Bias in the worst way by AP
Associated Press just slapped down the race card in its latest "analysis" by Douglass K. Daniel.
By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.
And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.
This is nothing short of a flat-out smear of Palin and the McCain campaign. Yesterday, Sarah Palin clearly conveyed the message that Barack Obama is too liberal and too far to the left for the American electorate. This is why she raised Obama's six years of crafting education policy with Bill Ayers, a left-wing political extremist and unrepentant domestic terrorist. Either "reporter" Daniels is an idiot or in the bag for Barack Obama. The intellectually dishonest bias in this article is incredible. Here's a small example:
Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions.
Ayers' crimes happened long ago, but to this day, he has not expressed a word of regret or sorrow for his acts. In fact, he was quoted that he and his group didn't bomb enough.
[Update I:] Jeff Goldstein has a thorough takedown of the Daniel piece. As for why examining why Obama's past associations are relevant, I explain here
. It goes to his judgment and it goes to what his actual political views are.
[Update II:] In the AP "analysis", Daniel quoted Democratic operative Jenny Backus:
“It’s a giant changing of the subject,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. “The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don’t send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don’t take Sarah Palin seriously.”
In an article about Sarah Palin’s subtle subtext of racism, this very unsubtle sexist slur against the Governor of Alaska goes unremarked, reported straight, as if it were a simple observation, nothing more. These people are completely beyond shame, both the Democrats who say these things and the Associated Press who enables them.
Comments :
blah blah blah
This is nothing but a distraction from real issues.
There is absolutely no denying that there has been a racially tinged sub-text that centers around militant black arab radicals like (insert name here) to try and make people uncomfortable with the fact that Obama is half black.
Yes I dearly hope we can get beyond all this crap and look to how the candidates stand on the issues instead of these ridiculous guilt by shadow association games that the right loves to play.
Bill Ayers and Barack Obama are two separate people. To make it clear Barack Obama IS not Bill Ayers.
And in case you hadn't noticed the model the right has put out for the last several decades (trying to scare people that liberals are communist radicals) has not exactly produced great results.
We see the fruits of conservative doctrine has nearly brought America to it's knees. You will be receiving a notice about how well conservative ideals work for Americans when you get your 401K statement in the mail.
I'm only half stupid
Obama's real issue is his good judgment
He touted his superior judgment as a way to paper over his inexperience. Because of this, his associations with left-wing political extremists and unrepentant domestic terrorists speak to his judgment.
OMG, Arabs are black?
I thought they were brown. Sigh. I guess I am just like Colbert and can't see race ... I hate being color blind.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You could talk to Rush and correct him.
Rush thinks that Obama is Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab!!!!!
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Don't agree with that interpretation
Sarah Palin clearly conveyed the message that Barack Obama is too liberal and too far to the left for the American electorate. This is why she raised Obama's six years of crafting education policy with Bill Ayers, a left-wing political extremist and unrepentant domestic terrorist.
She didn't say anything about Obama's crafting of education policy, she didn't specify any objections to the goals of the CAC, and she didn't critique any particular leftist efforts undertaken by Obama and Ayers.
If Palin wanted to make an intellectually honest case that Obama was too liberal she could start by actually discussing his positions and how they compare to the views of the American public. Instead, she and the McCain campaign have made a deliberate choice to engage in guilt-by-association
negative attacks rather than addressing the economy, Iraq, health care, energy independence, or numerous other issues of actual importance to the average American.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Terrorist = political extremist
Palin should've said "left-wing" and that Obama worked with Ayers for six years, and she should do so in ensuing speeches and statements. Obama sold himself that he was the one with superior judgment (that his judgment is so good that it overshadows his inexperience), and this is an area where his judgment merits scrutiny.
I'm still not connecting the dots
Obama also worked with a man who left a woman to drown in the car he'd just crashed. Obama also worked with a former KKK member. Obama also worked with a President impeached for lying under oath.
So what? The work he did was not connected to the past incidents, and there's no reason to believe he condones such actions. The other people involved are all judged by our legal system and by most of the public to have paid their debt.
What action should Obama have taken when presented with the opportunity to serve on a reputable board helping his community?
Factcheck from CNN
on Palin's statement:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Do you really think that this is helping your case?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sure
Given that McCain has worked with these three people as well, then yes, it does help the case that guilt by association is a foolish argument.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Considering that
McCain is working with man that implied McCain has an out of wedlock black daughter...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
She should've said "terrorist", not "terrorists"
Obama didn't have a choice working with Ted Kennedy or Byrd, just like he didn't have a choice in having Tom Coburn as a colleague. But he had a clear choice in joining a group with fringe views on education, a group that was founded by a left-wing political extremist and unrepentant domestic terrorist.
Exactly what was
the act of unrepentant domestic terrorism. Did he kill people? Did people die?
If he is so very awful why is he free to roam at large on the streets of America and why is he teaching.
Maybe you should circulate a petition to get him fired.
It's unbelievable that he is allowed to teach if your terrorist rhetoric holds up under scrutiny and he is in fact a general threat to civilization as we know it.
I'm only half stupid
His group was responsible for the deaths...
...of two police officers, and they attempted to bomb an NCO dance at Fort Dix, and they did bomb several targets they didn't like.
Why Ayers is still teaching is a matter left to his employer. Apparently they're OK with having a left-wing political extremist and unrepentant domestic terrorist on their faculty.
His group......?
so that means he didn't pull the trigger.
Is that why he isn't in prison. Usually cop killers get harsh sentences, and I can't imagine he would be allowed to teach.
Somehow your rhetoric doesn't match reality here. If he was the cop killer you claim, he would not be a free man.
I wonder if folks are more interested in their economic security, than what some member of some group that is not in jail did twenty years ago, ala the hate Jane Fonda era.
I'm only half stupid
Mistrial
There were no triggers pulled. They were bombs that blew.
Ayers escaped justice because of a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Obama sold the Democratic Party that his lightweight credentials were secondary to his superior judgment. His multi-year association with this piece of scum speaks directly to Obama's judgment.
Weaving a pretty thin
thread there, doggone it. Let's not focus on the past, you betcha, and be lookin' backwards, also because we have the future ahead of us, there. *wink*
Multi-year association...... sheesh! That's weak.
This whole concocted story is such a tall tale and a deliberate smear, it's pathetic.
The wolves are out and Palin is one of them. This might relegate her future career to the recesses of David Duke-ville.
I'm only half stupid
Concocted?
Well, whatever it takes to rationalize the simple fact that Obama had a multi-year working relationship crafting failed education policy with a left-wing political extremist, unrepentant domestic terrorist and small 'c' communist.
He didn't have to join the Senate either
What are the fringe views on education espoused by the CAC?
If you can make that case, that the actual policies are "too liberal" (a case to which Ayers is only incidental, rather than central), then go for it. It doesn't look to me like that's what the McCain campaign is attempting to accomplish.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama chose the job,
but not his colleagues, not even the evil Tom Coburn. When it came to the CAC, Obama had a clear choice, especially since the founder of CAC was a piece of scum, and the mission of this organization was clearly steered by this scumbag.
As for Ayers' undimmed political extemism, there're several sources which the McCain campaign could use, and should use if they continue this tack. This
was written before Obama declared himself a candidate. Stanley Kurtz writes about Obama's gushing review 
of Ayers book on juvenile crime.
Ayers, Obama & Co. blew through $160 million of Annenberg money, trying to teach young children to be good little political activists, eshewing more relevant subjects like math and science. Thankfully, someone checked on the CAC program and found that it did nothing to improve education in Chicago. This was the organization that Obama was a leader of. Kurtz outlined the working relationship between Obama and Ayers, and the CAC mission here
:
As Kurtz mentioned, it isn't so much guilt-by-association as guilt by participation. The message the McCain campaign should be conveying is not just that Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist, but that Obama is too liberal and too far left of the American electorate by dint of his working relationship with that terrorist and small "c" communist.
Ha
Does this mean that Obama is already the leader/supporter of a failed policy? Sound like anyone else the left reviles? :)
Here here! Good points all around.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I recommend
skipping Kurtz's interpretation and looking at the critical study
linked from Wikipedia. 
If McCain/Palin want to make the case that the CAC was radical left in policies, they are welcome to try to do so. Speaking as someone with at least a little firsthand knowledge of the topic, and after reviewing a decent chunk of the study linked above, I think Kurtz is overstating the case to which their approach is controversial.
But that is a legitimate topic for debate. "Palling around with terrorists" I don't consider to fall into that category.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hard to tell from reading the study
I skimmed it, and it looks more like a thick and ineffectual layer of bureaucratic bullsh*t that didn't play well with CPS. Quite a feather in Obama's cap.
It seemed to me
that their emphasis on empowering the local community to drive the agenda often came at the expense of clear and concrete goals, tasks, and assessments. The Breakthrough schools seem to have been an attempt to circumvent this by backing more established programs. In retrospect, as the study implies, it might have been better to focus on fewer schools, so as not to overly dilute the impact.
There's another interesting conversation to be had regarding the educational philosophies of the people involved in this. I would have to look up more of the participants and their backgrounds, though. It does seem that Obama's education platform is much more conservative than something Ayers would have designed.
As far as "feather in Obama's cap" goes, I don't even see it mentioned on his website from a quick glance, in the bio or education sections. I don't recall him bringing it up to buttress his credentials or experience. I don't think it's much of a point for or against him, myself. If Ayers hadn't been involved, I don't think anyone beyond a few obsessive conservatives would consider this relevant to the election. It seems like a potential employer focusing on a program I volunteered for a few times in college while glossing over my CV, letters of recommendation, and interview.
Edit: in case anyone is interested, here is the entirety of the "Barack Obama's record" under issues/education:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Forgot to mention
Significant amounts went to "external partners", which is what caught Kurtz's attention.
On Obama touting his time at CAC, he doesn't list it on his website, but he did his time on the board at CAC qualified him for U.S. Senate.
Those of us who know better
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Racism has been used to divide working people for too long.
Industrial unions were the first to stand up against lynching and segregation.
If it's about jobs and a good wage which is the engine that drives America, it is time to discard this fear mongering against an intelligent, thoughtful man, who happens to be half black.
An impassioned plea by the working class leaders to put past prejudices aside
I'm only half stupid
nothing wrong with it...
This is not "Bias in the worst way"...it's "analysis".
Analysis explicitly includes the author's opinions. It must exhibit substantial bias.
This analysis may be BS, but that's nothing special. Political analysis, from the left or right, is necessarily BS because nobody has the slightest clue about what's going on.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
It's not analysis
It's commentary disguised as analysis. There's a big difference between the two concepts.
not enough room between reporting and commentary...
...to fit a third category. I've always interpreted analysis as commentary.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Can you explain the bias here?
You call that an example of intellectual dishonesty, but then your response is that Ayers hasn't expressed regret. What does that have to do with the line you quoted?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I already explained it
I'm sorry you don't like the answer. Daniel just spouted the Obama campaign talking points when he made that statement. It's misleading because it says nothing about Ayers unrepentance for the crimes, nor does Daniel say that Ayers radical left-wing poltical views remain undimmed by time, and were well in place while he served with Obama at the CAC.
No, you didn't explain it.
You argued that another issue should have been discussed here, but that says nothing about the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the quote you pulled, which is 100% accurate. Intellectual dishonesty is a strong charge, and it's not the same thing as bias or slant. The quote you pulled is accurate - whether you feel another issue should have been brought up to give us a different reading of the situation is fair, but it doesn't mean the article is dishonest for not addressing that angle - especially since it's a statement about Obama, not Ayers.
[update]: I think if the AP writer had made a statement attempting to defend Ayers (along the lines of other articles I've seen, suggesting Ayers is now a respected member of the community), then you'd be justified in arguing that the AP is being dishonest by leaving Ayers' own statements out of the mix. But this is an article about Obama's relationship with Ayers, which is cooperative in current community-building projects, condemnatory towards past actions, and otherwise nonexistent. The information you wanted out of the article is tangential to that argument, so it's not intellectually dishonest to have left it out.
If you want to argue more generally that the slant in the article is unforgivable, then I'm not opposed to that. And I agree with Brendan below that the central argument in the AP analysis is weak at best.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Again,
it is intellectually dishonest because the statement is so obviously one-sided. A news analysis should at least make fair and reasonably accurate portrayals of the person at hand, not rehash campaign talking points.
Are really going with the apologia that Daniel was being "technically accurate"? How Rumsfeldian.
Here you go, right here:
And the article is about Obama, not about Ayers. As I said above, if the writer was making claims about Ayers but had left out this information, you'd be on firmer ground. But he didn't, because he was writing an article on Obama, and Obama's attitude towards Ayers. You're criticizing an argument that isn't there.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Irrelevant
The subject was also Ayers by extension. Daniel was downtalking the Ayers relationship with Obama and minimizing Ayers' radical history, all perfectly in synch with the Obama campaign's talking points.
You're welcome to point out
anywhere in the article where Daniel is "minimizing Ayers' radical history". I just reread the article again, and his sole discussion of Ayers' history is the fact that he'd planted bombs with the Weathermen (hardly a minimization). That's because this isn't an article about Ayers, no matter how much you want to make it so.
Ayers' lack of repentance is entirely irrelevant to the argument over whether Obama's ties to him are substantial. Again: if this article were trying to minimize Ayers' involvement, you'd be on firmer ground. But why you're insisting on an irrelevant point is beyond me.
To put it simply:
Are Obama's connections with Ayers substantial enough to warrant criticism? (Yes or No, the lack of repentance on Ayers' part does not affect this argument whatsoever.) Did the AP writer support this claim of "No" in a way that was intellectually honest? (And again, the lack of repentance on Ayers' part does not affect that question whatsoever.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Again, wrong subject
It's not just about Obama, it's about Obama's relationship with Ayers. Because of this, a fair jounalistic "analysis" should have a fair recounting of who Ayers is, the nature of the relationship, Ayers' history, and why such a relationship is an issue. It was as if Daniel transcribed a fax directly from the Obama campaign.
I think that people are thinking about this backwards ...
It doesn't matter whether Obama denounces Ayers actions or not. Obama is a politician and will say what he needs to say to get elected ... if that means denouncing Ayers or Wright or whomever when they become a liability then so be it.
It is the fact that the Ayers and the Wrights of the world who CHOOSE to help Obama that matters here, because we know that they are looking after their own backs. It is the fact that Ayers and Wright obviously believe that Obama shares their values that is significant in terms of giving us a read on what Obama really believes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh please
So when lunatics like Hagee support McCain, that gives us a read on what McCain really believes then, too, right? It doesn't matter that McCain has denounced Hagee (has he?) since he is a politician and will say anything to get elected. And when the 9/11 truthers supported Ron Paul, that gave us an insight into what Paul actually believes, right?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
As I state below ...
Given the lack of any objective accomplishments on which to base an opinion of Obama, we are forced to look at proxies from his past. One such proxy is his relationship to people like Ayers and Wright. Note that these were not casual relationships. Ayer's basically launched Obama's political career by introducing him to "the right people" in the Chicago political machine. Wright was an advisor for many, many years.
So, either (a) Obama got along with these people because he believes what they believe, or (b) Obama was just pretending to believe that they believed out of political expediency. Take your pick. Either way I don't like the picture.
And as I also point out below, if Obama's recent foray's into fighting for actual legistlation are an accurate barometer for the man (e.g. the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
) then I still come back to his being an apologist (in deed if not in recent word) for the terrorists ... and not just the home grown variety in this case. This just seems like Obama taking Ayers' continued belief in a terrorist ideology to the international level by helping to clear the way for the terrorists to do elsewhere what Ayers advocates here at home.
None of this is true for McCain. He has a long list of accomplishments that he chose to put his time into on which we can objective assess what he believes.
DISCLAIMER:
The fact that McCain has a long list of objective accomplishments on which to base our opinions of him, does NOT mean that I agree with him in any way. Quite the opposite. Based on that list of accomplishments I, personally, don't like or trust him either. I would prefer some other candidate such as Bob Barr, but alas the two party system may require me to back McCain/Palin strictly out of opposition to Obama/Biden. I have a long history of disliking Biden that predates his selection as the VP candidate (here's a reasonable summary of the reasons why
).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And on another note:
if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, it would at least behoove you to address what the editorial's argument actually is:
That's the argument in a nutshell: Palin intentionally left out the specific target of her criticism (Ayers) in order to bring up the more ambiguous specter of terrorism, which most Americans associated with Muslims.
I'm not sure that's the strongest argument, but I'd be curious to see what the results would be if we interviewed "regular" voters about what they thought Palin meant. And I'd be willing to bet money that many if not most would not know the Ayers story. If that's the case, does the AP writer have a point, however poorly defended?
(Incidentally the worst part of that article is how badly it's written. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that last sentence.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think the writer is stretching there
in that it seems the McCain campaign plans to be quite specific about Ayers as well as Rezko, Wright, and who knows what else.
(This is obviously not to say that the McCain campaign has never played on racial stereotypes, deliberately or otherwise.)
Now if they start claiming Obama attended a radical madrassa...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Oh, I don't disagree,
I just think it's worth addressing the argument outright. Has the Ayers argument stuck in public consciousness? It's hard to tell: I was pretty surprised to hear that Obama doesn't sing the national anthem, coming from a Midwestern church group. Craziness.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Sorry, but that's just spin.
Ayers is a terrorist. Obama has been palling around with him. The fact they you infer from that that the statement was about "dark-skinned radical Muslims" does NOT in any way mean that Palin mean to imply it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The problem is,
the subtext is a figment of Daniel's mental construct of who terrorists are. Eric Rudolph is a terrorist, and so was McVeigh, and both are as lily white as Ayers. It was pretty obvious that Palin was referring to a white-skinned Bill Ayers, who was the only terrorist that Obama hung around with (and maybe Bernadine Dorhn). Here's what Palin said in Colorado:
It's pretty clear that the terrorist she was referring to was Ayers, not some scary dark-skinned militant Islamist.
McCain calls convicted felon a role model.Ayers' misdomenor
was nothing compared to the felon that launched John McCain's career. Yes John McCain's wife Cindy's father is a convicted felon.
Ayers was convicted of a misdomenor when they found him in a blown up building in NY. Some Weathermen friends of his weren't very good at making bombs. And this is decades before Barack ever met Ayers.
We are gonna see the dirtiest campaign in our lives folks.
This is kinda funny, actually ...
the part where you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, I mean. On the one hand you decry the discussion of Ayer's background as being wrong headed and then you engage in the very same activity yourself regarding McCain's father in law.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, let's see
Assuming:
McCain is a moral fellow who follows the Golden Rule...
And knowing:
McCain brings up guilt-by-association arguments...
We can logically deduce:
McCain wants people to bring up guilt-by association arguments against him as well!
:P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
:)
I was wondering if someone would make this connection or not.
There is a difference in my case from what kindness has done here, though. I make it explicit that this is what I am doing and I don't complain when others do it (above board) as well. For example, note that in this case I am not actually complaining about the fact that kindness employed this tactic, I am saying that it is "kinda funny." :)
In either case, McCain is not employing a guilt-by-association argument. He is merely pointing out the type of people Obama was able to get support from when he wanted to launch his career as a barometer on what Obama actually believes. We must rely on these types of proxies in Obama's case because his list of actual accomplishments on which he can be judged is thin to non-existent. This is not the case with McCain.
When we try to look into Obama's past, however, we keep running into the likes of Ayers and Wright and all manner of the legendary "Chicago Political Machinery". When we look into his recent legislative activities we find things like the
which also seeks to help the international terrorists when you actually think about it.
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007Take the Pressure off of Internationl Terrorists Act of 2007Hmmm. Obama's not looking good by either measure.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Desperation
This kind of crap is what a campaign does when it's got nothing to lose. The VP debates didn't provide a game changer. John McCain desperately needs a game changer. This ain't it.
Barack Obama isn't a radical. He's not even very liberal. The McCain camp's current strategy is a bad one. Using Palin as a typical GOP attack dog is stupid, stupid, stupid... firing up the base at the expense of the middle is a sure fire way for McCain to throw this whole thing in the crapper.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Music to my ears at least
Whatever McCain can do to throw his campaign in the crapper is fine with me!
I'm only half stupid
Any campaign would attack another candidate who had connections
with a terrorist, whether the candidate was black or white. It has nothing to do with race, and just shows some people's desperation to show John McCain running a racist campaign.
I see your statement
hypocritical and lacking any parameters or definition.
If Bill Ayers was a terrorist ( a loaded word, and a blanket statement) he would be in prison.
And whatever link you see here that is so 'threatening' to America is beyond tenuous.
Enough already with this garbage.
I'm only half stupid
"If Bill Ayers was a
"If Bill Ayers was a terrorist ( a loaded word, and a blanket statement) he would be in prison." Yeah because we all know the US justice system is absolutely perfect.
" And whatever link you see here that is so 'threatening' to America is beyond tenuous."
I didn't say anything about a threat to America or even if this was a relevant attack - simply that's an attack that would be made by any campaign regardless of the candidate.
Maybe.
Racist? I don't know. But there's a subtext at play here, I think, that will play that way to certain segments. It's not overt.
And it's not entirely true to suggest that campaigns use stuff like this simply 'because it's there'.
Has Biden been talking about Charles Keating? Have we heard anything from Biden about drug abuse, charity fraud, and forged prescriptions?
Campaigns delve into this kind of stuff at a cost. The McCain camp knows they'll pay a price. But, at this point, they've got to try to change the subject. I don't think it's going to work.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
It seems like there are parallel conversations taking place
on this thread in general.
One conversation is about whether the AP piece is correct to suggest the presence or even appearance of racism behind bringing up "terrorists" rather than specifically discussing Ayers.
The other conversation is whether it is "fair" to judge Obama based on what Ayers did, given the nature of their relationship.
I think they're overlapping here, and elsewhere. (For whatever it's worth my answer to the first is in my discussion with pico and to the second my discussion with Bird Dog.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Interesting.....
{edited to omit dumb comment}
I'm only half stupid
A thousand
Ayers was more American than a thousand Sarah Palins.
Yep
It was a thousand times more American to attempt to bomb
military personnel and their civilian dates at an NCO dance in Fort Dix. Palin never even tried to build bombs. How unpatriotic of her.
An Old Joke
It's like the old joke...
Q: What's the difference between a Republican and a terrorist?
A: Lipstick!
Say what you will about Obama knowing who Bill Ayers is; he also works with radical extremists in Congress, which make up slightly under half of the Senate, and those Republicans are far more dangerous to us than aging baby-boomers who work at colleges.
The GOP is a far greater threat to this nation than any number of Ayers, and a far sight more dangerous than bin Laden himself. The fear they promulgate is the equivalent of sending shipments of arms and cash to bin Laden for Ramadan each year; after all, arms and cash, to terrorists, are merely means for producing fear, which is their real goal. You know, so we do something stupid, like occupy Iraq. Thanks, traitors.
For what it's worth, there are much stronger connections between the Palins and the Alaskan secessionists, who hate America far more than the Weather Underground ever did. At least the WU was fighting for their country, misguided as they were; the Palins don't even have good motives to hide behind. They hate America.
Perhaps if someone can show me how Obama's thinking reflects influence by terrorists. Oh, you can't? Hmm, could this just be a desperate smear tactic with no basis in reality. Because it's so easy to find such influences in Palin's history; the leader of her beloved secessionists died in a "plastic explosives deal gone bad", and yet she still supported the party he founded, and her husband was a member until it became politically expedient for him to leave. And, unlike Obama, I have yet to hear any denouncements of such ties...
I'm very glad he's doing constructive community activism,
but I'd prefer to do without patriotism of the bomb-throwing variety.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Wouldn't the
"patriotism of the bomb-throwing variety" be the patriotism of the terrorists who founded the US?
Sic semper tyrannis
No, it wouldn't.
Way to compare the great American patriots, our founders, to a puck and a coward and a terrorist.
That's why so many liberals can not be engaged in real discussion, the latitude of intellectual fancy is so often disingenuously broad.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
the revolutionaries.....
as in the ultimate patriotic fight, the bloody battle of the American revolution.
Isn't that why the right insists on one supreme right, the right to own guns, no matter what.
Who and what is a terrorist? Was the V-Tech killer a terrorist?
Eric Harris and the Columbine High School Massacre, the Ruby Ridge stand off, the Waco Fortress, and The OKC bombings. Do you label these folks terrorists?
Are the folks that recently gun downed church goers terrorists.
The selective use of the word terrorist is revealing. It seems to be employed only when referring those on the far left of the political spectrum, but decidedly missing when describing the far right.
I personally do not advocate violence as a means of change.
I'm only half stupid
Who's being selective?
Yes in the sense that he targetted innocent people. No in the sense that there was no political motivation driving his actions.
Same as above.
Not at all. All violence in this case was initiated by the government. The individuals involved only sought to be left alone and only defended themselves when attacked.
Same as above.
Most definitely. It targetted innocent people (albeit indirectly because they had the unfortunate circumstance of being in the wrong Federal building at the wrong time), and it most definitely had a political motivation behind it.
I don't know what you are referring to or who the perpetrators are or what their motivation was. But if they were targeting innocent people because of a political agenda, then yes they were terrorists.
As you can see above, this claim is false. McVeigh was not left-wing. In fact, McVeigh was very much the right-wing counterpart to Ayers and the weathermen.
Nor do I nor does anyone I know. This cannot be said of the likes of Osama Bin Laden or anyone that can be properly termed a terrorist.
I do, however, advocate the use of the most effective means of defense against others who DO intend to use violence as a means of change. I do NOT advocate pacifism. I advocate extermination of those who refuse to get along with their neighbors and demonstrate a willingness to kill innocent people because of it.
As my dad taught me, and I now teach my children, don't ever start a fight ... but don't ever run away from one either. The principle applies equally well on the school playground as it does in international diplomacy.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Great illustration GR!!
This is the tactic the left has now employed, this idea that there is no right and wrong, good and evil, up or down...
It is only in that environment that their arguments make any sense, even to them, hence the continual objection to any absolutes.
To them we live in a subjective world where anything goes, Bill Ayers is a highly respected academic on par with Washington or Madison, Jeremiah Wright is simply misunderstood-it's a cultural thing, the democrats and their minions didn't force this sub prime crisis on America, Barack Obama is not a far left socialist who spent his whole life seeking out radical alternatives, and finally GW is the anti-Christ and is solely responsible for everything that is wrong with the world.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Objections to absolutes
Well, I wouldn't say "continual," that's a bit absolute! But I agree that this is a big difference between your stereotypical lefty and your stereotypical righty. As far as I am concerned, there are very few absolutes. (note that I did not say there are NO absolutes!) Let's just take a look at your examples:
On a par with? Hardly. Clearly there is a vast spectrum of "worthiness of respect." You are viewing this as an absolute, where Ayers either has to be complete scum or equivalent to a founding father. I think it is ridiculously obvious that Ayers lies somewhere between the two.
Whatever. It clearly is a cultural thing, that someone could act the way he does and still be fairly respected by his community. I don't claim to get it - he seems to be a bit of a looney to me. That said, I strongly suspect that the major points of a vast body of his sermons would not seem particularly radical to most people.
See, now most reasonable people realize that both parties are culpable here. Since you seem to be of the opinion that the problem largely resulted from too many mortgages given to low-income people, then what do you say to this
: "In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities."
Meh. When the only categories that exist in yourmind are conservative, centrist and far left socialist, then your description fits. Let's just say I disagree.
See, there you have an example of an absolute that the left can accept - disproving your assertion that we continually object to absolutes! Ha! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL...
I did not suggest the Ayers/Founder comparison, one of your politically inclined did.
Jeremiah Wright is devoid of any real American values, here again, it is this inherent quest for the de-absolutism of everything so we can not differentiate between right and wrong that is at play here..
Say what you like, the record is quite clear, the democrats uniformly, and unwaveringly pushed for the modification of tried and true lending practices, and staunchly regected any and every attempt to reconcile the problem. Bush's domestic policies aside, this is squarley in the lap of the democrats, and they know it.
BO's history speaks for itself, at every turn he has chosen the far left path or option, until he tried to center up his positions for this election.
GW is just GW, I'm comfortable saying he is not the anti-Christ...BO on the other hand... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
There you go with your absolutes
Do you not know or do you not care that he was both a Marine and a Navy Corpsman, that he was a member of the Commander in Chief's Medical Team at Bethesda Military Hospital, and received three White House Letters of Commendation for his service caring for President Johnson? Do these not indicate at least an iota of American values?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Terrorists founded the US?
So George Washington indiscriminately murdered civilians by sending out revolutionary suicide bombers? In which alternative universe?
And for some reason ...
people on the left wonder why those of us on the right might question whether they actually love their country.
For me the comparison made above is repugnant because, as you point out, it equates the moral actions and tactics of our founders with that of the common suicide bombers and all manner of religious fanatics as if the only difference between them is a matter of personal preference and perspective.
Osama Bin Laden and George Washington. Thomas Jefferson and al Zarqawi. They're all just peas from the same pod, I guess, in the eyes of the left.
That many (most?) of the people on the left cannot see any distinction between them is a truly sad statement on the state of affairs in this country.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Lobster Backs apparently loved George
Two people using tactics that fall under the same umbrella term, still use tactics that fall under the same umbrella term even if their ends are different.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Perhaps my selective memory is confusing me here ...
but when did our founders employ the tactic of committing random acts of violence against British citizens (both at home and abroad) who were otherwise uninvolved in the efforts to repress our independence?
What tactics are you referring to, and what umbrella term are you claiming that they fall under?
Why do you think this?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"Forced" freedom from the Brits , form of repressed independence
I used "umbrella term" since I was using a more flexible definition of "terrorism" One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I'm sure some people would call not following the rules of war, terrorist tactics. Calling the Patriots, the terrorist of their day wouldn't be disingeneous (terrorist don't need to exclusively or mainly target civilians).
And please don't take it the same way a Cincinnati Bengals fan would if I called the Bengals "a horrible NFL team" just because that person is a Bengals fan and I'm not, doesn't mean the Bengals aren't a horrible NFL team. They might respond defensivly and act like the Bengals are ok or even worse, claim I called the Bengals a horrible football team and produce contradictory information that their local high school team is far worse than the Bengals and therefore the Bengals aren't horrible.
Sarcasm and the reasoning goes hand in hand with the 1st part of the above reply in this comment.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
See my reply below ...
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/2479#comment-97111
What, exactly, is your definition of terrorism in this case? Do you consistently use this definition or are you just seeking to enlighten people by trying to get them to think outside the box on this topic?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Strawman.
Terrorist don't need to fit into the definition of terrorist that you just proposed.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
While you are free to employ whatever definitions you choose ...
the definition being used above seems quite consistent with common usage within the prevailing discussion of the topic within society today. Selecting a definition which is clearly outside that is disingenuous at best.
Follow-up:
Your comment prompted me to seek out some material on the definition of terrorism and terorist and in that search I came across a reasonably good discussion of the topic at:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism.htm
It is well worth the read and there is an interactive portion at the end which was put together by the Christian Science Monitor which is also worth a little time to explore. It will get you to thinking about the topic based on actual world examples when viewed against different definitions of terrorism.
Not surprisingly, my own personal view of the definition is closely aligned with the definitions from the US Homeland Security and US Law perspective. YMMV, but that does not mean that I am obligated to agree with your mileage! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Militant Free Market Economists?
I wanted to point out one quote from the CSM interactive website:
I got a chuckle out of the example they chose above. The mental image of a bunch of academic free trade economists taking hostages just tickles my funny bone, I guess. So, all you yellow bars out there, do we have anything to worry about from the militant wing of the free trade economists out there?
LOL, that makes me laugh just typing it. I can just imagine Milton Friedman
dressed like Rambo leading a cadre of his contemporaries 
to take over the "Big Board" 
on Wall Street so that they could issue their demands!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In general...
A terrorist strikes indiscriminately at civilian or military targets and/or fights with gross neglect of the rules of war with, especially when done by irregular forces or mobs [some in the Know Nothing party would be included too]. Tarring and feathering included. The regular army of the Rebels mostly falls outside of that definition.
Under some of the definitions linked above, dropping napalm on
urban defense forces civilians could very well be considered terrorism.In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Then you render the term meaningless
My definition of a terrorist is one who deliberately targets civilians or who indiscriminately murders civilians in order to achieve some political objective. The term is most apt in a post-Geneva Conventions world, which established rules about minimizing civilian casualties. If you take the term too broadly, then "terrorism" has no real meaning, and it's a convenient way to call Americans terrorists, which is a tack that I find repulsive.
Word association time
"My Lai."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Of course My Lai does not fit the definition provided ...
as much as you would like it to. My Lai is clearly NOT an example of terrorism. The operation was conceived and undertaken as a purely military operation to engage a military target according to intelligence at the time. The fact that the initial engagement was timed so as to, in theory at least, minimize non-combatant casualties supports this view.
There is not much difference between the fire bombings of WWII (which were targeted at destroying military apparatus, production, and supply lines) and the deaths at My Lai (where the objective was to target members and supporters of the 48th Battalion of the NLF ... which was clearly a military target).
The fact the the intelligence proved faulty does not transform the intended target from a military to a civilian one.
Those who were responsible on the ground were eventually charged and prosecuted for their actions. To the best of my knowledge Osama Bin Laden has not sought to charge and prosecute anyone in his group for crimes against civilian targets. Therein lies the difference.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's a more accurate term
"War crime."
"Terrorism" and "war crime"
don't seem mutually exclusive, unless you restrict terrorism to non-state actors (as some certainly do).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh I know....
...why would anyone think a guy named BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is anything but a nice christian guy from the neighborhood?
Get real man, everything that cat does is for political expediency.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Whereas....
.... John McCain and Sarah Palin have nothing but copper-bottomed integrity, and aren't driven by political expediency. No stoking the fires of cultural xenophobia from them, nosiree! They are going to run a classy campaign on the issues. Or something.
I'm disturbed by this notion that Obama might be an opportunist, though.
Do you think he might secretly be a politician?
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Well frankly I am not pleased McCain is hammering...
...away on the Ayers stuff.
He would be much better off clearly laying out for the American people how the Democrats drove this econmy into the ground, through over regulating, or forcing lenders to ignore long held, hard and fast lending guidelines in the hope of homogenizing the country.
And now we all get to pay for it!
My kids will be paying for Barney Franks defense of his boyfriends job, and the down the line democratic negligence in not adopting stricter oversight.
In 2003, and again in 2005, when John McCain proposed legislation be adopted so we could have managed this thing, Democrats voted their party, and prevented us from avoiding this 700 Billion Dollar bill!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
may the best politician win
Either way, we're stuck with a politician.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
While I'm certainly in the minority
I can;t help but point out that I find the Ayer's actions during Vietnam far preferable to McCain's.
Consider that the Weathermen killed nobody (outside of their own group through carelessness). They planted bombs, yes, but also made sure that the threats were made so the places would be empty.
On the other hand as a navy bomber pilot McCain was in league with a group that killed thousands with bombs.
Oh, right. I guess gooks don't count as humans...
Carry on.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Somehow this does not surprise me at all ...
This seems completely in line with your views.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Very sad...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Why, RW?
On the one hand you have nobody dead and an attempt to stop a hideously immoral war. On the other hand you have thousands of civilians killed to promote some idiotic domino theory (proved false ultimately) and to maintain brinksmanship with the big communist powers.
By what standard can you call the mass slaughter of vietnamese civilians (US military) better than mere destruction of property (WUO)?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well...
Actually people were killed Tlaloc, and in what you percieve as...
I see the vociferous insurgent charades of an un-American domestic terrorist, who contributed to the failure in Vietnam - not eliviated it.
And where you claim...
I believe 58 thousand young American men were killed by the enemy while doing their best to carry out the mission they were tasked with.
What Bill Ayers did, was to perpetrate terror and treason.
Equivocal language or rhetorec does not change that fact.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Who?
Who was killed by the WUO?
US casualties in Vietnam are beside the point. Just as the Weathermen who blew themselves up are beside the point. You still had an organization that deliberately murdered thousands of civilians, and an organization that only destroyed property.
Yet you deem the first honorable and the latter vile.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I agree Tlaloc
In bizarro world the deaths of thousands women and childrenare discounted, while someone attracting attention to this atrocity. is described as a domestic terrorist.
I'm only half stupid
He served his country
Agree or disagree with the cause, McCain enlisted and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Ayers is a left-wing political extremist and small "c" communist who sought the violent overthrow of our government. Ayers' groups was responsible (most likely) for killing a cop in SF and disfiguring another via pipe bomb (cite
).
Ayers' group plotted to bomb an NCO dance at Fort Dix, which could've killed over a hundred officers and their civilian dates (cite
). Fortunately, the bomb killed their own instead of their intended targets.
Ayers' group was responsible for attempted murder by bombing the house of a judge and his family (cite
).
Ayers' group was responsible for an armored car robbery that resulted in the murder of two cops and a security guard (cite
). He's a piece of scum.
I'm not sure positions even deserves a response. nt.
NT.
Make that "Tlaloc's positions" NT.
NT.
That's uncalled for, John
The point of the site is to "cross swords." I'm arguing in good faith. More to the point you and I have had good arguments in the past, so there's really no good reason for you to say such a thing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, at least I didn't say I was sure
Your point may be worth debating. And you're right that we have had some good discussions. But the idea the idea of saying what John McCain went through for his country is worth than a guy that was involved in fighting his own country, is so outrageous to me that I won't debate it. Please don't that personally, maybe it should be debated, but I'm not at that point.
Fair enough
I mistook your intent.
(I do think though that it should be debated, but there's nothing wrong with saying it's not a topic you feel disposed towards)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Also the radical difference between my view and your view
on the specific question of whether McCain, or Ayers was better involve so many different presuppostions (interventionism vs. pacism..., ) that would more worthwhile arguing.
Bill Ayers
is not running for President.
I'm only half stupid
But his pal Obama is ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Niether is...
Bernadine Dohrn
Rashid Khalidi
Joseph Cirincione
Jerimiah Wright
John J. Sweeney
George
Soros
Jodie Evans
Louis Farrakhan
George Galloway
Jim Johnson
Francoise Hollande
William "Cold Cash" Jefferson
Michael Klonsky
Rapper Ludacris
Michael Moore
Move On . org
Black Panther Party
NARAL
Daniel Ortega
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
Qadhafi
Bernie Sanders
Al Sharpton
James
Yee
...or any number of two dozen others!
That doesn't make it any less worth knowing, that these personalities are the types of people who Obama has aligned himself with, and those that seem to feel as though he is aligned with them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You forgot to add ...
What an ironic date to have a piece linking you to terrorism be published, eh? Do you believe in Karmic justice?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is that really an excuse?
Surely I don't need to invoke a goodwin violation to prove the point that crimes in support of country are still crimes, right?
Now some corrections:
"most likely" should be read here as "I hope." There's no evidence that WUO was involved in the matter, they were never indicted much less convicted. They were investigated in the mater, but so what, if anything the fact that they were investigated and never even tried suggests strongly they were innocent.
Given that the WUO went out of their way to make sure that previous bombs killed and injured no one this is complete supposition on your part. The most likely intent based upon their established Modus Operandi would be to plant the bomb and call in a bomb threat, thus damaging an empty building.
More than a slight overstatement. You don't seriously try to kill people by hitting their front door with molotov cocktails.
Except you know damn well that isn;t true since your cite says this:
So not only was it long after Ayers was out of the picture but the very group you want to attribute this to no longer existed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not necessarily ...
Just because the invetigation turned up insufficient evidence to prosecute, it does NOT logically follow that they ARE innocent or even strongly suggest that is the case. All that one can logically infer from these facts is that the investigation did not turn up enough evidence to prosecute ... and that doesn't even imply NO evidence.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crimes in support of country?
McCain didn't commit any, and no one with credibility has made such a claim. But if you want to be an apologist for terrorist Ayers, whatever.
Bird, are you suggesting Obama was a weatherman?
I thought your whole argument was that Obama was associated with a man who was part of group that committed terrorism.
By that standard it doesn't matter if McCain himself committed war crimes, he joined a group that did.
Goose-gander.
By two counts that makes McCain worse, first because he was directly part of a criminal military while at best Obama was friends with a terrorist and also because the crimes of the US military in Vietnam were many orders of magnitude more obscene than anything the WUO is known to have done.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It hinges on intent
as it always does.
What was the intent of the Weathermen? What was the intent of John McCain during Vietnam?
The Weathermen were doing what any reasonable resistance force could do: bombing government buildings while taking every precaution that civilians not be hurt. In this way Bill Ayers et al are far preferable to Timothy McVeigh and any other government resisters.
The only way McCain loses to the Weathermen is if he had the intent to kill civilians. I'd need some pretty strong evidence he actively targeted civilians outside of orders. I'll give him a pass if he had orders to carpet bomb a certain area and he killed some civilians.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Mostly I agree
I tend to give low level soldiers a bit of a pass unless they directly commit atrocities. Yes, they really should sure as hell know better but at the same time most are young and dumb and in the case of Vietnam may well have been compelled to serve, rather than volunteers.
But you know when you try to sell that the WUO was evil incarnate all the while McCain's friends were napalming villages, I call Bullsh*t.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.