Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
June 1, 2009
POLITICS: Bill Ayers' Revenge: The Left's Crocodile Tears on Domestic Terrorism

Because they usually lack the organization, training, funding, numbers and suicidal ideology of international terrorists, it can at times be difficult to distinguish domestic terrorists from ordinary psychopaths. But domestic terrorism has been a sporadic presence in the United States since at least radical Kansas abolitionist John Brown in the 1850s, running through the likes of Leon Czolgosz, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Black Panthers, Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and more recenly Bruce Ivins and John Allen Muhammad. The causes they have killed for have ranged from the noble (Brown) to the nefarious to the outright deranged (Kaczynski), and their inspiration has ranged from the purely domestic to imitations of foreign movements like anarcho-syndicalism or Islamism. This being America, domestic terrorists have almost always done more harm than good to their stated causes.

Ayers & Dohrn WantedIt appears that Scott Roeder, the man arrested for Sunday's murder of notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, would qualify for membership in this group, given press reports that Roeder has a long record of extremism, possession of explosives and profession of belief in killing abortionists. Now, it's hard to generate much sympathy for Dr. Tiller himself; whatever moral blinders it may be possible for a man to wear regarding early-term abortions, anyone who has seen a sonogram or felt a child kick against its mother's womb can hardly imagine the cruelty required to repeatedly perform..."terminations"...of such helpless and innocent victims. But as long as we live in a nation of laws made by the people and as long as his conduct is permitted by law, the job of judging men like Dr. Tiller belongs to the Lord alone, and the job of stopping men like him remains with the democratic process and with peaceful protest and persuasion; the way of the domestic terrorist is the way of madness no matter the cause.

Even before anything was known about Roeder, the left side of the blogosphere reacted to Dr. Tiller's murder as if it was Christmas morning and they just got a pony; I was following the Twitter feed of Markos Moulitsas, the man best known for reacting to the murder of American contractors in Iraq by declaring "screw them," and he and others were positively vibrating with giddiness about the possibility of using Dr. Tiller's murder to discredit pro-lifers in general and critics of Dr. Tiller in particular.

Well, unlike the Left, some of us have been against associates of domestic terrorists all along. Most of us would, I think, agree that if Roeder somehow escaped prosecution, we would have serious reservations about supporting politicians who subsequently associated themselves with him in the process of cultivating favor with the Right. But that, of course, is exactly what Barack Obama did with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And anyone who supported Obama has zero credibility in criticizing anybody for associating with violent domestic extremists.

Ayers and Dohrn, you will recall, were participants in the Weather Underground, one of the few domestic terrorist groups that was genuinely organized and operated over a period of years, engaging in bombings (including bombing the Pentagon), riots and vandalism; when a splinter group led by a friend of Ayers and Dohrn committed a sensational armed robbery and murdered a security guard and two cops, Ayers and Dohrn took in her son and raised him as their own. Dohrn ultimately landed on the FBI's Most Wanted List. To this day, they are wholly unrepentant. I discussed the cases at greater length here, here, here, and here. Obama not only appeared at Ayers' home in one of the coming-out events that launched his political career (again: imagine a Republican doing this at Roeder's home 20 years from now), he gave a glowing review to one of Ayers' books, made joint public appearances with him, and most tellingly of all, Obama in the only executive role of any kind he held before the White House funnelled millions of dollars to educational projects under Ayers' direction to help Ayers further a politicized educational agenda. Ayers was and is still dining out on the notoriety of his status as a domestic terrorist, and Obama abetted and financed Ayers in doing so. And the Left saw no problem with any of this.

Associating with known domestic terrorists is a very bad thing. I'm glad the Left has belatedly awoken to this fact. Now perhaps the people looking to make political hay over Roeder will extend some of their outrage to Bill Ayers' benefactor in the White House.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:29 AM | Politics 2009 | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

"Now perhaps the people looking to make political hay over Roeder will extend some of their outrage to Bill Ayers' benefactor in the White House."

