Decadence And Dishonor

by hilzoy

James Fallows:

"In the short term, a worldwide financial panic and crisis. Just beyond that, the real economic and social problems that come when large numbers of people lose their jobs, their businesses, their investments, their homes, and even larger numbers become fearful about what might happen to them. And then, when we get a minute to think, profound global energy and environmental challenges, security concerns that range from loose nukes to terrorist organizations, plus a couple of ongoing wars and ever-rising medical costs. Just as starters. The United States is still incredibly rich, powerful, and productive. But the current situation is no joke, for America or the world.

In these circumstances, and with a presidential election four weeks away, is it conceivable that candidates will waste time arguing whether one of them has been in the same room with a guy who had been a violent extremist at a time before most of today's U.S. citizens were even born? (William Ayres was a Weatherman in the late 1960s. Today's median-aged American was born around 1972.) Of course, it's not only conceivable: it's the Republican plan for this final push -- "turning the page" on economic concerns and getting to these "character" and "association" questions about Barack Obama.

Grow up. If John McCain has a better set of plans to deal with the immediate crisis, and the medium-term real-economy fallout, and the real global problems of the era -- fine, let him win on those. But it is beneath the dignity he had as a Naval officer to wallow in this mindless BS. I will say nothing about the dignity of a candidate who repeatedly winks at the public, Hooters-waitress style. A great country acts great when it matters. This is a time when it matters -- for politicians in the points they raise, for journalists in the subjects they write about and the questions they ask of candidates. And, yes, for voters."

When I read the histories of great powers in decline, sometimes they manage it well. But much more often, they do not. And one of the common threads is this: that at a moment that seems self-evidently to be a real crisis for the nation, people who should know better continue to tear one another apart, fighting for some tiny scrap of advantage rather than thinking of their country. They cannot summon up the common decency, let alone the greatness, to respond to a crisis with the seriousness it requires.

We are in a crisis. People who want to divert our attention to questions like "just how close do you have to be to serve on the same board with someone", or describe candidates they oppose as "A Terrorist's Best Friend", rather than facing up to the challenges we actually face, reveal whether they actually put country first, or just say they do.

So do voters who allow themselves to be distracted by this sort of idiocy.

Comments

[Tony P.]

So do voters who allow themselves to be distracted by this sort of idiocy.

Hilzoy, that is the most unforgiving sentence I have ever seen you write. Good for you!

I positively seethe with goodwill toward our fellow citizens, myself, but I'm glad to see you inching toward the notion that some of them are (and how can I put this politely?) just as eager to consume slime as McCain is to feed it to them.

--TP

[Phoebe]

What dignity as a Naval officer?

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

This juxtaposition of news stories was pointed out by a commenter in one of the recent calculatedrisk threads:

October 6, 2008 - LOS ANGELES - An unemployed man with an advanced finance degree who was despondent over his own financial problems shot and killed his wife, three children, mother-in-law and then himself in an upscale home in a gated community, police said Monday. Officers found the bodies Monday morning after the wife failed to show up at a neighbor's home to go to work, Deputy Chief Michel Moore said. The deaths occurred sometime after Saturday evening.

mean while in other news

October 6, 2008 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Fuld received compensation valued at $22.1 million in 2007, a year in which the company weathered the subprime mortgage collapse better than its rivals. Apart from his 2007 compensation, Fuld realized about $40.3 million from exercising stock options and $26.5 million from vesting stock awards.

As the Supreme Court once said, I may not be able to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. This is obscene.

One of the candidates has spoken to my hopes and dreams and fears in such a way that I (perhaps naively) think that he will do something to help us work together to bring about a future where obscenities like this are a shameful aberration rather than something which seems like a sign of the times and all too predictable at that.

The other candidate, if he harbors any such ambition, has done nothing to advertise the idea. He has chosen instead to fiddle while Rome burns.

In due time history will render a verdict on this choice. I will render mine on Oct 18th when early voting in my state begins.

[Mike Schilling]

Apart from his 2007 compensation, Fuld realized about $40.3 million from exercising stock options and $26.5 million from vesting stock awards.

I hope the SOB held on to every $&#*ing share.

[Brett Bellmore]

"is it conceivable that candidates will waste time arguing whether one of them has been in the same room with a guy who had been a violent extremist at a time before most of today's U.S. citizens were even born?"

No, not really, and of course, they're not. But I suppose I can understand why Obama partisans would like people to believe his connection to Ayers goes no deeper than having been in the same room with him once in a long while.

[Jesurgislac]

Brett: But I suppose I can understand why Obama partisans would like people to believe his connection to Ayers goes no deeper than having been in the same room with him once in a long while.

Nice piece of backhanded slander you've got there, Brett. Make it yourself, or did you buy it somewhere?

[bobbyp]

Nice piece of backhanded slander you've got there, Brett. Make it yourself, or did you buy it somewhere?

Once you realize that the wingnut noise machine consists of a jerry rigged system of cronyism, backscratching, and rampant nepotism supported by the earnings of vast pockets of inherited wealth, you come to understand the essence of socialism for the rich.

It was handed to him for free.

[bobbyp]

A good inferential case can be made that John McCain is exhibiting the classic symptoms of the onset of terminal syphlis. An admitted philanderer and skirt chaser, there is a good possibility he could have been infected years ago.

Thus, to paraphrase Brett B., "I suppose I can understand why McCain partisans would like people to believe his connection to syphlis goes no deeper than having been in bed engaging in unprotected sex (he is a gambler after all) with many partners over the years."

See how easy this is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nice piece of dishonest whitewashing, pretending that Obama is accused of "being in the same room with" Ayers, rather than of having a longstanding working relationship with him.

It's a form of defense we've seen before: Step one is to mis-state the accusation being leveled, (Blow job rather than perjury before a grand jury, say.) pretend it's something trivial. Step two is to ridicule the people leveling the accusation for bringing such a trivial charge.

The 'clever' this about this, of course, is that this kind of defense is in no way reliant on the accusation being untrue.

Now, it's quite possible that Fallows is resorting to this tactic merely because it's so convenient, rather than because he thinks Obama is actually best buds with Ayers, and only dishonest defenses are available. But I kind of doubt it; People tend to use honest approaches to debunking charges they honestly think untrue.

If you want to honestly defend somebody against a charge, even a charge you think unjust, you need to defend them against the charge actually leveled. And Obama is NOT being accused of having been in the same room with Ayers.

And this is the case whether or not the accusations have any merit.

[Brett Bellmore]

To give an example, let us suppose that Democrats accused McCain of having Syphilis. And I were to mock them for caring whether or not he had the common cold.

That's about what Fallows was doing here.

[Jesurgislac]

Blow job rather than perjury before a grand jury, say.) pretend it's something trivial. Step two is to ridicule the people leveling the accusation for bringing such a trivial charge.

Step one: pretend something trivial that a Democratic politician is accused of is actually a very big deal.

Step two: mention the Clenis!

Step three: engage in rage and self-pity.

[bobbyp]

People tend to use honest approaches to debunking charges they honestly think untrue.

Only in the case where the charge is deemed honest to begin with. You keep leaving out that step, and you bring absolutely no proof, relying instead on inference and innuendo.

Try using actual evidence for a change. It's refreshing.

This is argument by dishonesty.

[bobbyp]

To give an example, let us suppose that Democrats accused McCain of having Syphilis. And I were to mock them for caring whether or not he had the common cold.

Incorrect. You are supposed to argue that terminal syphis really doesn't matter. You're really missing something here.

[Gary Farber]

Fox News did a whole program on the crap that Brett believes. Quotes like this from a giant corporation are just the "liberal MSM":

[...] Various reports, including ones in The New York Times, have found no evidence that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers were particularly close, although they have had various points of contact. Mr. Ayers was host of an event for Mr. Obama early in his political career, they served together on a charitable board, and both worked on an educational project financed by the billionaire philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg.

But will Brett say exactly what more connection Ayers and Obama have, other than Scary Adjectives? Not possible. And no matter that this stuff is spread by this Jew-hater. Let's spread it some more! Let's baffle 'em with bullsh*t!

[DrDave]

If you want to honestly defend somebody against a charge, even a charge you think unjust, you need to defend them against the charge actually leveled. And Obama is NOT being accused of having been in the same room with Ayers.

Of course, there is little evidence that Obama and Ayers are more than peripheral acquaintances. At a time in Ayers' life when he is a respected member of his community.

But those attacking Obama are not interested in truthfully representing the context of their relationship, they are interested in SCARING voters about Obama's relationship with a terrorist.

I am heartened to see that the voters do not seem to be buying this load o' crap. We have seen it before, we recognize it for what it is and it reflects worse on McCain than it does on Obama.

[DrDave]

Geez, Gary, you beat me to the point by 2 minutes!

[Gary Farber]

"...rather than of having a longstanding working relationship with him."

If there were evidence of that, rather than hallucinations and hyperventilating, I'd think it would have come out by now.

But go ahead: present the evidence. Give us specific quotes supported by links to credible sources.

I'll wait right here.

[DecidedFenceSitter]

Why the hell not.

Brett - what specific issues do you have with Obama's association with Ayers?

Ayers was an English Professor / Education professor. He worked with Chicago Republicans, Democrats, and independents to craft legislation. At no time did the local folks use his past affiliations, as Ayers worked people from all parties on his education initiatives.

Or is the problem that Ayer did some really bad things. But what you would you have him do? NOT work to turn-around Chicago's school system?

To quote from the NPR Article:

Ayers became a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and became involved in the growing effort to reform Chicago's beleaguered public schools.

Walter Annenberg, a lifelong Republican and former ambassador who was appointed by Presidents Nixon and Reagan, funded an ambitious program to reform urban education in many cities in the mid 1990s. Ayers was an important member of the group that developed and wrote the grant proposal to the Annenberg Foundation.

Obama and Ayers attended at least six meetings together over six years, Annenberg Challenge records show, and those knowledgeable of the school reform group say it is likely there were other informal sessions of the group that they both attended. But no one on the board or on the Annenberg Challenge staff remembers Obama being any closer to Ayers than to any other member of the board. The Annenberg board also included several civic, business and education leaders, many of them Republicans.

Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone — including Republicans and Chicago's most powerful business leaders — to work with Ayers on Chicago's public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

Nelson says her fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought."

"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, "a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous."

So Brett, what exactly is the problem with Obama working with a man who is trying to improve a piss-poor school system?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that, rather than pretending that he was accused of something trivial.

I'm pointing out a dishonest tactic here, and I'm getting back what boils down to, "If I don't like the charge, I don't have to respond honestly to it."

This does not impress me.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But what you would you have him do? NOT work to turn-around Chicago's school system?"

Apologize? Say he was wrong? Be treated as somebody with dubious ethics by folks who don't sling bombs?

[cleek]

I'm pointing out a dishonest tactic here

now there's a knee-slapper!

[Gary Farber]

"Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that, rather than pretending that he was accused of something trivial."

Oh, jeebus, yes, everyone should be required to refute charges that are put forward with no evidence.

Keep trying to sell that logic, Brett. Don't give any affirmative evidence that there is any malevolent or deep connection between Ayers and Obama: just demand that said claims be refuted, and ignore the fact that you're not providing any evidence to be refuted.

Good one.

[Gary Farber]

But go ahead: present the evidence. Give us specific quotes supported by links to credible sources.

I'll wait right here.

Still waiting.

[bobbyp]

"Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that..."

Wow. A makes charge. B says charge is false. A says B should refute the charge, and to do otherwise is prima facie evidence of guilt.

Maybe those late 17th century prosecutors in Salem and Joe McCarthy were right after all. Who new?

[bobbyp]

I should think John McCain should apologize for having syphlis and hanging out with people like the unrepentant felon G. Gordon Liddy.

Brett: Please refute the charge that McCain has syphlis.

[Grover Gardner]

"Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that, rather than pretending that he was accused of something trivial."

Well, what was that long thingy made up of words that someone just posted? Do you have a response, Brett?

I mean, how many times do you have to quote respectable people from Chicago's political and educational circles saying that no one there was concerned about Bill Ayers' past, or that Obama didn't really see much of Ayers outside of the occasional board meeting or political mixer? What kind of "proof" are you looking for? Is there anything anyone could say that would serve as an adequate "refutation"?

And, just for the heck of it, what exactly is your problem with Obama's association with Ayers?

[bobbyp]

Brett: "Apologize? Say he was wrong? Be treated as somebody with dubious ethics by folks who don't sling bombs?"

I must have missed the apologies from Nixon and Kissinger. Or Wallace and Thurmond. Alas, examples are just too many.....and the order has to be correct. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Bill Clinton have to apologize first..Hitler maybe sometime later when we can work him into the program.

[bobbyp]

"This does not impress me."

Now there is some ironclad logic at work. I am impressed.

[Davebo]

Are we ready to hear Brett provide proof that he doesn't have sex with goats while beating his wife and children yet?

[Jesurgislac]

Brett: Apologize? Say he [Ayers] was wrong? Be treated as somebody with dubious ethics by folks who don't sling bombs?

The problem is, Brett, Ayers/the Weatherman was opposing "folks who sling bombs", too.

From 1964 to 1973, the US dropped more than two million tons of ordnance over Laos during 580,000 bombing missions. No one was at the trouble of estimating how many people these bombing missions killed, civilians and citizens of a country which had not threatened or attacked the US, but it may well have been in the millions. The ordnance dropped included 90 million cluster bombs, which went on killing Laos civilians - mostly children - for long after the war was over for the US. The bomb planted by the Weathermen on March 1, 1971 in the United States Capital "in protest of the US invasion of Laos" killed no one - just like most of the bombs the Weathermen set.

If you want Ayers to apologize/say he was wrong, because slinging bombs is "dubious ethics", then every single person involved in bombing of Laos also needs to apologize and say they were wrong. And since they actually killed people, they should do it first.

But in any case, as noted above: this has nothing to do with Obama, who was 9 years old on March 1 1971.

John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over Vietnam. He's also a "bomb slinger", therefore by your standard a person of "dubious ethics", and the count of people he killed - both in the US Forrestal fire and in Vietnam - is certainly far, far higher than Bill Ayers.

Going to ask McCain to apologize and admit he was wrong, Brett?

[MattinPA]

Is it oversimplifying or redundant (it's early yet) to ask if the refutation being demanded doesn't involve proving a negative? Must Obama prove he has never, ever said, done, or thought anything that involves more than casual acquaintance? Isn't that a little bit impossible? Sheesh.

[Ryan]

"Apologize? Say he was wrong? Be treated as somebody with dubious ethics by folks who don't sling bombs?"

And if Ayres were running for president, you might just have a case against voting for him.

[Jesurgislac]

More than that, MattinPA: it's like the meme "Obama is a Muslim!" It's perfectly fine to say that no, he's really not: but it's also necessary to point out that in the US Constitution it is explicitly stated that a person's religion or lack of it cannot be used as a bar to taking office, and it is the people who repeat "he's a Muslim!" as if that should make a difference, who are being dirty stinking unAmerican traitors for doing so.

The Weathermen's tactics were - with the distance of time - not helpful to the anti-war movement. I do not myself support - ever - leaving bombs as a "message", because it's a "message" that can kill. But there is no doubt that, between John McCain and Bill Ayers, which is the man of superior moral stature.

[Phil]

Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that, rather than pretending that he was accused of something trivial.

For someone who claims to be more than casually acquainted with logic, science and the like, you have somehow managed to get this exactly backwards. Here, I can help:

Well, if you're right, and the relationship between Obama and Ayers was more than trivial in nature, then you ought to be able to prove the claim that it went deeper than that, rather than asking people to refute unpresented evidence.

Meanwhile, since McCain/Palin have decided to go with this strategy -- and the Brett Bellmores of the world are eating it up, yum yum!! -- the media is finally saying, "Hey, what about John McCain's past, anyway?"

[russell]

But I suppose I can understand why Obama partisans would like people to believe his connection to Ayers goes no deeper than having been in the same room with him once in a long while.

OK Brett, here is your chance to step up.

Explain to me the nature of the relationship between Obama and Ayers, and why I should not support him because of that.

If your explanation is "Ayers is a piece of sh*t and Obama should have thrown his drink in his face and kicked him out of the room", that's actually fine with me. I won't necessarily agree, but I'll know what the f*ck you're talking about.

If you can't go that far, but can only continue to bust everyone else's chops for not being disturbed by this mysterious "association", then I will ask you, politely and with all due respect, to STFU on this topic.

Because if you can't do that, you are full of sh*t.

Sorry for the strong language.

Over to you.

Thanks -

[freelunch]

Brett, it is up to you to back up your scurrious claim. Obama supporters don't have time to track down every lie Republicans tell about him. Since you have no evidence at all to back up your allegation, why don't you stop with the defamation.

McCain, however, we can tell the truth about. He worked for a convicted felon with ties to organized crime as he was making connections to get his political career started.

[cleek]

on the other hand, the AP says :

GOP presidential nominee John McCain has past connections to a private group that supplied aid to guerrillas seeking to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.

McCain's ties are facing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Barack Obama for his link to a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe.

The council's founder, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain was launching his political career in Arizona. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member in the group.

"McCain was a new guy on the block learning the ropes," Singlaub told The Associated Press in an interview. "I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman. We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out. It looks good to have names on a letterhead who are well-known and appreciated.

"I don't recall talking to McCain at all on the work of the group," Singlaub said.

it ain't much. but it's more than anyone has on an Obama/Ayers connection. i'm sure Brett's busy trolling righty blogs with this info right now - which is why we haven't seen him offer any evidence to back up his claims against Obama.

[Andrew]

This is familiar right-wing territory; note that this is similar to how intelligent design proponents argue, i.e., claim that evolution is 'wrong' or 'is just a theory', or 'has not been proven'. When the real guys step in to specifically refute these claims, these denialists then majestically proclaim that 'the arguments are unconvincing' (making a hash of the burden-of-proof requirements), then say that since 'evolution is wrong', ID is right.
Let everyone else do the heavy lifting while they sit back insist no one has made a sufficient case.

[Nell]

Brett: you ought to be able to refute the claim that it went deeper than that

Cleek just did. Now suppose you actually directly make the charge of how Obama's relationship with Ayers went deeper than serving on a board and attending a meeting at his house.

[KCinDC]

I don't think it's reasonable to say that someone can't be expected to apologize or repent until everyone who's done worse things apologizes or repents.

But of course whether Ayers has repented or not is irrelevant to Obama's fitness to be president.

[KCinDC]

but it's also necessary to point out that in the US Constitution it is explicitly stated that a person's religion or lack of it cannot be used as a bar to taking office

The Constitution says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's not the same as saying that people can't consider a candidate's religious beliefs when voting.

If I knew that a candidate believed the world was going to end soon, especially if he also believed he was supposed to play a part in ending it -- say, by starting an apocalyptic war in the Middle East -- it would not be a violation of the Constitution for me to take that into account. There are plenty of other religious beliefs (Sc**ntology, for example) that I might consider relevant.

People who would refuse to vote for a (mainstream) Muslim may be wrong, and may be bigoted, but they're not acting unconstitutionally.

[Jay C]

"If your explanation is "Ayers is a piece of sh*t and Obama should have thrown his drink in his face and kicked him out of the room", that's actually fine with me. I won't necessarily agree, but I'll know what the f*ck you're talking about."

Of course, it would be nice for Brett Bellmore to answer for himself (and explain why "proof" of the Obama/Ayers "relationship" is incumbent on defenders against a smear to provide); but it seems that russell's example IS the preferred response - I have seen variations on this on numerous blogs this campaign.

In other words, Sen. Obama's main sin in re Bill Ayers is Failure To Denounce - up to the standards Brett and other GOP partisans demand. And of course, being GOP partisans/ideologues, NO level of formal Denunciation (on the part of Democrats or liberals, anyway) can or will ever be sufficent. QED: Obama doesn't Apologize and Denounce to their satisfaction, he's a terror-symp, and unworthy. If he DOES, then he's still suspect for past associations (and Failure To Denounce) - and thus, unworthy.

A nice tidy argument: circular, self-proving; and proof-free. Pefect for today's Republicans. QED.

[rea]

And, just for the heck of it, what exactly is your problem with Obama's association with Ayers?

As an antiwar lefty at the time, I considered the likes of Ayers and Dohrn to be ridiculous grandstanders, doing more harm to the cause than good, and endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

But you know, if you're a criminal and repent of it, what ought you to do? Surrender to the authorities, take the punishment imposed by the legal system, and devote the rest of your life to good works, like helping children? Of course, that's exactly what Ayers and Dohrn did.

If you are a serious Christian, and particularly if you are John McCain, whose official story is that he was naively wrong to help Charles Keating, but that he eventually recognized that he had done wrong and redeemed himself by spending years working for reform, you ought to have some trouble rejecting Ayers' and Dohrn's sin-and-redemption narrative.

[rea]

And, just for the heck of it, what exactly is your problem with Obama's association with Ayers?

As an antiwar lefty at the time, I considered the likes of Ayers and Dohrn to be ridiculous grandstanders, doing more harm to the cause than good, and endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

But you know, if you're a criminal and repent of it, what ought you to do? Surrender to the authorities, take the punishment imposed by the legal system, and devote the rest of your life to good works, like helping children? Of course, that's exactly what Ayers and Dohrn did.

If you are a serious Christian, and particularly if you are John McCain, whose official story is that he was naively wrong to help Charles Keating, but that he eventually recognized that he had done wrong and redeemed himself by spending years working for reform, you ought to have some trouble rejecting Ayers' and Dohrn's sin-and-redemption narrative.

[gwangung]

Brett, I'm VERY disappointed in you.

You're repeating a lie. What's the lie? The lie is that Ayers only had ties to Obama.

If you're going to think that Ayers tainted Obama, then you MUST also think that Ayers tainted the other people on that board. Including the Orrin Hatch supporter and the Presbyterean seminary president.

As well, the Woods Fund has $50 million in assets and $5 million in distributions and grants each year. Are you also going to consider those grants "tainted"? Because you don't grow a fund to that size without some pretty mainstream investment and thinking....

Frankly, I consider such thinking to be lazy in the extreme and negligent in doing your homework.

[OCSteve]

Just to offer some degree of support to Brett – there was a segment on CNN (AC360) just last night. The gist was that the ties were a lot closer than claimed by the campaign. (DREW GRIFFIN, about halfway down.) It has RW bloggers all excited this morning…

I don’t know if it made the case or not, I think it likely depends on what you’re predisposed to believe. Stanley Kurtz is interviewed so I guess that will allow many here to just dismiss it.

I mean, how many times do you have to quote respectable people from Chicago's political and educational circles saying that no one there was concerned about Bill Ayers' past…

I’m less disturbed by their paths crossing than I am the current attempts to rehabilitate Ayers. (Not by Obama so much as by his supporters.)

This is pretty creepy IMO:

We write to support our colleague Professor William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who is currently under determined and sustained political attack. Ayers is a nationally known scholar, member of the Faculty Senate at UIC, Vice President-elect of the American Educational Research Association, and sought after as a speaker and visiting scholar by other universities because of his exemplary scholarship, teaching, and service.
…
All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted.
…
The current characterizations of Professor Ayers---“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”---are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans. His participation in political activity 40 years ago is history; what is most relevant now is his continued engagement in progressive causes, and his exemplary contribution---including publishing 16 books--- to the field of education.
…
We oppose the demonization of Professor William Ayers.

“challenge orthodoxy”? “be skeptical of authoritative claims”?

“participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s”?

More than 600 educators have signed that so far. Sounds like he should get a national teaching award of some kind…

rea: But you know, if you're a criminal and repent of it, what ought you to do? Surrender to the authorities, take the punishment imposed by the legal system, and devote the rest of your life to good works, like helping children? Of course, that's exactly what Ayers and Dohrn did.

I don’t think that really fits what happened in this case. There was no repentance at all and no punishment due to prosecutorial misconduct.

[gwangung]

I don’t think that really fits what happened in this case. There was no repentance at all and no punishment due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Actually, I'm not so sure of that. From what I read, he certainly doesn't repent of his opposition to the war. But I don't think he was for killing or injuring people.

[gwangung]

By the way, Ayers HAS been awarded national teaching awards...

[Jesurgislac]

rea: As an antiwar lefty at the time, I considered the likes of Ayers and Dohrn to be ridiculous grandstanders, doing more harm to the cause than good, and endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

Yeah. But, again: by the time Obama was 14, the Weathermen no longer existed as an active organisation.

The notion that Obama can be "linked" to this organisation, as I see OCSteve has come up with - "The gist was that the ties were a lot closer than claimed by the campaign" - yeah, right, Steve: at a time when Obama was going to grade school in Indonesia, or high school in Hawai'i, someone's going to show he had "ties" to Bill Ayers?

[wonkie]

Given the level of hate McCAin and Palin are kicking up it will be extraordinary if one of thier supporters doesn't try to kill Obama.

There was an article about Palin in TNR's blog yesterday. The jist of it is that Palin is one of those people who processes the information which effects her world view primarily through her emotions rather than through reason or logic. It isn't just that facts are unimportant to her. Facts which run counter to her beliefs are a threat to her. Logica nad reason are threats to her. Anyone who disagrees by presenting a reasonable argument based on facts is athreat to her. Part of her problem is unbridled narcissism, of course, but part of her problem is that, for her, reality is the beliefs inside her head and anything that that countradicts that reality is wrong, bad, evil, snobbish, intended to demean her. That's the way the article discribes her thought processes on matters relating to politics.

It seems like a pretty good discription of the thought processes of people who manage to convince themselves that it is beter to vote for McCain than Obama. Not the narcissism part, the I-believe-what-I-want-because-I-want-to-and-facts-don't-matter pattern. That's what ken and Brett exhibit.

On POlitical Animal there is a scarey summary of the behavior of McCAin/Palin supporters: shouting "Kill him",and "terrorist", overt racism toward a black camera man, threats of violence toward a reporter.

McCain and Palin have made it obvious that the Republican party represents the dittoheads of our nation.

[...now I try to be amused]

Returning to the subject of the post, much is explained by the Iron Law of Institutions:

The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution. This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.

[jonnybutter]

there was a segment on CNN (AC360) just last night. The gist was that the ties were a lot closer than claimed by the campaign.

I had the misfortune to see that CNN piece. There was no substance there. I do indeed dismiss the piece, both because there really was no substance and because Kurtz was the 'authority' interviewed. The function of the piece is to show that this 'issue' is 'out there', since it's on CNN....

What does any of this have to do with Obama? Ayres is a very prominent figure in Chicago education circles. Just about everybody on the dem side of the 'aisle' (including the Mayor) ends up having some sort of tangential association with him. This is pathetic, oc. I expect this sort of silly frothing from our resident authoro-libertarian Brett, but am surprised at you.

Since your only point is Ayres being 'unrepentant', please asnwer this: If Ayres had publically repented in the most self-flagellating, humiliating way, would that make this 'issue' go away? Of course not. There *is* no issue to go away.

[wonkie]

From Dana Milbanks:

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

Dana thinkstht it worse that palin is unleashing this sort of thing on the press than on Obama. But that's a sidenote.

I wish to restate part of my previous comment. In the previous comment the way I phrased myself it reads that I think every Republican is as anti-rational and emotionally committed to the maintainence of an inner reality as palin and her loonier supporters.

.

I wish to modify it: not all Republicans.

Not all Republicans are people who hate everyone else and regard everyone and everthing as a threat to their identity.

However, since we are discussing guilt by association: if Obama is guilty by association with Ayers than isn't every Republican guilty by association with palin and the extremists amongst her audience?

I know that I would be embarrassed as hell if a Democratic candidate was promoting that sort of behavior and getting that sort of support. After all the association, if one wishes to call it that, betwen obama nd Ayers concerned education and other noncontroversial matters, not his previous life as an inept and ineffectual bomber. On the other hand anyone who votes for McCAin/Palin is voting for Rush Limbaugh tactics and associating with haters right now while tht hating annd hate-promotion is ging on.

[rea]

There was no repentance at all and no punishment due to prosecutorial misconduct.

(1) Ayers and Dohrn had no means of knowing the outcome of their cases when they surrendered. Dohrn was, in fact, convicted of aggravated assault, and served some jail time.

(2) They've repudiated violence, although not their opposition to the war. Some people on the right have tried the usual quibbles and distortions to make it seem like Ayers has left loopholes indicating that he might still support violence. But of course, actions speak louder than words, and Ayers and Dohrn haven't engaged in violence for decades

[wonkie]

Hae Palin repudiated the man who shouted "Kill Obama" at her rally? Has the RNC repudiated the uses of Limbaugh rhetroic and tactics by McCAin? Has McCain repudiated those who call Obama a terrorist?

I've been arging with myself about the degree of culpability Republican voters have for the public displays of hateful behavior by other Repubicans and I think on the whole that anyone who votes Repubican is guilty by association of being a supporter of extremism.

!. palin and McCain are using hate-promition rhetoric. It isn;'t possible to vote for them without voting for their rhetoric.

2. They ahve extremist haters in their audiences because those people are attracted by the hateful rhetoric. So the person who votes for mcCAin but says "I'm not like those nuts over there" is rationalizing. Maybe they are exactly like the nuts over there--but they are voting to empower the leader of the nuts, thus empowering the nuts themselves.

3. All of this is happening right now. It's not like deciding thrity years after the fact that McCAin was right on this issue or that. He's getting support now for nefarious behavior now.

Obama on the other hand only had a periferal relationship with Ayers on matters that were socially acceptable. So he isn't guilty by assocaiton. he didn't support directly or indirectly Ayers's past behavior.

So I've talked myself intoit: current Repubican voters are in my opinion guilty by association with McCAin/Palin and the nutcase to whom they are pitcing their campaign message.

[russell]

For the benefit of OC and brett, and since I've asked brett to explain to us all what his problem is, here's my point of view.

As best as I can make out, Ayers participated directly in setting bombs in NYC police HQ, the US Capitol building, and the Pentagon. Close friends, including his girlfriend at the time, were killed in the process of assembling a nail bomb, which is clearly an anti-personnel bomb. In other words, the intent was to kill and maim people.

He went underground, and eventually surrendered to authorities, but not until after federal charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.

The man is a former domestic terrorist, plain and simple. He has expressed regret for the violent actions he participated in, but I'm not sure he's ever actually come out and said that participating in bombings was not just regrettable, but WRONG.

Apparently, he's done good things since then. That's great.

Obama's connection to Ayers appears to be the following:

Ayers and Obama met to discuss school reform, and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Project.
Ayers and Obama both served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which met 12 times between 2000 and 2002.
Ayers hosted a coffee party to launch Obama's campaign for state office, and contributed $200 to his re-election campaign.

Presumably, they've met on other occasions.

That's all there is, as far as I can tell.

I have no high opinion of Ayers, but here is why Obama's association with him does not bother me.

It is the nature of public life, and political life especially, that you are frequently required to work with people you disagree with and may not even like. That is because you are not acting as a private individual. You are acting on behalf of others.

If everyone in public life threw their drink in the face of everyone else they disagreed with, disapproved of, or just plain disliked, the wheels of government would grind to a halt, and the floors of our public institutions would be littered with puddles of melting ice.

If you're working in public life, you don't often get to pick who you sit across the table from.

I have no idea of Obama likes Ayers, dislikes Ayers, or has no personal opinion of Ayers. He has publicly, and repeatedly, stated that he DOES NOT APPROVE of the radical, violent actions of Ayers past.

Obama has exactly zero influence over or input into the fact that Ayers never went to jail, that he is politically active in Chicago, or that they have some common political interests. Apparently, Ayers comes with the territory if you are in public life in Chicago, so he and Obama have worked together on issues of common interest.

That may not suffice for either OC or brett, and that is their prerogative. It suffices for me.

The most long-lived, prominent domestic terrorist group in this country is the KKK. If you like, we can go through government with a fine toothed comb and weed out every individual who has ever been in the KKK, associated with someone in the KKK, spoken to groups that support the KKK, who has otherwise given aid and comfort of any kind to the KKK, or who in turn has received any form of support from the KKK or anyone in it.

Start with Robert Byrd if you like, I'm a bi-partisan anti-racist.

The nation will grind to halt.

Maybe that seems like a good thing in a way, but in real life it's not very practical.

If you want ideological purity of the kind you seem to be calling for in public servants, public life will basically come to a halt.

I can understand perfectly well why you might find Ayers to be a despicable guy. His resume certainly sucks. I don't know him, so I can't speak to what he's like now.

What, in any realistic, real world sense, that has to do with Obama, simply escapes me.

Thanks -

[jonnybutter]

[Dohrn and Ayres] repudiated violence, although not their opposition to the war.

Ah, but you see, it's not abject enough, not *Oprah* enough. Did they appear on tv and CRY? Did they?! NO. Did they polarize into their opposites (a la Jerry Rubin and millions of other exponents of the Worst Generation)? NO. Ergo, Obama is not qualified to lead. Makes perfect sense.

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I hate, hate, hate the Weather Underground. I loathe their tactics -- and note, the part about not targeting people, iirc, came after the time some of them blew themselves up by accident, when they were preparing to bomb actual people. I also think that they had one of the stupidest takes on the political world, and how one should act in it, in recent history, and that while a certain level of stupidity is part of the human condition in which we all share (I certainly do), there's a level of idiocy that's culpable. I would not excuse Osama bin Laden if it turned out, is it might, that he thought that 9/11 was genuinely necessary to bring about heaven on earth. I do not excuse members of the Weather Underground for thinking that somehow, by some mechanism that is wholly mysterious, bombing stuff would bring on a revolution, end the war, etc.

I mean, this sort of thing is like the Underpants Gnome theory of politics. (1) Blow stuff up; (2) ??? (3) Utopia!!

By the same token, I would not sign a petition in support of Ayers, unless it was protesting a specific misrepresentation that was demonstrably false. I mean: I want to protest untruths generally, whether or not I care for the person they are about. I also hope that Ayers has somehow learned something, and so forth. I do not wish him ill. But neither is he on my list of people I want to go out of my way to help out.

As regards that particular statement: "Participated passionately" indeed. I mean, that's probably true -- he certainly participated, and I'm sure he was passionate about it -- but it's not the salient point about his record in the 70s. It's like describing a bank robber as "trying to achieve the American Dream" -- probably true, but it leaves a whole lot out.

That said: Howard Kurtz is, on this stuff, not particularly credible. And in the CNN piece, I didn't see anything that went beyond the facts we already know, namely: he served with Ayers on the Woods board and the Annenberg Challenge, there was the fundraiser in 1995? 1996?, and they live in the same neighborhood. Oh, and iirc there was a $200 contribution, or something.

I do not, myself, regard this as a huge level of personal involvement. I also don't see what its conclusion is supposed to be. I mean, I have read some stories where the idea seems to be that Obama is a stealth Marxist, but that's ludicrous. I have seen others where the idea is that being on a board with someone means that you share their views, which is also ludicrous. (I hope so; I have served on boards with, well, racists. Note: I resigned for related reasons, but it wasn't because there were people on the board whose views I strongly disagreed with, but because it became clear to me that I could not, serving on that board, avoid dealing with, patronizing, etc., a community that, I learned after a couple of years, wasn't just all white (and all non-Jew, etc.) by accident, or even "accident", but as a result of serious efforts to evade fair housing laws and the like.)

Moreover: normally, when you decide to serve on a board, or to take a job like the Annenberg job, the operative question is: is this organization, and the project I'm asked to work on, a good one? And can I contribute to it in some way? If people you wildly disagree with are on the board, in some ways that's all to the good: diverse support for a good project is a good thing, plus you get the opportunity to try to change people's minds. :) Certainly, I thought that the fact that the board I was on had both me and absolutely rock-ribbed Republicans was a good thing; but there I was thinking, as one does, of the organization, not of my political purity.

Which is all to say: meh. I don't see any there there.

[hilzoy]

I didn't mean Howard Kurtz, did I? The other one. The NRO guy who was telling us for ages that his inability to get into private archives meant that they contained a Deep Dark Secret, only to, um, not find one.

[Turbulence]

Can we please stop pretending that killing innocent civilians in order to advance political goals is wrong? I mean, no one actually believes that, do they? If we as a society really believed that, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't send our military to besiege countries like Iraq until their populations changed their government. Maybe I'm slow, but it seems like threatening to kill civilians unless they make different political decisions is indistinguishable from what Ayers and friends did. I know it hurts when people treat Americans the way we treat other people in the world, but, um, I don't really care.

[Jesurgislac]

Hilzoy, I think non-violent direct action is a much better method of change - more effective and more ethically preferable.

But my opinion of the Weather Underground is probably more than slightly affected by the fact that compared to the IRA or the Loyalists, they didn't do much to any damage - either to themselves or to anyone else.

In fact, compared to the pro-life terrorists, what the Weather Underground did was trivial. Compared to the anti-Castro terrorists, compared to the KKK, compared to virtually any other terorist movement either funded by or active in the US, the Weather Underground were nothing much. McCain killed far more Americans on the USS Forrestal than the whole Weather Underground all put together ever did. But they were left-wing. Which is why association with them - even in such a tenuous form as "Years afterwards Bill Ayers is active in Chicago community politics at the same time as Barack Obama was" is so damning to the Republicans and to the mainstream media, who don't find McCain's far closer association with right-wing terrorists even matter for comment, let alone condemnation.

[Jesurgislac]

Turbulence:

Brett says he does, but I'm still waiting for his condemnation of McCain as a "bomb slinger".

[Turbulence]

McCain killed far more Americans on the USS Forrestal than the whole Weather Underground all put together ever did.

WTF? What are you talking about?

[LT Nixon]

killed far more Americans on the USS Forrestal

Are you talking about the fire or sorties he flew off the Forrestal?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now suppose you actually directly make the charge of how Obama's relationship with Ayers went deeper than serving on a board and attending a meeting at his house."

You see, we've already moved up from "were in the same room together.", which was the misrepresentation I objected to.

[Eric Martin]

I didn't mean Howard Kurtz, did I?

Stanley.

[jonnybutter]

It is the nature of public life, and political life especially, that you are frequently required to work with people you disagree with and may not even like.

Russell makes what should be an obvious point - a veto of this ridiculous 'issue'. The implication of the Ayres Logic is oddly similar to some conservatives' view of diplomacy: you are 'rewarding' someone if you talk to them. The upthread-mentioned silence about McCain's and other Republican's associations - arguably more unsavory - tells us that this principle only obtains when dealing with a political opponent, not with one's self.

As Hilzoy notes, there was nothing new in the CNN report, execpt its own frame; its purpose was entirely self-fulfilling. Since the often laughably mindless CNN did a report, the issue is Out There. CNN is mostly the product of the monkey part of the brain operating. So is this Ayres 'issue'.

[gwangung]

You see, we've already moved up from "were in the same room together.", which was the misrepresentation I objected to.

No, we haven't.

And where is your evidence? Hasn't this been asked three or four times already?

[dmbeaster]

The Ayers smear has all of the substance of "inquiring minds want to know." It is as if Ayers is a leper, and anyone who breathed his air may be one too.

There are countless instances of reformed felons subsequently involving themselves in community projects for the greater good. Ayers falls into that category, even though he was never actually convicted of his crimes. The Bretts of the world would prevent them from performing that function, since everyone else must absolutely shun them.

[radish]

Actually, I think "just how close do you have to be to serve on the same board with someone" is a pretty reasonable question to ask. What's not clear is why anybody thinks the nature of the Obama/Ayers relationship in particular hasn't already been adequately addressed.

Mind you, I find it puzzling that anybody with any real power would want to make it an issue in the first place, since it's practically guaranteed to turn around and bite them in the butt. I can see how regular citizens might benefit from knowing who-all is friends with whom on the boards of which major companies, but why somebody in the Senate would want to talk about that is beyond me.

Off-topic, TLTinABQ, I see Professor Krugman has endorsed the "liquidity as efficient conductor of risk" hypothesis. :-)

[gwangung]

I can see how regular citizens might benefit from knowing who-all is friends with whom on the boards of which major companies,

FYI, there's a tool out there called Board Ex that does this.

[Gary Farber]

"There was an article about Palin in TNR's blog yesterday."

Which I linked to here, the link I already gave above more than once.

[AndyK]

>Close friends, including his girlfriend at the time, were killed in the process of assembling a nail bomb, which is clearly an anti-personnel bomb. In other words, the intent was to kill and maim people.

Russell, whence comes this "nail bomb" thing? I don't remember it from the time; I don't think I ever heard it mentioned until the last 48 hours or so; and it really would be counter to Weatherman practice. I.e., to inflict property damage and to try *not* to cause human casualties (including, in at least some cases, phoning in warnings in time for evacuation).

None of what I'm saying should be construed as supporting or defending various Weather atrocities; nor do I think that lack of intent is an excuse for needless "collateral damage" (either in 1970 or in Afghanistan today).

I just really want to know if the idea that the townhouse explosion involved an anti-personnel bomb has any evidence; and, if so, when it became known; and, if it was only recently, whether or not it was a little embellishment somebody put out there to demonize a group that really don't have to be further demonized.

This all may be the result of my faulty memory, and, if so, I apologize and ask that everyone just carry on.

[Gary Farber]

"There was no repentance at all and no punishment due to prosecutorial misconduct."

This is what comes of listening to Stanley Kurtz and the echo chamber. Back in the real world:

[...] Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"[18]

[...]

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[19] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[14] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[20]

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[21] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[21][22]

The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "[14] "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[2] In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". 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."[23]

[...]

"The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

You don't have to agree with any of his opinions, but please don't pass on lies about what his opinions are, just because some nutbar in a right-wing magazine or website or blog has said them. Thanks.

[KCinDC]

I'd caution against using Wikipedia as a source for anything related to current blog frenzies. Articles like those for Bill Ayers and Gwen Ifill and Barney Frank are in a constant state of flux as various partisans attempt to push in or keep out the latest talking points. (And something similar has been happening with Sarah Palin's article.) The references linked in a Wikipedia article are the sources to quote.

[Jeff]

More than 600 educators have signed that so far.

But I guess Steve and Brett know Ayers better than they do. Either they are heavily into Chicago politics, especially in regards to education or Brett (and Steve by referencing Kurtz) are blowing it out their @$$.

Obama met a few times with a man who is well-respected across all strata of Chicago society -- this much is provable. So where's the story here?

[cleek]

So where's the story here?

there is no story. there's an easy-repeated smear, though!

[Gary Farber]

"Can we please stop pretending that killing innocent civilians in order to advance political goals is wrong? I mean, no one actually believes that, do they?"

Of course it's wrong. Yes, I believe it's wrong.

Do I believe that possibly sometimes the risk of killing civilians is worth achieving another goal? Yes. Do I believe that possibly sometimes the known fact that civilians would be killed is worth achieving another goal? Yes.

If dropping a bomb on the German Chancellory could have been done during WWII and it would have had a high degree of probability of killing Hitler, then I'm willing to live with the fact that it would have killed civilian employees.

And there are, of course, many lesser examples.

But that doesn't make wrong the general proposition that killing innocent civilians is wrong. It just means it's not the only wrong possible in the world, and the world being an imperfect thing, often one has to commit lesser wrongs, or balance wrongs.

[Gary Farber]

"McCain killed far more Americans on the USS Forrestal than the whole Weather Underground all put together ever did."

You're confused about that. Alternatively, could you please give a cite? Thanks.

"Are you talking about the fire or sorties he flew off the Forrestal?"

McCain was killing Americans on sorties attacking the Forrestal?

[Turbulence]

Do I believe that possibly sometimes the risk of killing civilians is worth achieving another goal? Yes. Do I believe that possibly sometimes the known fact that civilians would be killed is worth achieving another goal? Yes.

That's a very reasonable statement that I happen to agree with. But I'm not sure it is relevant to this thread. If the complaints about Ayers on this thread were phrased along the lines of "Ayers' actions killed far more people than the benefit he was trying to achieve -- therefore, Ayers was a monster", I think your statement would apply. But no one has said anything like that. Instead, various commenters have claimed that Obama should have minimized his association with Ayers simply because he used violence in the pursuit of political goals.

But hey, maybe you're right. Does anyone here who has been arguing that Ayers' connections with Obama are problematic care to specify a bright line rule for when exactly the use of violence to achieve political goals is wrong? Such a rule should be applicable both to Ayers and the US involvement in Vietnam or other conflicts...

[Gary Farber]

Hey, Brett:

But go ahead: present the evidence. Give us specific quotes supported by links to credible sources.

I'll wait right here.

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

Remember, you've asked people to refute the charge of Obama "having a longstanding working relationship with [Bill Ayers].

I asked you:

If there were evidence of that, rather than hallucinations and hyperventilating, I'd think it would have come out by now.

But go ahead: present the evidence. Give us specific quotes supported by links to credible sources.

Still waiting for those quotes and links, Brett.

Where are they?

Having any trouble with that?

[bc]

Great, I have to fact check Wikipedia now? And I thought that the Gray Lady . . . .

[Jesurgislac]

bc, what Wikipedia editors are great at doing is pulling together large numbers of online resources. When a wiki article asserts a fact, check the reference that backs up this fact. If the reference is reliable, you're probably OK.

[Donald Johnson]

Bob Dole advocated support for Renamo back in the late 80's--if I had time I'd go hunt down links at the Washington Post from that period. Renamo was so bloodthirsty even the Reagan State Department compared them to the Khmer Rouge. (I'm not sure why they were so squeemish--Savimbi's bunch in Angola wasn't any better and for that matter, we indirectly supported the Khmer Rouge too, once they were out of power.)

I can't recall people in the mainstream getting upset over that back in 1996, and this was a real link between a Presidential candidate and a group which murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not some meaningless association like the one between Ayers and Obama.

[OCSteve]

Jonnybutter: I expect this sort of silly frothing from our resident authoro-libertarian Brett, but am surprised at you.

Frothing? Really? I pointed out the CNN piece because it was making the rounds on the right this morning but no one had yet mentioned it here. Given the Brett pile-on it seemed like a timely piece. I specifically said “I don’t know if it made the case or not, I think it likely depends on what you’re predisposed to believe.” From that you got “frothing” and Jes somehow got that I claimed it linked Obama to the Weathermen when he was a kid. Huh? The only thing I’ve ever said about Obama in relation to this is that I felt he needed to take more action to distance himself. (I said that months ago, and that if he didn’t distance himself from Ayers it would be back as an issue in the final weeks of the GE…)

What does any of this have to do with Obama? Ayres is a very prominent figure in Chicago education circles. Just about everybody on the dem side of the 'aisle' (including the Mayor) ends up having some sort of tangential association with him.

The second sentence answers the first. If Obama can’t be tied closely enough to Ayers, the new spin is to point out the political environment that he came from. Today’s theme is a variation on Obama is the product of a political environment wherein: “Ayres is a very prominent figure in Chicago education circles. Just about everybody on the dem side of the 'aisle' (including the Mayor) ends up having some sort of tangential association with him.”

rea: (1) Ayers and Dohrn had no means of knowing the outcome of their cases when they surrendered. Dohrn was, in fact, convicted of aggravated assault, and served some jail time.

Charges were dropped against Ayers in ’74. He surrendered in ’80 to face no charges…

(2) They've repudiated violence, although not their opposition to the war. Some people on the right have tried the usual quibbles and distortions to make it seem like Ayers has left loopholes indicating that he might still support violence. But of course, actions speak louder than words, and Ayers and Dohrn haven't engaged in violence for decades

2001:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said.
…
So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

I think we have different definitions of “repudiated”…

russell and hilzoy: Again, my issue with Obama where Ayers is concerned is just that I felt he should do more to distance himself long before now. This coming back up a few weeks before Election Day was not tough to see.

With Ayers himself, obviously I have larger issues.

Gary: You don't have to agree with any of his opinions, but please don't pass on lies about what his opinions are, just because some nutbar in a right-wing magazine or website or blog has said them.

From your quote and your cite:

The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[14] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[20]

You’ll have to explain to me how you can “not deny the quotes” and yet claim it was a “deliberate distortion”. The headline of the piece, other stuff she wrote – I’ll take his word that the article was distorted. He does not deny saying “I don't regret setting bombs” or “I don't want to discount the possibility” when asked if he would do it again.

I’m quite comfortable calling him an unrepentant terrorist.

[Turbulence]

The only thing I’ve ever said about Obama in relation to this is that I felt he needed to take more action to distance himself.

OCSteve, it would help if you would describe what specifically you think Obama should do to distance himself (or should have done and when you think he should have done it). He's repudiated Ayers' acts, so do you want him to strangle Ayers? Return his money? Admit that he should not have served on a board with Ayers and a bunch of prominent conservatives?

I said that months ago, and that if he didn’t distance himself from Ayers it would be back as an issue in the final weeks of the GE…)

Well, Obama distanced himself from Wright but the McCain campaign is still going to run with it...why do you think anything Obama did will compel the McCain campaign to act differently? I mean, if they're going to distort the truth ala their claims about bombing civilians in Afghanistan, why would a mere denunciation from Obama make them stop talking about Ayers?

[russell]

Russell, whence comes this "nail bomb" thing?

I got it from the Bill Ayers wiki article. It's in the "Years Underground" section.

The wiki article on the explosion itself also has it as a nail bomb.

This synopsis of Weathermen activity includes a NYT cite that also describes it as a nail bomb.

This TIME article names an officers' dance at Fort Dix as the intended target.

As does this NYT interview with Wilkerson.

The plan was pretty clearly to kill a lot of people.

I have no problem with folks who describe Ayers as a former domestic terrorist.

I only have a problem with people who make Ayers' history reflect negatively on Obama. There is no "there" there.

For good, bad, or indifferent, Ayers was never prosecuted, and went on to do what apparently are constructive things in education in the city of Chicago. He travels in liberal political circles.

Obama had nothing to do with any of that. It's just the ocean he swims in.

McCain has one too.

The 60's and early 70's were heady times, and it ain't just lefties with ghosts haunting their dreams. And the world is, sadly enough, full of folks who have blood on their hands, and yet manage to be invited to dinner parties everywhere.

On May 4, 1970, my wife was walking between classes at Kent State University in OH when some folks were shot dead. Ask her about domestic political violence.

The crazy hippies are all dead or in the hospital getting knee replacements. Nixon's dead.

Time to let that stuff go.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

2001:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said.
…
So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

Oh, for crissakes.

How many frigging times does this have to be repeated?

[Gary Farber]

You’ll have to explain to me how you can “not deny the quotes” and yet claim it was a “deliberate distortion”.

I don't understand what you don't understand. The quotes were a deliberate distortion by being taken out of context, as described: what part of this don't you understand?:

In the ensuing years, Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[21][22]

What don't you understand?

Want me to do the same thing to you? Fine.

At 4:27 p.m., OCSteve posted “I don't regret setting bombs....”

You did put that into print. How can you deny it? I even linked to your posting those words.

But by my quoting you, am I, you know, distorting what you meant by removing the context?

Or not?

"He does not deny saying 'I don't regret setting bombs'"

Yes.

He.

Does.

See above.

Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[21]

How many damn times do I have to repeat this? What part aren't you understanding? The NY Times piece in 2001 was wrong. Since when do you have trouble believing that the Times could get something wrong?

[gwangung]

Has anyone asked the folks in CHICAGO what they think? Specifically, how did a "radical" get $50 million from a REPUBLICAN funded foundation?

[russell]

Russell, whence comes this "nail bomb" thing?

I got it from the Bill Ayers wiki article. It's in the "Years Underground" section.

The wiki article on the explosion itself also has it as a nail bomb.

This synopsis of Weathermen activity includes a NYT cite that also describes it as a nail bomb.

Wait, there's more....

[gwangung]

You know, I've asked a lot of questions about how"radical" Ayers could be, when he got money from a Republican source, and that he was a well known figure in Chicago circles and that he had plenty of other people on the committees he served on with Ayers, people who stack up as pretty mainstream, but I haven't had any comments on that from folks who want to push the Ayers/Obama connection.

Just saying.

[russell]

This TIME article names an officers' dance at Fort Dix as the intended target.

As does this NYT interview with Wilkerson.

The plan was pretty clearly to kill a lot of people.

I have no problem with folks who describe Ayers as a former domestic terrorist.

I only have a problem with people who make Ayers' history reflect negatively on Obama. There is no "there" there.

For good, bad, or indifferent, Ayers was never prosecuted, and went on to do what apparently are constructive things in education in the city of Chicago. He travels in liberal political circles.

Obama had nothing to do with any of that. It's just the ocean he swims in.

McCain has an ocean like that, too.

The 60's and early 70's were heady times, and it ain't just lefties with ghosts haunting their dreams. And the world is, sadly enough, full of folks who have blood on their hands, and yet manage to be invited to dinner parties everywhere.

On May 4, 1970, my wife was walking between classes at Kent State University in OH when some folks were shot dead. Ask her about domestic political violence.

Look, Vietnam's over. Nixon's dead, and Abby Hoffman is dead. The crazy hippies are all either dead, or are AARP members now, watching their hair fall out and getting knee replacements.

Time to let that stuff go.

Thanks -

[KCinDC]

(I said that months ago, and that if he didn’t distance himself from Ayers it would be back as an issue in the final weeks of the GE…)

OCSteve, do you actually believe that there's something Obama could have done or said earlier that would have prevented the McCain-Palin campaign from bringing this up again now? If so, we really do live in different worlds.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: I’m quite comfortable calling [Ayers] an unrepentant terrorist.

Then you're quite comfortable lying about him. Why is that? I see a link with your being quite comfortable with the Swift Boat Liars traducing John Kerry: is it that you feel anyone who opposed the war in Vietnam deserves to have lying attacks made on them? What do you think this says about your character, that you feel this way about opponents of American wars of aggression?

[gwangung]

NPR has run a story on this.

[russell]

Again, my issue with Obama where Ayers is concerned is just that I felt he should do more to distance himself long before now. This coming back up a few weeks before Election Day was not tough to see.

Well, OC, he did not do that. So you will have to live with having a bone to pick with him.

And yes, it will certainly be in our faces for the next few weeks.

And if Obama had, personally, put Ayers in stocks on Michigan Ave and flogged him with bamboo canes, and then went to the blackboard and wrote 1,000 times "I will not pal around with dirty hippie bombers anymore", it would still be in our faces for the next few weeks.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in god's green earth, that Obama could have done that would have prevented McCain and his crew from putting this front and center.

So if you're Obama, at a certain point you just have to say "screw it" and carry on.

Thanks -

[Turbulence]

I see a link with your being quite comfortable with the Swift Boat Liars traducing John Kerry

Oh God, not again.

Jes, you may have missed my question earlier, but I'm really curious about what you meant when you said that McCain killed lots of Americans on the USS Forrestal.

[Fledermaus]

Such a rule should be applicable both to Ayers and the US involvement in Vietnam or other conflicts...

Turb, I belive the current rule is 'brown people don't count'

[Gary Farber]

Russell, you left out this from your Time cite: "The townhouse explosion deeply affected the organization, now renamed the Weather Underground Organization (WUO). The WUO still bombed buildings, but they always made sure to issue warnings beforehand to prevent injury."