The other day Armed Liberal wrote a good post chiding Richard Clarke for suggesting, on the Olbermann show:
...some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you're forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.
I've been thinking about this in the case of William Ayers and his wife, Weather Underground terrorists and associates of Barack Obama. To what degree is Obama blameworthy for associating with people who bombed Federal buildings? Should he have shunned them?
I don't have clean answers, but I do have some thoughts, and would like to hear some of your own.
It's an interesting question, because the people on the "Yes, good people should not admit the Neocon Monsters into their society" side are usually also the people on the "Barack Obama should be held blameless for his association with a Weather Underground couple." Is there a common principle?
The Neocon Monsters were government officials executing their duties as part of a lawful government, and the Ayers couple were terrorists who sought to wage war on the lawful government. At first, that seems like a strong difference in the cases.
On reflection, I'm not sure that is so. The American system expects citizens occasionally to take up arms against it. Jefferson's famous quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants lies at the bedrock of the political culture. We expect that people who believe in things firmly enough have a duty to resist -- whether it is Jim Crow laws they are resisting, or Federal involvement in strikebreaking, which was very common in the late 19th century; or unfair laws and violence against their communities, or other things. American patriots may fight for their country against foreign enemies, yet against it when the government is participating in oppression at home.
For example, briefly and in a small way I knew Aaron Two Elk, who was one of the American Indian Movement fighters who held Wounded Knee against Federal authorities in 1973. He later served in the US military. He was patriotic towards America as an ideal and a homeland, yet also held a deep sense of anger at the way that the Lakota, and American Indians in general, had been treated by the American government and society. When I knew him, he spent much of his time working to ensure that known Indian burial grounds in Georgia were treated with respect, rather than plowed up for development near Atlanta.
He was not a terrorist, as the Weather Underground members were: a guerrilla, perhaps. He was engaged not in terrorism, but a sort of protest with rifles. That is very much part of the American way.
Ayers, of course, is both a terrorist and unrepentant. He used bombs instead of rifles. As Steve Champan points out, people praised William F. Buckley for pushing away the John Birch Society: is it too much to ask for Obama to have done as much with the Weather Underground? After all, I don't recall the John Birch Society bombing anyone.
Of course, the Weather Underground did its harm a long time ago, whereas the John Birch Society was doing its harm right then when WFB rejected them. Advocates of shunning the neocons might make a similar argument: one must forgive old affronts at some point, but not yet.
Still, it seems like there ought to be an underlying principle at work here. Terrorists are uniquely bad because they target noncombatants; guerrillas are not of the same type. But what then are lawful government officials? Some people feel they behaved unlawfully in their offices: does that make them moral equals of guerrillas (both still better than terrorists)? Or are they better, because they were formally part of the government? Or worse, for betraying a trust?
We are in every case talking about deep and serious disagreements within the American polity. Where precisely is the breaking point, the line that makes clear -- whether we are talking about Republicans or Democrats, Wolfowitz or Ayers -- just what your duties are?
Can we say that there is a standard that any good American citizen should obey, in terms of whom to shun? If not, what does that say about the polity? Is it finally, "With us or against us," but where "us" is not Americans, but conservatives or liberals?
With respect to your friend, Grim, the description of Wounded Knee linked to here is another example of selectively-remembered history.
The AIM members at Wounded Knee burned down a church, killed two FBI officers, and fired on BIA and tribal police - the AIM members Clearwater and Lamont were killed by officers that were found to have acted in self-defense, whether one chooses to believe it or not. AIM threatened to kill a police officer and a fireman every day until their demands were met. And they made themselves obnoxious to the Oglala Sioux tribe, who had not invited them and regarded AIM itself as something of an occupying force. In turn, AIM referred to tribal loyalists as "goons" (a mocking acronym for "Guardian of the Oglala Nation") and accused them of murdering dozens of AIM members. These murders have never been substantiated, but they've become part of the legend of Wounded Knee. But then, that was a time when Billy Jack was considered serious social commentary.
So if AIM has not forgiven all, neither have many of the people who were on the other side of AIM's guns. Yet the rebel gets to wear the romantic mantle, even if the rebel is nothing but a cold-blooded psychopath. So it is with the Weathermen.
What about Louis Farrakhan, who essentially controls Obama? Or Rev. Wright, or Father Pfleger, or any of the other odious racialists around Obama?
What sort of "re-entry" do they get, and is it the same re-entry offered Michael Richards, or Mark Furhman, or David Duke for that matter?
Heck, what about re-entry for the Manson Family? Or various AQ-inspired terrorists? What about the Fortiers, and the other helpers of Tim McVeigh?
Clarke is an idiot, seeking to criminalize policy. You don't like policy, change it, through the Democratic system. Policy differences are not criminal, unless you view yourself and your views as God or Providence-given, you and your pals "enlightened beings" or perhaps Lightworkers, and practice a sort of degraded aristo elitism.
What these people pushing this criminal-pardon policy is the fantasy that all things bad in the world are from: "evil neocons" aka "Jews" or "Jew-friendly" politics.
Clarke hasn't thought much. [Ayers was allowed "re-entry" through his wealthy father, who started Obama's fundraiser campaign for the IL Senate by generous donations. Most of the Weatherman were wealthy spoiled brats.]
Can someone help with just what the degree of association is between Ayers and Obama? AFAIK, Obama has never invited Ayers into his home, and he was at Ayers' home only for a fundraiser with many others present. The fact that they serve on the same board doesn't interest me much.
Let me be clear: Ayers and his wife are, to my mind, odious, and I'm pleased a relative of mine was one of the people opposing her admission to the Bar. But he doesn't seem to be much of an influence on Obama. Or vice versa.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we were friends. I did know him, but he was the friend of a professor of mine. I initially met him when he was brought in to talk to the class about his experiences at Wounded Knee and elsewhere. The class was certainly one sided -- a large part of it was an attempt to indoctrinate the students with the idea that 1960s and 70s leftist radicalism was morally unimpeachable and righteous. However, the professor was a good guy whose heart was in the right place in most instances; he was a veteran of those struggles, and I guess genuinely believed in what he was teaching.
Obviously, it didn't turn me into a Leftist radical, so no harm, no foul. :)
Wretchard at the Belmont Club linked to this article the other day, on the subject of the depth of the connection. He comments on it:
"I am not persuaded that this was the prime Obama connection, though it convincingly demonstrates that Bill Ayers was not just a peripheral player in the Obama saga, but probably a very pivotal one."
I consider Wretchard a responsible commenter, so I'll pass on his recommendation.
Grim, I found that article weird. Full of phrases like "I can only speculate" and "it seems highly unlikely". Which I wouldn't mind, if I weren't worried that what followed seemed perfectly plausible to me.
I'm going to pass the article along to my Hyde Park relatives for comment. They fought some of the same battles on questions like school control, and they are not veterans of the Weather Underground.
Hyde Park, as I'm sure you know, is a tight enclave and everyone there knows everyone else in some sense.
Violence should be something legitimate to fight tyranny. The problem for the Weather Underground and the rest of their ilk, is trying to make the case the the 1960's US existed under tyranny.
It's clear they weren't fighting against tyranny, they were fighting against democracy.
My first WOC comment:
Grim:
Sez Wretchard:
"Diamond's answer is speculative, but informative. . . "
A close reading of the underlying Diamond piece reveals that when it's not randomly accusing folks, including those seeking local control of elementary schools, of being Maoists, it's indeed chockablock full of unsupported, and unsupportable, speculation. By way of example, one of Diamond's crux points, with emphasis added:
I can only speculate, but it is possible that Tom Ayers introduced Obama to Sidley. That might have happened if Obama had met up with Bill and Tom and John Ayers prior to attending law school when Obama's DCP group was supporting the reform act passed in 1988. Or it might have been Dohrn who introduced Obama to the law firm. Dohrn's CV indicates that she left Sidley sometime in 1988 for public interest work prior to starting a position at Northwestern (again, hired there by some accounts because of the influence of Tom Ayers and his Sidley counsel Howard Trienens). Obama and Dohrn would likely not have been at the firm at the same time, although if Obama and Dohrn met before Obama left to attend Harvard Law School, she might have discussed the firm with him and introduced him to lawyers there.
Whether this is more "informative", however, than injecting space aliens, the CIA, the Illuminati, or the International Conspiracy of Zionist Bankers into the mix, as explanation, is not clear to me....
BTW, might Obama's willingness to associate with, and not publically shun Ayers and Dohrn, possibly be considered more understandable in light of the fact that they were, respectively, employed by a public university and employed by a major law firm at the time we're discussing?
Anyway, thanks for giving me a second on the soap-box.
Richard Gould-Saltman
I've said before that I think Obama's connection to Ayers was more political than personal. It wasn't Obama that made Ayers and Dohrn respectable members of the Chicago Democratic Party community, but because they are, of course Obama knows them. Just as he knows Wright, Phleger, and Rezko, and a whole bunch of other people that we will likely be talking about soon.
And like Wright, Phleger, and Rezko, we will soon be seeing Senator Obama scrape Ayers off his shoe like dog feces. No doubt in the course of a speech that will be hailed as THE GREATEST THING ANYBODY EVER SAID ABOUT THE SIXTIES, instantly healing all the old wounds and reconciling everybody with everybody. People will weep until hospitals are choked with dehydration cases ...
Reconciliation is pretty easy when historical memory goes back to last Tuesday, at best.
What bothers me most, I think, is the double standard. If McCain was chummy with a former KKK member (aside from Senator Byrd of course), it would be a huge scandal, and probably the nail in his political coffin instantly.
Basically if you are on the left you can be forgiven for just about anything... even if like Ayres you are unrepentant. On the right, not so much.
My interaction with the far leftists from the 60's led me to the conclusion that many of them were sectarian arrogant dogmatic SOBs. Any such as Ayers and Dohrn who are unrepentant and still talk the talk, haven't learned a thing in forty years. It is not to Obama's credit that he has associated with them.
Recall from Dreams of My Father, where he said that in college he sought out leftists/Marxists. Apparently Obama hasn't learned much either.
This strikes me as an attempt to find a rule, but these kinds of political decisions are always prudential. The question is, therefore, what associations would tend to be concomitant with either (1) ignorance of important issues of governance; (2) imprudent ideas about governance, i.e. ideas that do not promote a flourishing society; (3) illogical ideas about governance; or (4) an incomplete grasp of the nature of political problems and the peculiar, almost unique, American answers to them.
Buckley's association and then disassociation with the Birchers shows simultaneously an error and its prudential solution. So, perhaps it is not in the actual association itself that we will find an answer to Groim's questions, but in the reaction. Buckley's dissociation appears to have had a positive effect, marginalizing a movement that would have impeded acceptance of a resurgent Conservative movement.
It seems these questions can only be answered historically. The we must use aspect, and from the future ask ourselves whether Obama's associations, his manner of dissociation, and his failure to dissociate will have helped a resurgent American Left.
I say it won't have helped, although the evidence is flimsy. Instead of marginalizing ideologies that are clearly a harm to the agenda of the Left, Obama's actions and non-actions have emboldened those harmful actors, like Rev. Wright, and may continue to embolden them. It's hard to see how this will help the nation or the Left or the Democratic Party.
And yes, Grim, I am the same Jeff you know from other blogs. It's good to see you here. ;-)
Sorry, I'll buy this specious 'reentry' crap when the unrepentant Socialists, neo-Marxists, socialists and outright Communists have to make the same confessions of wrongdoing. Otherwise this is just elitist crap.
"truth and reconciliation commission(s)" are just another star chamber under another name.
If this is where we have gotten in this country, that we are going to play this game, then I really do believe it is time for the reset button.
I expect better of WoC.
Buckley was never associated with the John Birch Society, so he never made that error in the first place.
The JBS was marginal to begin with, and had no influence that could harm Buckley, so there is no reason why he would not denounce them unless he shared their ideological manias. This is in contrast to Obama, who like most leftists is unwilling to disassociate from the worst dregs of their spectrum.
What took more courage was for Buckley to distance himself from the anti-Semites among mainstream conservatives. Those are the people he succeeded in marginalizing. It would be interesting to see Obama take on black and left-liberal anti-Semites, the day after Hell freezes over.
"...then I really do believe it is time for the reset button."
You're not the first one to think so. Actually, that's the conversation we're having: what to do with people who've tried to reach for that button. "Protestors with rifles" aren't necessarily illegitimate in the American concept, though I think terrorists -- those irregulars who target civilians as their strategy for victory -- should be.
If you win, of course, you have nothing to worry about. The question is, if you take up arms against America and lose, on what terms should you be allowed to be readmitted to society?
This post is worse even than comparing apples to oranges. It's like comparing apples to automobiles.
Here's the deal. Ayers was brought to court for his actions (which took place when Obama was a young child) but was released on a technicality. He was tried for a bombing, not for killing anyone nor of even trying to. Even still, he should have payed his price to society and never really did because the case was dismissed.
Now, to the association of Obama with Ayers, my view is ho hum. So what. Who cares. People make thousands of connections and associations throughout their lives, public people even more. No one, and by this I mean NO SINGLE CURRENT POLITICIAN, is free from connections and/or associations, direct or indirect, with unsavory and even criminal people.
I take it you've never played 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Having said this, however, I believe it is likely that Obama has many many fewer than John McCain to be sure.
Buckley was an early acquaintance of Robert Welch, associated with him and the John Birch Society as part of the Republican Party, and on occasion wrote approvingly of the JBS until 1963. Then, Buckley denounced the JBS to counter their influence in nominating Barry Goldwater.
Buckley, quite correctly, saw the danger: a Ron Paul kind of candidacy, backed by conspiracy nuts, that could forever tarnish the Conservative movement.
Well, your warrant fails right away. Political alliances between parties that disagree occur often. In any case, here's a reason: Buckley opposed Goldwater, but the JBS supported him for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, that is the very reason Buckley himself gave. That seems decisive to me.
I agree!
Heh. Too true.
Um. Obama has Ayers to his house to kick off his political career. Obama says he has friendly relations with Ayers. They serve on the same board.
I haven't done any of those things with Kevin Bacon. Now who's comparing apples, oranges, and automobiles?
Obama has Ayers to his house to kick off his political career.
This is a mis-statement: the event was at Ayers' house, and as such says more about the Hyde Park community than it does about Obama in particular. I don't think a novice candidate can be too choosy about which events to attend.
Well, as I've said elsewhere, I was once in the Alinsky-oriented left, and had a lot of friends in that movement. I don't have a single friend left from that era, not so much because I repudiated or rejected them, but because in that crowd you're either onboard with the political ideology, or you're out the door. Ideology and morality are synonymous. The fact that Obama was, until very recently, on their Xmas lists suggests he and they were pretty much of the same mind. Had that not been the case he wouldn't have had to reject them, they'd have rejected him.
"He was tried for a bombing, not for killing anyone nor of even trying to"
Err...
"Todd Gitlin, a former SDS member and author of "The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage," harshly criticizes Ayers and other members of Weatherman for wanting to kill, even if they didn't. Gitlin said in 2001 that the only reason no one was murdered was because the first known attempt resulted in members of the group blowing themselves up instead: "OK, let's give them a medal for not killing anybody besides themselves. But they wanted to be terrorists. They planned on being terrorists. Then their bomb blew up and killed several of them and they thought better of it. They were failed terrorists."
link
Jeff;
If you're going to try to argue that the Obama-Ayers association, such as it was, is uniquely a problem for Obama but not other politicians, at least make some effort to find out whether the numerous accusations have any merit or are simply false memes injected into the discourse by the Right (they're specialty).
Apples to automobiles: let me clarify. Suggesting that Ayers, Wright, or Farrakhan are on the same level as Wolfowitz, Rove, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, Gonzalez, Rice, Bush etc. and so forth is ludicrous.
I also take issue with the idea that the Weathermen were a "terrorist" organization. I don't think their actions support this negative and very loaded (in todays climate) term. Their targets were government-based, not civilians.
Nor is it clear to me why any of this is relevant to Obama's beliefs and manner of future governance, which he has made clear in NUMEROUS forums are completely opposite to anything these folks have stood for in the past.
Perhaps an investigation of McCain's association with the Keating five or Jack Abramoff bears more scrutiny, or Pastors Hagee and Parsley, whose apocalyptic and racist belief systems he apparently shares.
There is a double standard at work here. For Obama, you wish to suggest his current beliefs are not based on his current words and actions but rather the words and actions of past associates with shady histories, while for McCain his current words and actions belying a troubling belief system are ignored and instead his alleged heroic actions and Mavericky behavior is interpreted to indicate his "true" beliefs.
You really have to be comfortable tying yourself up in a mental pretzel to think this way, or worse to think that other people are as warped in their views.
Or, maybe you're just on a partisan mission to destroy Obama regardless of his views or whether he will be a better President, like the majority of Republicans.
Is this all you have to offer?
Thanks for the link Mark; it has allowed me to discover that you've been rather selective in your post.
From there:
"I condemn all forms of terrorism--individual, group and official," Ayers wrote in a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune. He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."
I don't see too much to disagree with in this statement, actually, do you?
"I also take issue with the idea that [Timothy McVeigh was] a "terrorist"... I don't think [his] actions support this negative and very loaded (in todays climate) term. [His] targets were government-based, not civilians."
Hmmmm...
"Apples to automobiles: let me clarify. Suggesting that Ayers, Wright, or Farrakhan are on the same level as Wolfowitz, Rove, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, Gonzalez, Rice, Bush etc. and so forth is ludicrous."
I agree, but not for the same reasons.
Frankly, Tyler, if Obama only had your beliefs, I'd be plenty worried on those grounds alone.
"For Obama, you wish to suggest his current beliefs are not based on his current words and actions..."
I for one am more than happy to judge Obama on his current words and actions alone.
Afterall, its not like he's got a record to run on.
I agree. That is, it says one thing about Chicago politics and another, less severe, thing about Obama. It's not so wicked to pay your respects to the corrupt establishment, but it's not so change-worthy either.
Jeff:It would take some cites to convince me that Buckley "associated" at any point with a group that was denouncing Dwight Eisenhower as a communist.
Buckley's attack on JBS actually began in early 1962, as he related here.
Part of the purpose was to expel Welch from reasonable society, so Goldwater didn't have to deal with him.
Who's doing this job for Obama - Bill O'Reilly?
One more thing - Buckley didn't demolish the JBS. The rise of Reaganism did that job. But JBS influence survives elsewhere. Welch is the spiritual godfather of the 9/11 truthers and the entire conspiracy community. Oliver Stone's vile film JFK owes a direct debt to Birchers like Revilo P. Oliver.
That's what the IRA and the Baader-Meinhof Gang claimed as well. And the narco-terrorists who are filling Colombia with graves.
The Weather Underground attempted to murder NY Supreme Court Judge John Murtagh in his home, along with his wife and child. That's stretching the definition of "government" a bit far. But it always gets stretched that far, because the ultimate enemy of the violent radical is always the private citizen - the racist, ignorant sheep who supports the awful system.
Fortunately they failed, and the only defense they have against the charge of terrorism is to plead their colossal incompetence. Their hatred was sincere enough.
Tyler #23:
Ludicrous in which direction? One one hand you have appointed public servants responsible for making decisions that impact the lives of many people. Comparatively, however, the decisions made by Lincoln, Stanton, and Grant killed a lot more people... nearly all Americans, so what sort of standard are you advocating? Are you saying that the only choice option open to public officials in defense and foreign policy is to proffer and olive branch or a flag of surrender? How about Curtis Lemay, who bombed civilians in order to shorten WWII? Is he then a terrorist? Seems to me the objectives sought matter a little, and Ayers and Dohrn were attempting to create a Marxism Ummah, and willing to kill American civilians to do it. That's a little different that what Lemay, and Sherman before him, were doing.
Well, they targeted civilian government installations... which is pretty classic terrorism strategy. The difference between what they were willing to do, and what Lemay and Sherman did, was that the letter was in a context of total war that had been initiated by an enemy intent on defeating and subjugating the US (in the Lemay case) or on preserving the institution of chattel slavery (in the Sherman case). What possible justification could there be for Ayers and Dorhn, unless you simply applaud their goals and intensions?
As for the associations with Obama, I suppose if the public sympathizes with Ayers, Dorhn, and Wright, they can vote Obama into office in order to implement those policies... so the fact that he's desperately seeking distance suggests that the implications are politically embarrassing for him. If the associations are substantial then that's certainly something the public should weigh in their voting calculus. Make up your mind.
Demosophist, AFAICT, the Obama and Ayers have similar policies with respect to the Chicago Public Schools, and likely education in general. The article Grim referred to above makes their beliefs in devolved control sound like a Maoist plot. I rather doubt that, and I doubt if the history of the CPS supports the idea.
When I hear Obama supports the ideals of the Weather Underground in general, I'm all ears.
"When I hear Obama supports the ideals of the Weather Underground in general, I'm all ears."
Exactly. But the logical fallacy being promulgated here is that even though Obama explicitly DOES NOT support the ideals of the WU (as anyone who has listened to him speak or has read about his positions on his website or followed his record of public service in Chicago and the Senate would know), the fact that he has crossed paths with Ayers in the past in an entirely different capacity should be grounds to call this into question.
It continues to frustrate me that people actually think this line of argument has any serious traction outside of the nasty circle of operatives whose job it is to take their political opponents down at all cost, even if the country has to suffer in the end.
The unilateral nature of this exploration into Obama's "character" (through his associations) while completely ignoring McCain's supports the idea that this is the real purpose of this thread.
I view it as pollution of the discourse, pure and simple. And I dislike the people who will use it and as a consequence I am repulsed by their political views and those associated with it. Read Right Wing.
"Exactly. But the logical fallacy being promulgated here is that even though Obama explicitly DOES NOT support the ideals of the WU (as anyone who has listened to him speak or has read about his positions on his website or followed his record of public service in Chicago and the Senate would know)..."
The problem you fail to understand is that it is precisely the record of his public service in Chicago or the words that he has spoke in major speaches that makes his association with Ayers so predictable and therefore unsettling.
Even the organizations descended from the WU do not support the methods of the WU, but those organizations very much continue to support the ideals of the WU. Hearing Obama speak, its very easy to hear the echo of those ideals - which is precisely why Obama enjoys such adoring support from the far Left.
The problem isn't that Obama has brushed across a few radical Leftists in his day. The real question is why does the radical Left hear in his words what you say cannot be found in them. Or more precisely, why does both the 'Right Wing' and the Far Left agree on what Obama stands for, yet you sit here claiming that its only spin?
See, I'm repulsed by this guy and his politics. Are you trying to tell me that he's just a right wing operative? It seems to me that he's hearing the same things from Obama that I'm hearing. Maybe you ought to address your rant to him.
"The problem you fail to understand is that it is precisely the record of his public service in Chicago or the words that he has spoke in major speaches that makes his association with Ayers so predictable and therefore unsettling."
So if this is the case, then it should be no problem for you to provide me with the obvious examples that I (or anyone else who thinks like me) seem to be missing.
Andrew #29 and Tyler #30:
You're, rather characteristically, changing the topic to specific policies. I used to go to rallies where people praised the policies and tactics of Aulinsky, looking up to him as some sort of prophet. I daresay that Wright, Ayers, Dorhn, and Obama would have fit right in, without even so much as a twinge of discomfort. However, would someone who admired Aulinsky as a savior and prophet really, under normal circumstances, have a prayer of being nominated, let alone elected, President of the US?
No.
As for what Obama specifically says he supports, like Micheal Behe he says a lot of things. Clearly he'd repudiate the radical views of the Weather Underground. If Ayers or Dorhn were running for national office, instead of picking up checks as tenured Profs, so would they. What I'm saying is that the mere fact that Obama was never scratched off their Xmas list suggests that his views are really rather tolerable to them. Mum's the word...
While Demosophist may be right about how Obama has stayed on the metaphorical Christmas card list, I think he's wrong to reject looking at specific policies and am perfectly happy to do so. I don't expect it will make Tyler Jones happy, because anything less than an open admission that he supports the neo-Marxist principles of Alinsky and Ayers won't convince him, but I think it can be demonstrated. Certainly, the socialists and Marxists in this country and abroad have no problem parsing his rhetoric.
Tom Harkin, a "middle American," whose background (other than race) and views are rather similar to those of Obama, once ran for President. He never got to first base. Absent the camouflage, neither would Obama.
That said, I think there's a decent chance that he'll be elected. I'd be looking for signs and signals that he's capable of a Trumanesque turn of mind. What I see is someone who was forged in the same furnace as myself, but unlike me shows no signs of having learned anything that would bring him out from behind the masque. And if Shelby Steele is right, he'll have to emerge from behind the masque to be elected.
I think Andrew is being disengenuous here with respect to Obama's connection to Ayers. Their connection is much tighter than just "neighbors". Obama was selected by Ayers to be the head of the Annenburg Challange in the late 80's. Thus their relationship dates from at least 1988 and is much deeper than that of just casual acquaintances.
Google didn't find anything for me except right-wing blogs saying that Ayres "selected" Obama for the Chicago part of the Annenberg Challenge. Is there some independent evidence (not speculation about Ayres' importance) that Ayres made this decision?
AFAICT, Ayres isn't much closer connected to Obama than are my in-laws, who live in Hyde Park and were active in CPS.
Demosophist:
Care to share a link for those late to the party? Is this what you are talking about, or did I miss something? From the end of the Time article,
Is that what you''re talking about?
Obama's involvement in Annenberg is strangely mysterious, so much so that some doubt he was involved at all.
But this annual report (.pdf file) clearly names him as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board. Oddly though, this is mentioned only in a footnote at the very end! Whereas Ayers is acknowledged as a founder in the introduction.
Given the long tenure and the sweeping goals of this project - to reform public education in Chicago - it's remarkable that Obama doesn't tout this experience. But it's not even obliquely mentioned in his website bio.
For some reason Annenberg has gone down the memory hole, and here are three possible reasons:
1. Public schools in Chicago are notably not reformed; the Challenge was a dismal failure.
2. It was a goddamned outright scam, a slop trough for the progressive leisure class to pig out on Old Man Annenberg's money, and less anyone looks into it the better.
3. Obama did absolutely nothing as chair of this organization, because he's all resume and no results.
Obama is not responsible for the political leanings and opinions of Ayers, Dorhn, and Rezko etc. He is responsible for his own political opinions, philosophies etc. Obama in his formative years sought out Marxists, leftist’s types in school because I would guess he was enamored of those ideas. I speculate that he felt rebellion because of his identity crisis.
Chicago had an existing power structure that leans left and Marxist. Ayers, Dohrn were part of that. In order to get political acceptance and a start he went to those that he had sympathetic opinions.
I am not concerned about the social acceptance of people as Ayers etc. All I am concerned about is Obama’s real opinion and political philosophies. If he is a Marxist, Socialist sympathizer, I find that dangerous to our capitalist society and our ideals that freedom is paramount.
"I don't expect it will make Tyler Jones happy, because anything less than an open admission that he supports the neo-Marxist principles of Alinsky and Ayers won't convince him, but I think it can be demonstrated."
Then what are you waiting for?
And WRT the threshold or nature of evidence necessary to convince me of your assertions, there is a simple way to control for this:
We compare BOTH CANDIDATES using the same criteria, the same level of scrutiny. It's the only fair way to calibrate such a disagreement.
IOW, Obama chaired a project that handed out $50 million in grant money for improvement in Chicago schools, and the $50 million had no result. That doesn’t say much about Obama’s abilities as an executive. It also stereotypes the stereotype of liberal solutions for social problems: throw some money at it. One can see why Obama has apparently not been inclined to volunteer to gush about his experience with the Annenberg Project. His ineffectiveness in chairing the Annenberg project , coupled with the Annenberg Project’s association with Bill Ayers, inform us why he has been less than forthcoming.
There is another take on Obama’s ineffectiveness as chair of the Annenberg Challenge. To my knowledge, Obama has had NO experience as a student in public schools in the US. From elementary school through law school, he has been exclusively educated in private schools. Had he some experience in public schools, he might have been better able to evaluate the potential effectiveness of the projects that the Annenberg project funded.
Ayres is probably my age, which makes him an old man. People as ambitious as Obama do not pay old men much attention unless they can use them. I don't really see how Obama could use Ayers and I don't see anyone laying out a method by which he did use him other than for going to his house for a fund raiser.
Ayers is not in jail, so he has probably served his time. He is entitled to any opinion he might have no matter how odious.
The Daley machine and the whole of the Democratic Party is much more in Obama's league at this point. The Ayres connection seems to me to be just that of politician stepping on someone on the way up. I don't even see how Obama stepped very hard on Ayers because he is not very important or useful.
"t also stereotypes the stereotype of liberal solutions for social problems: throw some money at it."
Um, that also seems to be the Conservative/Republican solution as well. You might have noticed that the US budget deficit and government spending together have grown substantially during the period of Republican rule between 2000-2006.
This argument comes up as a proxy for saying that you don't like the things the other side chooses to throw money at. Why not at least try to demonstrate a little honesty in this? Your complaints might be taken more seriously.
And as far as the Annenberg issue, remember: You only fail if you fail to try.
RE: My point in #41
Perhaps I'll get the ball rolling by pointing out a McCain "association" that is indicative of a very troubling character and belief system:
Alleged Russia Ties Entangle McCain Campaign Manager
"McCain's Campaign is Blasting a Report that Manager Worked for Kremlin-Backed Candidate in Ukraine"
"The story also raises the possibility that Davis' firm may have violated the anti-espionage Foreign Agents Registration Act, by failing to register work for Yanukovich with the U.S. government."
Nortius #38:
Yes, that link will do. He also wrote a book on the topic. And here's a video of an appearance on Bill Moyers Journal.
"I don't see too much to disagree with in this statement, actually, do you?"
Just the whole thing. Forgive me if i dont take the wanna-be-terrorist bomb planter at his word. Nor do i subscribe to his fantasy blame-America-first paranoia.
#44 from Tyler Jones : I agree with you regarding the profligate government spending during the Bush Adm. Bush should have vetoed more spending bills.
For example, the Medicare Drug Bill. OTOH, How many Democrats also voted for this? (As I am of an advanced age,and not wealthy I would be more likely to benefit from this bill than most.So please do not accuse me of being heartless by bringing this up. While I would have benefited more than most from this bill, in my opinion it should not have been passed.)
But as regards the tendency to believe that government spending will automatically solve some social problem, this belief is ingrained more in Democrats.
And as far as the Annenberg issue, remember: You only fail if you fail to try.
When one is spending $50 million, it would seem to me that there would be SOMETHING that could have been gotten from the endeavor. I have worked in education, and know there is a more than ample professional literature regarding what works and does not work in education.
At the same time, there is a much greater tendency in education to present conjecture as fact than in perhaps any other field. The field of education is replete with BS artists,and I am not referring to Bachelors of Science, in Ed Departments at the university level: precisely those who would be writing grant proposals.
As a result, someone evaluating grant proposals in education has a very high need to separate the nonsensical from the plausible proposals.
Obama was obviously unable to do so. That is not a good characteristic of a decision maker. I would conclude from his chairing the Annenberg challenge that it is not difficult to BS him.
The Annenberg Program failed? OK, that happens. (The subsequent reforms may have failed even worse.) One of my problems with a lot of what's called "liberalism" is failure to evaluate programs and revise or discard the ones that however well-intentioned didn't work. (You could toss several versions of Affirmative Action in that basket and probably some gun control and campaign finance, too.)
Fifty million dollars happens to be not only the total Annenberg cost, but coincidentally the annual Federal grant amount for the failed conservative program of abstinence-only sex "education". In this case, the shoe is on the other foot.
Bill Ayers as the Power Behind Obama evidence here? Not really.
50 million for the entire country is one thing, 50 million for select public schools in Chicago is something else.
And how is the shoe on the other foot? Federal sex education money funds programs run by the states. I don't think anyone is arguing that the states are less likely to flush education money down the toilet than private foundations are.
#49 from Andrew J. Lazarus:
Fifty million dollars happens to be not only the total Annenberg cost, but coincidentally the annual Federal grant amount for the failed conservative program of abstinence-only sex "education". In this case, the shoe is on the other foot.
I will take you at your word that the abstinence program has failed. On the contrary, the shoe is NOT on the other foot. I am not advocating that the bureaucrat in charge of wasting money on the abstinence-only sex "education" program become President. I would support firing said bureaucrat, and disqualify said bureaucrat from further federal employment based on incompetence. I stand by my assertion that chairing a project that spends $50 million with nothing to show for it is NOT a good indication of said chairperson being a good executive.
Where I live there are a number of examples of principals turning around schools in high-poverty neighborhoods. There is plenty of research on such schools. Anyone who spends $50 million in ONE CITY, with nothing to show for it, has NOT done a good job. Obama let himself be snowed by the Ed school BS artists. It’s that simple.
How is he going to stand up to ImaDinnerJacket, if he lets himself be snowed by some fast talker with a nice-sounding title and degree who has presented a nonsense grant proposal?
The "degree of association" is indeed key. Oblabla is being cut way too much slack on that. His associations are so consistently negative, from Chicago fixers to Marxists to terrorists to Islamists, that he has zero credibility when he pleads innocence about their aims and methods and ideologies. Someone should keep asking him, "And what was your first clue?"
He is constructing a persona which has little basis in actual achievements. Or having the personal constructed for him.
"You are defined by the people that you associate with" Obama has consistly associated with Marxists , radicals(Ayers & Dohrn) Black Marxists( Rev Wright) pure power grabbers (Alinsky).
Obama felt comfortable in the Chicago environment of left liberal idealogy with it's smattering of Marxist theology. It does define him. He does not define the Chicago radical left.
"I also take issue with the idea that the Weathermen were a "terrorist" organization. I don't think their actions support this negative and very loaded (in todays climate) term. Their targets were government-based, not civilians"
Better check your facts they targeted people's home's at night while their wives and children were asleep.
You have an odd definition of "terrorists" bombing govenment employees, their families and I guess Republicans does not count as terrorist activities?
That is just the kind of thinking I want to see in the Whitehouse.
PS there were lots of terrorists in yesterday's climate too.
The botched bombing that went off prematurely was packed with nails. Only one reason to pack a bomb with nails, you're trying to kill people.
The target, btw the way, was to be a off-duty dance for NCOs. Meaning the targets were draftees and their dates. Government based? Plausibly, i suppose. Tangentially, more like.
RAH, and Brian H:
Obama "associated" politically with Saul Alinsky? A quick check shows that Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was in junior high school.
Rev. Wright? He may be a Black Nationalist, in the unreconstructed unrepentant 60's sense, and he may be a nut-job, but other than the use of the term as baiting, I've never seen anything that suggests he is, or that he considers himself, a "Black Marxist". BTW, how do "Black Marxists" differ from all those other "Marxists" you say Obama hangs with?
So, the sounding, here, of the "Marxist" note, like a constant diapason without explanation, coupled with the recurring accusation, in the article Grim links to, of "maoist", tagged onto everyone whose views the author doesn't like, suggests that the term "red-baiting", admittedly over-used, is probably a fair description of what's going on here.
The most painful thing about the attempt to paint Obama, by association, as the second coming of Trotsky is that no one is going to buy it and it is a complete waste of time and energy. The Rove era is over, thank god, since it has been extremely damaging for the party. It has taken all of the Gingrich gains and laid waste to them.
We are losing this election, because we haven't gotten that yet. The whole Obama the Commie or fellow traveler "debate" sounds more like Reverend Wright than Reverend Wright does. It is about as relevant to winning the election as wearing aluminum foil on one's head is to communications with alien mother ships. It is not going to get anyone a vote.
Unfortunately when we have a presidential candidate whose circle of friends is one most people are likely to associate with a looney bin; police line up or politboro than the Rotary one has to ask why aren't we focusing on why this man sought out friends like these?
The question isn't if he sought them out but why? The evidence of his associations goes beyond a chance PTA meeting unless one believes that during his 20 years at Rev. Wrights Black Nuremburg Rallies what Obama witnessed were no different than what you'd hear at any other church on any given Sunday.
Does anyone believe that Charlie Manson should be welcomed back into society? Does anyone believe Ayers was any less evil than Manson or any less demented? Are we to allow Shirhan Shirhan back into polite society? How about traitor Rick Ames or ex FBI official Robert Hanson?
When you place yourself above society you shouldn't be expect to be asked back into it. And those who seek to form alliances with such lepers should be recognized for what they are as well.
Obama is what his associations he carefully nutured and built up during his life demonstrate him to be. A extremist who hates this country and existing institutions.
I think TOC's points are very much open to discussion. Is painting Obama as a crypto-extremist, extremo-phile or "fellow-traveler" a sound approach? Is it just overblown ****nut rhetoric?
The extent to which most politicians seem unprincipled by their former party standards is another matter worth thinking on. I'm not sure this is exactly the right thread for that but the topic is certainly salient.
TOC's #57 "[laying] waste to gains" could refer to destroying political capital and candidate electability, or it could refer to betraying principles. Or, of course, both. Both are serious matters.
"So, the sounding, here, of the "Marxist" note, like a constant diapason without explanation"
Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996
Redstate
Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
If you have a RedState account, your user ID and password should be ported over. If you have a space in your user name, it has been replaced with an underscore ("_").
Please remember, we're still working out the kinks before we make RedState 3.0 our new, permanent home.
Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996
By Warner Todd Huston Posted in 2008 | Obamafiles — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here is some interesting as well as character confirming info about one of Barack Obama's former runs for office. Apparently, Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).
Read on . . .
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party
[Mr Kauffman: Please do not post bare URLs; it breaks Movable Type's formatting. Fixed for you, this time. Also, in future posts, please be considerate enough to remove extraneous cut/paste boilerplate text. --NM]
The guys at Power Line think Al Sharpton should be ejected from polite society. (link)
I think the same. Who thinks otherwise?
I ask, because of the distress caused in Australia by Yankel Rosenbaum's death in the Crown Heights race riot.
This isn't a case of killing for the government, as with the neocons who supposedly should be driven from public life, or against the government, like the terrorist William Ayers. The killers explained their motives at the time: There is a Jew! and Get the Jew!!
Should promoting a pogrom make you a pariah? Because in practice it has not done so.
#59 & #57:
Some people may want to paint Sen. Obama as a crypto-something, but I don't think it's fair to accuse most of the commenters here of doing that. Sen. Obama really is a bit cryptic, especially as he begins his general-election pivot on many of his primary-election positions. This is partially because he's been so little on the national scene and we don't have a lot of data about him. Compared to his opponent, who has been in the national eye for decades, we really don't know much about Obama. We can pretty much know where McCain stands, and so know which of his rhetoric is honest, and which is bamboozling. We don't have that potential with Sen. Obama.
If people look to his associates -- the Rev. Mr. Wright, Ayers, Rezko included, but also the Kennedys, the Daley machine in Chicago, etc. -- it's only to try and figure out who this guy actually is. He came to national prominence because of his involvement in 2002 with the anti-war movement, which is another association people can explore. I don't see anything even slightly improper in that: people have a right to know something more about a potential US President than what he himself claims, especially as his claims shift as he tries to position himself toward the center for the general election.
So, I don't think it's fair to complain that people do that. As long as they make an effort to get the facts straight, rather than passing disproven rumors, an examination of this sort is necessary and proper
It was not, however, the point of THIS post. What I wanted to talk about is a principle that ought to apply to all Americans. I mentioned Obama and Ayers only as a way of exploring Feith and Wolfowitz. I mentioned my own limited association with a radical, to put Obama's association with Ayers in a context that colors me as well as him.
The question here is, do we have a standard for readmission to our society? Or have we gotten to the point that this is a "with us or against us" problem? Is America divided into camps, each willing to forgive radicals from their own side for anything, while at the same time smashing the opposition for doing only the same thing?
This post is more an outgrowth of the "cold civil war" concept, and AL's post about Feith and Clarke, than it's about Obama. I mentioned Obama only to show the degree to which the same people want to forgive him entirely for Ayers, but feel it's wholly correct to use scorn to bar Feith from public life.
#62 from Grim at 8:51 pm on Jun 17, 2008
My point earlier in
#57 from TOC at 5:06 am on Jun 17, 2008
Was not an accusation against any posters but a political one. We are in an election. the idea of wasting time painting Obama a radical Marxist is just not going to sell.
The American mainstream will not see him that way whether he is or not. does anyone actually think that Americans will wake up one morning and say Obama is not fit to be president because of his associations, I think not. for 2 reasons.
1. Obama is right that the populace is fed up with Rovian Guilt by Association politics. Whispering campaigns and fear as a political motivator have come under the Law of Diminishing Returns. It is not effective and can easily be turned against its practitioners as seen in the coining of the verb to swiftboat.
2. Anything short of having pictures of Obama next to Stalin on the podium at May day parades isn't going to convince anyone of anything. All that it sounds like to the electorate is a fringe rant.
The Soviet Union is now a Criminocracy and China is a capitalist juggernaut. Not even they want leftists in power. So who is going to be scared by some rhetoric that a Democratic nominee is actually going to turn us into a socialist state.
The horse is dead. Why continue beating it.