Not Gonna Happen. See to the left Ayers is a "good terrorist" bcause he supposedly was fighting against the war in Vietnam. That somehow excuses his crimes.

Posted by: largebill at June 1, 2009 12:22 PM

... and the Sean Hannity Program will return after a word from our sponsors.

Posted by: steve at June 1, 2009 12:28 PM

Yeah, Sean Hannity is the problem...just like Rush was responsible for Timothy Mc Veigh- remember that left wing slander/talking point?

Roeder should be tried and if the evidence shows his guilt-- convicted. That said, I have absolutley no problem judging Mr. Tiller-he was a murderer and a monster-who made a very lucrative living off human misery.

Yesterday, all over the planet Earth thousands upon thousands of people died-many from starvation, lack of medicine, dehydration, war, pestilence, bigotry, political repression, etc, etc. Where on that list of people, who died, just yesterday, do you think Mr. Tiller rates based on sympathy?


Abortions performed in the 8th or 9th month are murder/infanticide plain and simple. At that point in time, only the life/health of the mother is a real reason for proceeding with an abortion. The overwhelming majority of Americans are oppossed to late term abortions and the fact that there is judge made law allowing it, does not change what it is. We had actual laws, passed by the electorate regarding the legality of slavery. Does that mean slavery was not wrong, evil and inhumane until a law was passed making it so?

Posted by: dch at June 1, 2009 2:28 PM

dch,
But if he's found guilty, where are you going to put him? You and Crank have made the argument that terrorists can't be put in regular prisons, God forbid.

BTW, late-term abortions are performed when the fetus has no brain waves and giving birth may be a threat to the mother's health..

Posted by: Berto at June 1, 2009 2:36 PM

"Yesterday, all over the planet Earth thousands upon thousands of people died-many from starvation, lack of medicine, dehydration, war, pestilence, bigotry, political repression, etc, etc. Where on that list of people, who died, just yesterday, do you think Mr. Tiller rates based on sympathy?"
certainly in front of those who bitch that their taxes are too high.

Posted by: Berto at June 1, 2009 2:50 PM

Berto, two points. One, Kansas has the death penalty, and can use it here. Two, the reasons why GTMO detainees are especially dangerous mostly don't apply to guys like Roeder - he presumably doesn't ascribe to a suicide-bomber kind of ideology, he's not connected to a group that's likely to stage attacks on his captors or that's likely to get messages from him directing further attacks, he's unlikely to successfully prostelytize in prison, etc. If you look at the situation realistically, some domestic terrorists may present problems similar to Al Qaeda detainees but most won't.

Posted by: The Crank at June 1, 2009 2:56 PM

dch, I think Steve's point is that Sean Hannity is responsible for Obama funding Ayers.

Posted by: The Crank at June 1, 2009 3:00 PM

Crank,
Third, you aren't as afraid of Americans as you are of Arabs.

BTW, in the age of Rush and Rove, you're above argument would show you're really a "terrorist coddler".

Posted by: Berto at June 1, 2009 3:02 PM

Thanks Crank sometimes my subtlety meter is a litttle off. BTW-1st of the month, I don't think berto has gotten his supply of meds yet

Posted by: dch at June 1, 2009 3:05 PM

No, my point, Crank, is you sound like Sean Hannity. And that's not a compliment.

Posted by: steve at June 1, 2009 3:05 PM

Oh wait looks like I was right. BTW what does it tell you about certain people that Tiller is the person they are going to bat for.

Posted by: dch at June 1, 2009 3:07 PM

I dont' know how you can argue with Crank's basic point here. If you are going to downplay left-wing extremism, then don't complain about right-wing extremism. The only objection I have is that the Ayers link was overstated. That being said, as long as you have statements from groups like NOW calling Dr. Tiller "courageous," (courageous?? you mean he did these abortions for free??), you will have posts like this from the right.


Posted by: MVH at June 1, 2009 3:37 PM

MVH,
I think the "courageous" part was about him putting his life on the line for womens rights.
Also, don't miss the point (as dch is trying so hard to do) that these abortions were performed when the fetus has no brain (and thus, can not live outside the womb) and the mother's health is in danger if she carries to full term.

dch,
Sometimes you have to go to bat for people you may not like, because protecting everyone's rights protects your own rights.
Examples: The ACLU went to bat for Rush Limbaugh and General Petraeus (sp?) is going to bat for alleged terrorists.

Posted by: Berto at June 1, 2009 4:28 PM

Berto,

Believe you're somewhat misinformed. A small fraction of the late term abortions may be brain dead. However, your post makes it out that all are brain dead. Most are still very much alive (maybe not perfect - but who among us is?). The "doctor" will deliver all but the head of the child and then will puncture the base of the head and suck the brains out. Usually the arms and legs are moving right until the "doctor" murders the child.

Posted by: largebill at June 1, 2009 4:56 PM

largebill,
Citation please.
Also, what punishment do you suggest for the women who have abortions?

Posted by: Berto at June 1, 2009 5:33 PM

" But that, of course, is exactly what Barack Obama did with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And anyone who supported Obama has zero credibility in criticizing anybody for associating with violent domestic extremists."
Nope. Ayers had stopped and no longer advocated it. Current people do. This is the difference. Past acts+change in current stance vs. future acts+known current stance.

"Associating with known domestic terrorists is a very bad thing. I'm glad the Left has belatedly awoken to this fact. "
Ah, politics. Where the death of a man can be easily turned into "you're bad! not me! you!!", and it can be viewed as a good argument to make.

"Well, unlike the Left, some of us have been against associates of domestic terrorists all along."
G Gordon Liddy called, wanted to remind you that if the ATF comes a knocking, aim for the head.

Hey, something I'm not sure of - associating with people who sell arms to hostile foreign nations is ok, right?

Posted by: Dave at June 1, 2009 7:10 PM

Hey Dave:

When did Ayers' stance change? Sometime after this interview, I presume:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html

Posted by: Joel B. at June 2, 2009 3:20 AM

"When did Ayers' stance change?"

I didn't say his stance changed on his past acts. I said he no longer advocated it. And he doesn't and hasn't, as far as I know, though I could be wrong. Not having regret is entirely different from advocating acts in the present and future. It's part of what moves someone from arrogant and criminal to danger to society.

And if you're curious, a book review on his book(which I won't be reading) prior to your link reads as "Ayers periodically expresses mild regret for his crimes, in tones reminiscent of a middle-aged insurance executive who wishes he hadn't gotten drunk quite so often at his college fraternity.". So yes - before and after.
http://www.slate.com/id/1008160/

We're up to what, 7 people killed so far, along with significant assaults, property damage and untold harassment?
Anyone think we're not going to see any more? Or just the usual hand waving around "no, we don't really support this, this is terrible".

Hey, that's part of the reason why it's important to frantically change the subject as much as possible.

Posted by: Dave at June 2, 2009 7:08 AM

Past acts+change in current stance vs. future acts+known current stance.

So if Roeder repents, you wouldn't criticize and candidate who consorts with him?There's not a chance in hell you're selling that, nitwit.

Ah, politics. Where the death of a man can be easily turned into "you're bad! not me! you!!", and it can be viewed as a good argument to make.

Actually even dumber than above. Bravo.

You guys refused to criticize Obama over Ayers, that's just fact. We find your giddy, feigned outrage over Roeders death a little convenient. That's not a "You're bad, not me!" argument, that's pointing out a blatant hypocrisy, an entirely different thing.

Impressive intellectual display there, Dave. Your teachers must be very proud!

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 2, 2009 9:52 AM

MVH:

The only objection I have is that the Ayers link was overstated.

How so? If anything, the link between Obama and Ayers is 'understated', specifically in the MSM where the general approach to this story is a whistle and a quick, "nothing to see here."

Dave:

"Ayers periodically expresses mild regret for his crimes, in tones reminiscent of a middle-aged insurance executive who wishes he hadn't gotten drunk quite so often at his college fraternity."

A review from Slate is suspect to begin with, however, the reality is that Ayers is only mildly regretful of his past crimes due to the fact that they were not successful in pushing his radical agenda.

You say he doesn't advocate that anymore, and you may or may not be right (he's smart enough not to advocate such acts in public). However, it's ridiculous to suggest he's changed. His goal, objectives, and overall strategy is the same, it's his tactics that have changed.

Posted by: Agent W at June 2, 2009 10:15 AM

"G Gordon Liddy called, wanted to remind you that if the ATF comes a knocking, aim for the head."

Ouch! That'll leave a mark.
Nice job showing that terrorists and traitors (Ollie North on line 2) on the Right get radio shows when caught. But, of course, the "media is liberal", as far as Crank's readers know.

Posted by: Berto at June 2, 2009 10:40 AM

Can someone explain this moral calculus to me:

Estimated abortions performed byTiller, per the NY Times, 60 thousand-lets assume only 2% of those are late term-thats 1200 children-not a word from any liberal regarding this evil-and thats what it is. Does anyone really want to argue that a fetus in its 8th or 9th month is not viable or a person?

However, when the same person who perpetrated these acts gets murdered, then liberals finally see something that they can get outraged about.

You people really need to reevaluate your lives, logic and morality.

Posted by: dch at June 2, 2009 10:47 AM

dch -

"Does anyone really want to argue that a fetus in its 8th or 9th month is not viable or a person?"

I don't think anyone would argue that. If that was what Tiller was doing, then you wouldn't even have to reach that argument. He was violating Kansas law at that point unless it was a medical necessity for the mother.

Agent W -

How so? If anything, the link between Obama and Ayers is 'understated', specifically in the MSM where the general approach to this story is a whistle and a quick, "nothing to see here."

It was a guilt-by-association argument. It did get all the media attention it deserved, it just wasn't a very strong relationship, and there is nothing to suggest that Obama advocates domestic terrorism.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 11:57 AM

and there is nothing to suggest that Obama advocates domestic terrorism.

Would you say the same if a candidate--any candidate--hung out with Roeder?

I'm pretty sure Ayers wrote at least one of Obama's books. Pretty sure, and it should have at least been researched by the media. Do you believe if there was an inkling of the chance Roeder had ghost-written a conservative candidate's book that it would go unasked and unanswered?

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 2, 2009 12:21 PM

MVH:

It was a guilt-by-association argument.

Hardly. No honest person accused, or suggested, that Barack Obama was a domestic terrorist because Ayers was. That's a strawman argument.

The connections between Ayers and Obama were about radical ideologies being closely aligned, not about the tactics used to achieve such outcomes. Obama, according to everything I've ever read, did not, and has never, endorsed the tactics used by Ayers as a member of the Weather Underground.

That being said, their history undeniably shows that Barack Obama shares the political ideology of Ayers and that they were more than just passing co-workers, as Obama had suggested.

Obama, in Ayers later years after the Weather Underground, not only supported Ayers political objectives, but he also became fully involved with the newer tactics Ayers had laid out to achieve those objectives.

It did get all the media attention it deserved,

Please, it got a snicker and a "not on my watch" from the MSM. There was terrific work done by Steve Diamond at Global Labor (now, unfortunately, only open to invited readers), who was actually interviewed by the NYT and subsequently had all of his work mis-characterized to fit the MSM narrative and, despite numerous tries to set the record straight, was black listed.

Obama advocates domestic terrorism.

In other news, MVH has now declared himself champion of the world strawman fighting league. Great knockout left, MVH.

Posted by: Agent W at June 2, 2009 12:34 PM

"Would you say the same if a candidate--any candidate--hung out with Roeder?"

If, over the next 30 years, Roeder's life would play out like Ayers, and the evidence of that politician "hanging out" with Roeder was pretty much the same, then I wouldn't have a serious problem with it. I'm not saying it's not worth looking into, but if there is nothing to suggest that the politician advocates any subversive views, then I'd drop it.


"I'm pretty sure Ayers wrote at least one of Obama's books. Pretty sure, and it should have at least been researched by the media. Do you believe if there was an inkling of the chance Roeder had ghost-written a conservative candidate's book that it would go unasked and unanswered?"

Pretty sure based on what? I did read at least one article where someone on the net tried to match phrases in Obama's book with phrases used by Ayers, but I didn't find it even reasonably compelling and certainly not something that I would expected the media to follow up on.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 12:41 PM

BTW-yesterday 2 servicemen were shot, one of them killed, by a muslim convert in Little Rock, Arkansas. He apparently shot the two soldiers for political reasons. The gumen was charged with 1st degree murder plus 15 counts of committing a terrorist act.

Has anyone heard about this? oh wait, they are only volunteer soldiers, they weren't something worthy of the left's attention, the left's moral outrage, you know like..... a late term abortionist.

Gee, what wing of the political spectrum has repeatedly picketed and vandalized miltary recruitment centers, what political persuasion routinely ridicules and belittles people in the military and demonizes military recruiters?

I am sure all the newspapers will be filled with reports regarding this and I am sure that all the posters that are so outraged with the Tiller murder will be just as outraged with this poltically motivated killing.

Posted by: dch at June 2, 2009 12:46 PM

"Hardly. No honest person accused, or suggested, that Barack Obama was a domestic terrorist because Ayers was. That's a strawman argument."

If you are saying that the right didn't try to make hay about Obama "palling around with former terrorists," then you are really kidding yourself. And I call it when I see it on the left too, they aren't immune to that kind of nonsense.

My point was that there was really not enough a connection between Ayers and Obama to justify the level of media attention that the right would have liked.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 12:52 PM

steve - I'm not the biggest Hannity fan, but on the issue of Obama's radical ties I give him credit for being many months ahead of everyone else. He was talking about it before the RNC even started doing oppo on Obama.

Dave - As noted above, Ayers hasn't renounced his past, nor really could he. I'd consider Roeder permanently persona non grata. As for Liddy, he's obviously got a shady past, but I missed when he participated in any terrorist attacks or when any GOP politicians set anybody with that kind of background up with the kind of funding Obama sent Ayers, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

dch - I think the American Thinker article laid out a pretty compelling case that Obama did not write - or at least had major help writing - Dreams of My Father. The argument that the person who did write it was Ayers is speculative. The article made a plausible case for that, but hardly a conclusive one.

As for the military recruitment attack, well, I just think it proves the point that the Left picked a bad week to try to politicize an individual gunman's acts, since now they have to try to simultaneously explain away their involvement with inciting that one. Guilt by association cuts both ways, but at the end of the day it's the nature of the association, and who it's with, that determines if the charge has any merit. Obama's ties to Ayers are a good deal more substantial than just an occasional public appearance. Follow the money.

Posted by: The Crank at June 2, 2009 12:57 PM

MVH:

My point was that there was really not enough a connection between Ayers and Obama to justify the level of media attention that the right would have liked.

And your point, MVH, is flat out wrong. Either you're being willfully ignorant, or you just haven't really bothered to spend any level of time researching the issue. Either way, the fact remains that you're flat out incorrect and, if you so choose, there's plenty of detailed evidence that shows that Obama and Ayers did more than just 'Hang out'.

But hey, if you want to continue to push your head in the sand meme, by all means, go ahead. Lord knows that you've at least got the MSM to back you up. The reality, however, is in stark contrast to your protestations.

Posted by: Agent W at June 2, 2009 1:00 PM

MVH - There's obviously a bunch of Obama/Ayers connections, but the key one is the money.

Posted by: The Crank at June 2, 2009 1:03 PM

If you are saying that the right didn't try to make hay about Obama "palling around with former terrorists," then you are really kidding yourself.

Of course they did. Of course, "palling around with former terrorists" is a far cry from suggesting he is a domestic terrorist.

Furthermore, it's ignoring the real problems of the story. I mean, seriously, if the reality of the situation was that Bill Ayers was "just some guy in my neighborhood", as Barack Obama stated, whom Obama had enjoyed block parties with and the occasional meal or drink, you'd have a point.

However, the truth of the situation is that Ayers was NOT just some guy in Obama's neighborhood. They had a working relationship, one in which Obama funneled millions into Ayers radical educational projects, projects in which Obama agreed with.

You can attempt to whitewash that all you want with strawman after strawman, but as I stated above, the facts sit in stark contrast to the situation you've concocted, or allowed to be concocted for you.

Posted by: Agent W at June 2, 2009 1:06 PM

Look, let's dial this down a few notches. Before this gets lost - I did fundamentally -agree- with Crank's post above. We simply disagree about the significance of Ayers.

Crank laid out the best the case the right has against Ayers, and he is right that the money connection is the best argument you can raise. However, in the context of the political campaign, what was emphasized more, the money connection, or the fact the he was a former terrorist? Of course no one was suggesting Obama was a terrorist, but it's clear that they wanted him viewed as associating with one. And in the rough-and-tumble of the election campaign, that gets more votes than a money connection.

Also, and I made this point at the time - even the money argument is a connect-the-dots affair, and if you want to hang your hat on that, fine. But you can't expect the media to jump all over that as if you found a long-lost Beatles album. Now, if there was some evidence that Obama had at some point expressed sympathy for Ayers' former terrorist past - THAT would have been front-page news.

As far as "white-washing" and strawmen go, I have no reason to smear the right, I just disagree with them on Ayers.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 1:49 PM

even the money argument is a connect-the-dots affair

It's no such thing, and there's plenty of very well researched and written articles that do a great job showing the connection as strong and significant.

Now, if there was some evidence that Obama had at some point expressed sympathy for Ayers' former terrorist past - THAT would have been front-page news.

Again, strawman. While the idea of Obama "palling around with a former terrorist" is not a comforting thought, it's by no means a show stopper. I've admitted as such above. Also, you keep coming back to this idea that there has to be a connection between the actual terrorist acts committed by Ayers and a possible Obama sympathy towards them.

That is NOT the point, and your attempts to paint the argument as such is nothing more than a ploy to move away from arguing the very real affinity Obama has for Ayers' political ideology, or better stated strategy and objectives.

You're trying to get everyone caught up in the tactics side, which I know I, and most likely Crank, have already agreed Obama has not agreed with (at least from Ayers' Weather Underground days).

Again, read Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz. If you want to ignore Stanley Kurtz because he writes for NRO, and is more of the conservative persuasion, that's fine. But you can't ignore Diamond, who's very much a left wing liberal, and probably did the most research out of anyone on this.

If you want to say you don't care about the connection, or it doesn't bother you, that's fine. But to suggest that it's tentative, or a really wishy washy 'connect the dots' type connection, is the height of ignorance considering the wealth of information that is available if you care to actually read it.

As far as "white-washing" and strawmen go, I have no reason to smear the right, I just disagree with them on Ayers.

I never suggested you were smearing the right. I suggested that you're ignoring, willfully or not, the facts as have been presented by people such as Kurtz and Diamond.

I don't disagree with you that the Republicans use of Ayers was incorrect in how it was portrayed. The whole 'terrorist sympathizer' angle didn't quite play. They took a calculated risk that the 30 second information public would take more to that type of information than actually presenting the full breadth of the dealings between Ayers and Obama. Since the evidence available doesn't point to that conclusion, it was pushed aside. However, the underlying story of the ideological connections was the true meat and potatoes and what is far more concerning to me and any classical liberal.

Posted by: Agent W at June 2, 2009 2:40 PM

"...as if you found a long-lost Beatles album."

Now that you mention it, I think Obama wrote "In My Life" and "Hey Jude." Right about the time he helped Garcia Marquez with "Cien Anos De Soledad." He then went on to writing Greek with the left hand and Hebrew with the right.

Posted by: per14 at June 2, 2009 2:51 PM

My Crank, how your mind does jump around. Comparing Roeder to Ayers?

Late-term abortions are abhorrent, except in very narrow instances where the physical life of the mother is at stake. I cannot imagine how someone can justify having such an abortion on the basis of some inchoate mental suffering. Nevertheless, assuming the legal criteria are met, they are not unlawful. On this, it seems we agree.

You lose me, however, in your weak attempt to paint Obama supporters. The Weather Underground qualifies as a domestic terrorist organization. But Ayers is no Roeder. The best you can you is: "a splinter group led by a friend of Ayers and Dohrn committed a sensational armed robbery and murdered a security guard and two cops, Ayers and Dohrn took in her son and raised him as their own."

Wow, that's some indictment. A friend involved in a "splinter group" committed crimes and Ayers and Dohrn had the audacity to offer care to an innocent child. What appalling behavior?

Once again, your Obama Derangement Syndrome has sent you off the deep end. Take a valium, a deep breath and relax.

Posted by: Magrooder at June 2, 2009 3:10 PM

"That is NOT the point, and your attempts to paint the argument as such is nothing more than a ploy to move away from arguing the very real affinity Obama has for Ayers' political ideology, or better stated strategy and objectives."

I'm not trying to move away from the affinity angle, I never intended to address it in the first place! In fact, I never intended to revist -any- of the Ayers arguments. I simply noted it as a quick qualification to my basic reaction to Crank's post. I expected to take more abuse from the left than from you guys.

I purposely didn't go into the whole affinity angle because I didn't want to turn this thread too far away from the topic. I addressed the whole affinity angle at length during the election when Crank brought it up, and I'm not getting into now, suffice it to say that I didn't find that terribly damning either for a whole host of reasons.

I did read Crank's posts and a number of other articles on the whole Ayers-Obama relationship from a variety of sources, so I don't really know what to tell you except that you are free to believe that I'm completely wrong.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 3:15 PM

Crank, have you ever spent any time anywhere near maximum security prison inmates? I haven't spent all that much time, but I did pro bono criminal work as a junior lawyer and have worked extensively on a couple of death sentence appeal cases.

Certain classes of criminals (e.g. pedophiles, rapists, etc.) are marked soon after arrival and face very dangerous conditions as inmates. Do you really think that terrorists, especially those crippled mentally by months of torture are going to be good salesmen for thier cause? On what basis? Cheney's musings?

Posted by: Magrooder at June 2, 2009 3:17 PM

I kind of have to agree with Magrooder on that one. It seems to me that an Arab terrorist is going to very, very unpopular in an American prison. Dangerously unpopular. Heck, it might be more dangerous for him there than in Guantanamo, depending on what you believe about their treatment there.

Posted by: per14 at June 2, 2009 3:27 PM

Crank,
Which left-wing cable news anchor(s) demonized military recruiters, called them mass murderers, recommended they should be "taken out" and suggested citizens might want to take violent action against them?
Since the "media is liberal" (ha ha, that line is always good for a spit take) you must have pages of examples of this.
Or are you just trying to equate two completely divergent news stories to confuse the rubes?

Posted by: Berto at June 2, 2009 3:28 PM

I didn't find it even reasonably compelling and certainly not something that I would expected the media to follow up on.

You mean "follow up" like ask Obama if Bill Ayers wrote his book(s)?

Look, you're a fair-minded guy and all, and I wouldn't expect you to take my word when I am not quite ready to bet my net worth on this. But there's been some good research lately on this and it looks to me like Ayers wrote Fathers.

Does it matter? Well, then Obama lied, for one thing but I guess we sort of take that as given, right?

I simply cannot believe the left or really much of anybody would believe a guy who offs abortionists capable of political rehabilitation. I dunno, maybe being fair-minded, you really would.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 2, 2009 4:26 PM

41 posts!!! Is that a record for this site?

Posted by: dch at June 2, 2009 4:34 PM

spongeworthy,

Now that you've looked at the "research" believed by some [fools] to show that Ayers wrote Obama's book, perhaps you can turn that inciteful mind and those profound analytical skills to some of the other mysteries of our time, like the Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations, the NBA fixing the draft lottery so the Knicks could draft Ewing, and the like.

Posted by: Magrooder at June 2, 2009 5:56 PM

"So if Roeder repents, you wouldn't criticize and candidate who consorts with him?"
If he is punished for his crime (or, the government tried to punish him), had an actual change of heart, and no longer associated with people who pushed into the violent fringes, yes. I'd still view it with some suspicion - since you can't really judge a person who you never meet, let alone judge if a person has changed.

I believe that people can change, criminals can become normal members of society and views can change over time. People with sickness cured, even if we don't know how to do that now. If you continue to associate with people who scream that abortion doctors are Nazis, you haven't really changed.

"That's not a "You're bad, not me!" argument, that's pointing out a blatant hypocrisy, an entirely different thing."
No, it's doing what I said by pointing out what Crank believes to be hypocrisy.

I think there was something written on this before, something about a mote in an eye or something. I could be wrong. I am not wrong about this being easily the most common political tactic - rather than look to your own flaws or benefits, point at how bad the other guys are.

"However, it's ridiculous to suggest he's changed. His goal, objectives, and overall strategy is the same, it's his tactics that have changed."
And? Violence against people is what we're talking about. Racists hide behind libertarianism in order to make what they believe seem acceptable. Same for Creationists and Intelligent Design. Or antiSemites and the rights of Palestinians.

Morally repugnant philosophies often hide behind more acceptable ones. As long as the more acceptable ones don't egg on the more radical ones, you either have to choose to ignore the covering and isolate only the bad or paint them all with a broad brush.
And I'm left with the question from that - do I believe the more acceptable pro-life contingent eggs on the crazies?

"but perhaps you can enlighten me."
Sure! Oliver North(as stated above), man who sold arms to our enemies - still ok to associate with, right? I guess following this, domestic terrorism is lower on the scale.

And it's good to know that like with Liddy, you only accept associating with people who advocate violent acts against lawful people, not those who do them. I'll see what I can do about gather more in that regard.

Posted by: Dave at June 2, 2009 6:35 PM

"I simply cannot believe the left or really much of anybody would believe a guy who offs abortionists capable of political rehabilitation."

Well, I wouldn't be all that thrilled with the connection to a former killer, I just don't think the nature of the association -30 years later- is all that damning.

By the way, if it were to turn out that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's book, that would be quite a big lie on Obama's part.

Also, we had somewhere over 80 posts on a health care post from RW at some point, so we need quite a few more.

Posted by: MVH at June 2, 2009 11:19 PM

I wouldn't find the association all that damning if it were you or me--a president's a different story. Throw in all of Ayers' educrap and his admission that his agenda hasn't changed. Stir in Obama's obfuscation of his relationship with Ayers--you've got a seriously problematic relationship as I see it.

Only on the left is this not a problem. Thanks goodness the media blurred it out for the rest of us.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 3, 2009 9:55 AM

"Which left-wing cable news anchor(s) demonized military recruiters, called them mass murderers, recommended they should be "taken out" and suggested citizens might want to take violent action against them?"

Well, a couple of senators have called servicemen murderers. And there is a very active anti-military recruiting movement which advocates vandalism and violence against property. I'm sure it wouldn't take a whole lot of digging to find people expressing sentiments similar to the ones expressed by Tiller's murderer on those forums.

The car a couple of my recruiter friends were driving in was shot at once when they were going to lunch. A co-worker of mine was assaulted another time. I have had people come up to me and tell me they'd kill me if they thought they could get away with it. And then there was the generic vandalism like eggings, keying cars, breaking windows, and sabotaging vehicles just at my recruiting station. And this wasn't in a very anti-military area either.

I suppose all of the people who committed these acts against my former recruiting comrades were acting of their own volition and with no prompting or motivation from others?

Posted by: SFC B at June 3, 2009 5:05 PM

Global Labor is now at www.king-harvest.com

Posted by: anon at June 7, 2009 3:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Ayers wrote at least one of Obama's books.

I have to say that's the first time I've EVER heard that one.

As for the Ayers-Roeder Comparison? I'm with Macgrooder...

Posted by: Mr Furious at June 16, 2009 12:44 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg