up embezzling from his partnership - and I once served on a board with someone who had been arrested and convicted of assault in his youth. Does that make me an embezzler or someone likely to cause physical harm? That's the Sarah Palin kind of logic: I know foreign relations because I can see Russia.
October 14, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink