Monday, April 21, 2008

Senator Obama's has a Bill Ayers problem and I think it will end up being a much bigger problem then Rev. Wright.

Yes I have blogged about Bill Ayers before, way before it became trendy. As I have stated before as long as he is on the payroll of UIC they will never see a dime of alumni money from us (Mrs. OneMan got her masters at UIC).


Because I think Blue-Collar America regardless of color is willing to not get too uptight about an angry preacher.

However having a relationship that can be spun a lot of different ways with a guy who was a founder of a group that wanted to blow up a NCO dance at Fort Dix. Who has said recently that he has no regrets is going to be a problem for him. Blue-Collar America had Uncles, Sons, Brothers and Fathers who were in the military during roughly that time period. So you have a candidate who has a relationship with someone who wanted to kill those folks, here on American soil. That is going to be a problem....

Imagine the 527 group ad pointing out John McCain was at the Hanoi Hilton when Bill Ayers was playing mad bomber and Communist. These were not just some kids marching in a protest, the Weathermen were not harmless.

Mark my words when the dust settles, some group(s) are going to make the 'Swiftboating' of Kerry look like a walk in the park with what they are going to do with this. It may not be fair, it may not be accurate, but it is going to happen.



Rob_n said...

Two points.

First, Obama isn't Kerry. Kerry let the Swiftboat lies fester for a month with nary a response as his campaign 'went dark' to conserve funds. Obama doesn't need to conserve funds and also proven adept at punching back when attacked in similar fashion.

Second, hoping to cobble together enough half-truths and innuendos in order to slime a guy isn't a very sound election strategy. But, in trying to defend the indefensible by asking for a vote for four more years of the same it's apparently all the cons have left.

After 7+ years of Bush-style "conservatism" (and I use the quote marks purposefully) and promises from McCain of at least four more, "lib'rul" isn't as dirty a word as many partisans (left and right) think it is and people now equate "conservatism" (at least the Bush-brand of "conservatism") with the failures of the Bush era.

"Six Degrees Of" games are proving to be a dog that won't hunt (or at least doesn't hunt very well).

Obama's already said quite clearly that he was "8 years old" at the time what these people did was "despicable". He can't go back and take back the heinous crimes they committed -- but seeing as how McCain himself has plenty of skeletons in his closet it's clear nobody's perfect.

(Interestingly, on "This Week" last Sunday McCain said that calling the bombings "despicable" wasn't enough and that Obama had to use the word "condemn" instead because apparently there is a difference -- though it may depend on what your definition of "is" is if you're going to try and parse words so finely.)

OneMan said...

Is Obama going to be as slow to respond as Kerry, no.

Did the stuff happen when he was 8, well sort of. The stuff the weather underground did was when he was a kid. However sitting on a board with the Ayers after his book was published and after his comments got play after 9-11 was not a bright idea.

As for condem, heck yeah Obama should say that.

Bottom line, Obama sat on a board with and and a fundraiser hosted by a US Citizen who wanted to kill people like my dad on US soil and who still thinks it was a good idea.

Sorry that's a problem.


Rob_N said...

Is it a problem because you don't like Ayers... Obama... or both?

If it were McCain in Obama's position would you be fine with it given the actual facts reviewed from a neutral perspective?

Obama is supposed to let a charity whither up and die because someone you don't like is also on the board?

Following that logic, should the entire UIC campus be abandoned?

What Ayers has said is that he regretted not doing enough to end the Vietnam War and stop the deaths of innocents and of military personnel in Nam... He has not said that he regretted not bombing more.

It would be most helpful, in your ire, if you didn't put words in people's mouths.

I understand you're opposed to Democrats along the lines of Obama, Daley, etc. but Mayor Daley has also come out to say that the current Professor Bill Ayers is not the same man anymore, that he has done a lot of good work for the city of Chicago and, notably, her children through his efforts as an organizer, communnity leader and professor.

I agree with you that his acts in the 60s were reprehensible and despicable. I'm grateful we don't have people pulling the same things these days in light of the Iraq quagmire.

But don't let your anger lead you to try and tie nooses around people's necks who had nothing to do with those actions of 40 years ago.

You're worried about a charity board, a $200 donation and a coffee event?

Why aren't you as worried about Sen. McCain's pursuit of conservative preachers that want to bring on Armageddon? Based on the history of such folks, they've blamed Americans for 9/11 even while actively antagonizing Israel to be evermore combative and destructive, thus encouraging more terrorist acts like 9/11 in retaliation -- all in the hopes of bringing on their version of the Rapture.

Ayers is no longer advocating violence as a means to an end. The people McCain is seeking support from are.

How do you square that in your mind?


PS, One: Could've been people in my family too. Not my dad, but certainly close loved ones.

OneMan said...

Well Rob for the most part is my issue with Ayers, not so much with Obama.

If it was McCain, no I wouldn't be happy if some Weatherman founder had a fundraiser for him either. Would I expect him to not only condem the actions but the man as well. If the person was unrepentant for what they had done, yes I would have a problem with that.

"Obama is supposed to let a charity whither up and die because someone you don't like is also on the board?"

So if Obama left the board the charity would have died? When Eleanor Roosevelt left the DAR because she was unhappy with them they didn't wither up and die.

As for putting words in his mouth...

'"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers posed for Chicago magazine with an American flag wadded at his feet. '

FYI that is from Salon not exactly a conservative news source.

'When asked he would "do it all again," Ayers replied, "I don't want to discount the possibility."'

How in the heck are we supposed to read that? "I don't regret setting bombs",

Yes I know he says it was distorted and misquoted but I am not buying it. So I don't see how I am putting words in his mouth. According the the NYT and other sources they are in fact his words.

'Following that logic, should the entire UIC campus be abandoned?'

Nope, but if OneMan was governor there wouldn't be one tax dollar spent to pay the man.

It's easy to ask the 'What about McCain' case, but the question isn't about McCain it's about Senator Obama.

You can disagree with my view on the war and a host of other things, I get that.

However I guess my basic question is why is it not a good idea for Obama to not only condemn the actions but also the unrepentant actors in this case?

So using your logic if Ayers had been blowing up health care providers after Roe V. Wade you would still be cool with Obama's association with him?

Rob_N said...

You're beginning to talk in circles:

"It's easy to ask the 'What about McCain' case, but the question isn't about McCain it's about Senator Obama."

...doesn't mesh with...

"So using your logic if Ayers had been blowing up health care providers after Roe V. Wade you would still be cool with Obama's association with him?"

Either you want to talk in hypotheticals or you don't. ;)

My point was that Obama had said the acts were despicable and pointed out they took place when he was a grade schooler.

Why, in your mind, does serving on the Woods board with Ayers (among many other people) seem to imply he condones those acts of 40 years ago?

He's not actively seeking Ayers' support (Ayers offered it in the past, in a different campaign, of his own volition).

This is as opposed to John McCain, who has actively sought the support of radical conservatives who believe Catholicism is evil and that America (and Americans) ought to do everything in her power to bring about Armageddon.

As for your original premise, in your post on the matter you concluded:

"Mark my words when the dust settles, some group(s) are going to make the 'Swiftboating' of Kerry look like a walk in the park with what they are going to do with this. It may not be fair, it may not be accurate, but it is going to happen."

...Are you yourself not now engaging in inaccurate and unfair accusations?

You say Sen. Obama has "a relationship" with Ayers.

What relationship? Really, what is the relationship?

A few meetings on a charitable board. A coffee from a long-ago campaign. A $200 check.

But never a declaration that he agrees with anything the man has said or done. In fact, the exact opposite -- a declaration that it was despicable.

Yet, McCain in recent months actively sought, received and gladly accepted the direct support of radicals who hold reign over organizations whose memberships count in the 1000s.

The one is unpalatable to you while the other is brushed off as inconsequential. The one is unpalatable because "despicable" isn't strong enough for your tastes in light of what is best describe as a cordial acquaintancy... but apparently vigorous pursuit of support from radicals is of no importance to you, perhaps because the radicalism was "condemned" by the candidate you support.

I suppose that's logic. ;)

As to your question re anti-abortion domestic terrorists, had the person redeemed themself through good works in subsequent years I would certainly evaluate the facts and give it consideration. If Rev. Hagee, right now, this moment, "left behind" his radical pro-Armageddon propaganda his support for McCain (and, more to the point, McCain's pursuit of such support) wouldn't be near the issue it is.

Like it or not, your dad and a number of men in my own family put on their uniforms for Ayers' right to express his opposition to the ruling class' policies by posing with the flag as you describe and for Hagee's right to advocate for the end of the world in his sermons.

If you truly meant what you wrote in your thread on John Ruskin's "uni-bomber" tirade over Rich Miller, then you must recognize that claiming there's a "relationship" here and launching into why you (a Republican committeeman and McCain supporter) think it's a problem is none too far removed from calling people "uni-bomber" and "poodle".

I started with an either/or so I'll end with one.

Either you want to rise above or you don't.

Cheers, and thanks for the rational discussion.

Edna said...

You have your dates very, very wrong.

Obama sat on the same Board as Ayers in 1995.

Ayers' book was published on September 11, 2001.

Ayers still sits on the Board. So do high officers of UBS and BP.

Obama no longer sits on the Board.

The Board is a highly respected charitable institution in Chicago that gives lots of $$$ to education projects.

I believe even Maylor Daley has praised Ayers for the work he has done on Chicago Schools.

Whatever Ayers did or said... and I have always found both deplorable, reprehensible, criminal. you pick any adjective you find satisfactory... nonetheless his life and his actions since then have been exemplary. Is there no "redemption" through good works possible in Christian America or we so Calvinist still as to say there is only redemption through Faith and that Faith must be continuous and pure throughout life?

OneMan said...


Part of redemption (the biggest part in most ways) is acknowledging what you did was wrong.

I haven't seen that from him.

Good works without repentance is empty