"I've Never Been an Obsessive Partisan."

Says who?  You may be surprised.  Unless, of course, you're still watching this stuff more obsessively than I am (I need to catch up on everything else!), in which case, you already know.

Comments

[karen]

"And I do have faith in Barack Obama that he will make sure that our young men and women can come home safely. Can come home with victory and with honor. I am proud of my son being one of America's finest over there, serving Barack Obama. Serving all of us."

Do you see the difference??

[Danny]

The last thing I'm interested in at this point is trashing Sarah Palin, but I'm just curious to know what you mean by "Do you see the difference?" Because if it's meant to imply that Palin is such a graceful loser and patriot, then why did she dredge up the following earlier today during an interview with Wolf Blitzer:

Sarah Palin: "I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. And if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me. And I think it's still fair to talk about it. However the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and to, again, make sure that all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation."

Huh? If the chapter is OVER and it's time to MOVE ON, then why the heck is she still talking about Ayers in such an incendiary way? That said, I think she's coming across well in the other interviews I've seen. Now, if she's smart, she should disappear for a while, do some great work in Alaska, and re-emerge in a few years.

[Meade]

Danny: I think her point was that the chapter titled "Campaign 2008" is closed but the issue of William Ayers and the full truth of his relationship to Barack Obama still needs to be discovered by media who failed to do their jobs and instead fecklessly fixated on Sarah Palin and her womb. I realize you are a strong admirer of William Ayers the professor of education. William Ayers the retired but not repentant violent revolutionary and his wife Bernardine Dohrn have had a more substantial connection to the President-elect than has been disclosed. Now that the heat of the campaign is behind us, the American people deserve a full sober assessment of their relationship. Of course, if you choose, you can do your own research. Here is a place to begin.

[Simon]

I hope she's serious about not seeking the Senate seat. That would be a serious tactical error - the last thing she needs is to get mired in that mess. Get back to being the outstanding Governor that brought you to our attention in the first place; you not only don't need "Washington experience," if you try to get it it you'll just end up with Washington on you with nothing to show for it.

[karen]

At the time i wrote that, Danny- i was thinking Grace. Especially after all the crap she was put through. I was also thinking about how someone on the Left would react to such a question. I think it would be different.

I could be wrong.

Also, re: Bill Ayers. Paglia(is that her name?)(The Feminist)wrote a pretty honest article on Palin, Obama, Ayers and the election. Palin isn't the only one who feels like things have been swept under the rug.

[Danny]

Karen, Meade, I can't believe that the Bill Ayers smear that the McCain people only re-ignited out of total desperation is still being seriously discussed as something that needs to be "looked into more thoroughly." Do you really think it hasn't been picked apart by every journalist looking for a byline? What would you like to happen with the "investigation?" What is your worst-case scenario about the relationship between Obama and Ayers? What exactly do you think Obama is hiding? Do you think Ayers has an agenda for the Obama administration and this country and that Obama is somehow in his debt and will allow Ayers to have a secret role in the government? Or is it just that he LIED about their friendship? What's the story here? What's the fear? That the President-elect is "palling around with terrorists?"

Yes, William Ayers has an extremely radical past and participated in some scary shit when Obama was a little boy. (Meade, I've seen that documentary you linked to and am quite familiar with the activities of the Weather Underground in the 60s and early 70s.) Yes, he then made a very different life for himself decades later even though he obviously carries with him the baggage of his well known past and always will, especially among people who know him as a concept and not a person. Yes, he still has certain views that are far from the "mainstream." Yes, his circle of influential progressive Hyde Park Chicagoans with lots of money overlapped with Obama's on several occasions and Obama who was working his way up the system to national prominence didn't go running into the street screaming, "I can't be in the same room or on the same board with Bill Ayers!" Or do I have it wrong? Do you really believe that Ayers was some kind of mentor to Obama all along, training him to be a revolutionary for the cause, possibly to become an unrepentant terrorist like himself? And now, despite the fact that they are ideologically joined at the hip, Obama is lying about his close and enmeshed strings-attached friendship. OH MY GOD!

Okay, forgive the sarcasm, I just can't imagine what would satisfy people at this point about the Bill Ayers connection. What would you like Obama to do more than repudiating Ayers' radical activities from decades ago as he's already done? Do you want him to give the press a list detailing every time he was in a room with Bill Ayers and what was said? That's not going to happen. Do you think George W. Bush or John McCain haven't had endless associations with people and organizations whose past activities would make your hair stand on end? Or do you just want to put Bill Ayers back on trial? You can't get past the stuff he did in the past? I get it. But this is a non-story. Now, if Obama chose Bill Ayers to be Secretary of State, I can see where Ayers' past would be a legitimate issue for discussion. But as it stands, I wonder how much longer people plan to beat that poor dead horse?

[karen]

"Do you really think it hasn't been picked apart by every journalist looking for a byline?"

I really believe that it has not been picked apart by every journalist looking for a byline. Exactly.

It's the fact that Obama is lying. Has lied. To my face. Subtle shifts to counter any guilt in not revealing the truth to begin w/- to the greatest extent. Smiling because Ayers did all this idiot terroism(you know, blowing shit up in his own country)(against his own gov't's interest)- when he was only 8(yeahyeah)& i'm the idiot that can't accept the innocence.

The nuance i'd rather miss.

[Danny]

Now I feel like I'm the one putting that poor old horse on life support so I can keep beating it, but I still don't understand what Obama is lying about. I'm back to my earlier questions: WHAT are your worst-case scenario fears about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers? Is the "smiling" comment supposed to imply that Obama doesn't take seriously the violent past of the Weather Underground and somehow condones it even though he's said just the opposite?

To me it looks like you've learned about Bill Ayers and his past and are understandably horrified by the violent acts. I am NOT a supporter in any way of radical extremist groups on the left or the right but I'm also fascinated by the times and events that produced such ideologies. And I do believe people (like Bill Ayers) can evolve and change over time. Not that I blame people for being troubled by Ayers and his wife. I admire the work Bernardine Dohrn has been doing for many years but, to be honest, if she really said that horrible stuff that has been attributed to her about the Manson family back in the day, I'd have a hard time getting past that if she were in my life in any way. And if she (or her husband) were running for office or nominated for a high government position, I think it would be fair game to review all the sordid details of their youthful arrogance and criminal activity (as well as their very positive activities afterward). But the need by some to taint Barack Obama with the past crimes of Ayers and Dohrn just because he has interacted with them in Chicago is ridiculous.

[karen]

"But the need by some to taint Barack Obama with the past crimes of Ayers and Dohrn just because he has interacted with them in Chicago is ridiculous."

I believe it's more than chance interaction. Maybe i see a mountain where you see a molehill; so be it.

This relationship is way more intimate- and, i seriously wonder if Ayers/Dohrn are ~changed~ on their inside. From the outside, yes. From the ideology- i doubt very much.

"Is the "smiling" comment supposed to imply that Obama doesn't take seriously the violent past of the Weather Underground and somehow condones it even though he's said just the opposite?"

I'm sure he takes it seriously, enough. I'm sure he does not condone it. And, i'm sure the power and social educational knowledge of Ayers/Dohrn is overwhelmingly appealing enough to erase the past, esp that of 40 yrs ago, eh? Hell, everyone else seems to have resolved and moved on- except a few of us. Conservatives. And, Paglia.

The Obama smile is to suggest that, i am infantile and must be treated w/the patience and tolerance given a slow learner. Because i suspect untruth and hidden things from the President- elect. He covers a lot of feelings w/a smile- and i don't trust.

Do you think Ayers/Dohrn will be invited guests to the White House? If so, isn't it sadly ironic?

[PatHMV]

Danny... You say you would be horrified if "she really said that horrible stuff that has been attributed to her about the Manson family." Are you not horrified by the things that Dohrn and Ayers actually admit to doing?

When the story first broke, Sen. Obama said that he barely had met Ayers. In fact, they appear to have worked together fairly closely on education reform in Chicago. He also denied that they helped get his political career started. In fact, the individual he replaced in the Illinois legislature announced that she was backing Obama to succeed her at a fund-raiser for him at Ayers' and Dohrn's house.

Based on what I've seen of Ayers' writings specifically on the subject of education reform, his ideas on the role of education, to have government properly instill "right thinking" in the minds of children, seem pretty radical to me in and of themselves, even ignoring Ayers' violent past.

I'm not trying to taint Obama with their past crimes; he's not responsible for their actions. He is, however, responsible for his own judgment in choosing to accept and embrace their political support, and in choosing to support Ayers' views for educational reform.

And while I think actual shrieking and running from the room would be overkill, I would and do disapprove of working with him on anything at all. He is a man who continues to believe that his revolutionary goals justify violence, that violence is an acceptable means of political action. I condemn that wholeheartedly. And I would reject any political interaction with a man who not only believed that but had practiced it.

Had Ayers seen the error of his ways, had he ever realized that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, had he ever sought forgiveness for his crimes (and, in the process, fully confessed his own and others' involvement), then yes, I believe in forgiveness and redemption.

Let me ask you this. If you were to discover that George Bush had worked together on, say, his faith-based initiatives project with a man who had bombed an abortion clinic, and who expressed regret that, despite the violence, he hadn't done enough to try to stop the slaughter of innocent babies, would you truly not have a problem with that? Seriously.

[Danny]

I wish Obama WAS committed to Ayers' views of educational reform--my fear is that he isn't and I happen to greatly respect Ayers' writings on the subject which, in my view, has absolutely nothing to do with instilling "right thinking" in children. But helping them think for themselves and become fully involved, engaged citizens and lifelong learners? Absolutely. Have you read his professional books for teachers? I have. Why don't you take a look.

I've already said that I was horrified by the violent acts of the Weather Underground. It's true that Ayers and Dohrn seem unwilling to completely repudiate their past activities based on what was happening in the country at that time and what they were trying to achieve and in that, they fall to be "repentant." But they are hardly still committed to a violent agenda and both have done incredibly positive work over the past several decades. I'm not saying that this erases every decision they made in their youth and if you never want to look past those very difficult times, so be it, you don't have to. I don't want to cast myself as an apologist for Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn so I'll shut up but it does make me crazy to see his words taken out of context such as what he said on September 10, 2001 when his book came out (awful timing). He has tried to explain what he meant by that statement about "wishing they had done more" numerous times to no avail (for that matter, Dohrn has tried to explain her hideous Manson comment numerous times).

It will be interesting to see how Ayers comes off in his "Good Morning America" interview tomorrow morning. I don't know the man personally, only through his books. Maybe he'll look like an arrogant fool. I still say the Obama-Ayers Connection is a non-story and I ask those who still bring it up exactly what you would have had Obama do or say during the campaign that would have made you feel okay about it. Or do you think the fact that Obama had any interactions at all with Ayers disqualified him for running for President?

[PatHMV]

Danny, I'm perfectly aware of the context of his 9/10 interview remarks. If you believe that his intended ends weren't every bit as monstrous as his "youthful" methods, then indeed one might not be as horrified by his "we didn't do enough" comment. But to me, "we didn't do enough in trying to impose communism on an unwilling country" (which is indeed the actual context of his remarks) is pretty much just as horrifying as if he had actually said "I regret that we didn't bomb enough stuff." And at any rate, once you've tried to make political progress with violence, I think you have a special burden to make sure that nothing you say could possibly be mistaken for support for violence.

It's always possible to rationalize or "explain away" hideous things that people say. I'm sure Dohrn is at least sincere in regretting her initial admiration for Manson, if for no other reason than that it has hurt her cause.

At any rate, I think that people who espouse political violence SHOULD be ostracized and shunned from all decent company in our society. It cannot be tolerated, period. Violence to advance political causes in a country as free as ours is not simply unacceptable but abhorrent. Ayers and Dohrn believe in political violence, have never stopped believing in it, and have in fact practiced it. They undoubtedly continue to help shelter others who perpetrated it and help them evade justice.

What could Obama have said that would have pleased me? Not a lot, certainly, because I think his association with them showed poor judgment. Had he acknowledge that it was poor judgment, that would certainly help. But his defense basically amounted to "I worked with them before, and I would work with them again, though I denounce what they did when I was 8."

But they are not different people today. They have simply decided to lessen their actual practice of violence; they did not renounce its use.

You're not going to convince me to trust anything he has to say on educational reform. He believes in communism. I believe communism is inherently destructive of personal freedom and condemns any society which practices it to oppression and poverty. If he thinks something is a good thing to teach kids, then I feel perfectly justified in doing the opposite, simply because he thinks that doing so will further his objectives.

Finally, I never said that the association with Ayers and Dohrn is by itself "disqualifying." It is a negative fact, to me. You take that negative fact, weigh it with the other negative facts and the positive facts, and come to a conclusion. One can believe that Obama should never have associated at any level with a man like Ayers and still believe that other factors lead you to deciding that he would be the best of the available candidates.

And you didn't answer my question about how you would feel about a Republican presidential candidate having worked on some important project with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber.

[Danny]

I know, every time I started answering that question, I caught myself in a partisan screech, along the lines of "Do you really believe George Bush HASN'T had associations with people who have bombed abortion clinics?" and then I'd delete that because I don't have specific evidence of such a relationship despite the people he has had associations with who clearly DO horrify me.

But the short answer to your question is, yes, I would be horrified about a Republican presidential candidate who worked on an important project with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber. The analogy has limited merit for me, but I take your point, especially if it involves the reality that I am more predisposed to see the "good work" done by Ayers in recent years than I might be to view the subsequent actions of someone who was bombing abortion clinics.

I think you're dead wrong about Ayers' views about education but I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate your level-headed response to my hyperbolic reaction about "disqualifying" people for running for office.

[PatHMV]

Danny, you said:

It's true that Ayers and Dohrn seem unwilling to completely repudiate their past activities based on what was happening in the country at that time and what they were trying to achieve and in that, they fall to be "repentant."

I'm not looking for some checkbox of "repentance." I'm looking for an actual acceptance of responsibility for the evils that they did, and that they condoned. It's not that they've been unwilling to "completely" repudiate what they did, it's that they haven't done so at all. At best, they perhaps think that their violence was tactically unwise, but not morally repugnant or anathema to the fundamental principles of our society.

[PatHMV]

Danny, posted my last comment before seeing yours.

Is there anything that Ayers has written about his educational views available on-line, that you think exemplifies the good part of what you see?

[PatHMV]

Let me add, too, as clarification that I entirely agree that one should be willing to work with one's political opponents. I've recently criticized Republicans who were angered by fellow Republicans saying nice, polite things about our President-Elect. They consider Sen. Obama a very bad man, and thus any niceties to him they see as complicity with evil. (Nobody get on a partisan high horse, there's plenty of people on the other side who think the same thing about working with President Bush). Obviously, I hold no truck with that. I will certainly oppose a great many policies that President Obama will pursue, but I won't oppose him. Now that the election is over, he's the President, and entitled to respect as the holder of that office if for no other reason.

But I do think that some actions are so far beyond the pale, and committing violence for political ends or some other sense of moral certainty is included in that category, that anybody who does them should be shunned by society as a whole, and certainly by the leaders of our society, because such actions must be subject to the strongest discouragements possible.

[Danny]

Not that I know of. You could check out the education section of his website:

http://store.tcpress.com/0807739855.shtml

to download several of his pieces about education but as you stated yourself, I'm doubtful that you'll be able to get past what you believe his overall agenda is. If you really wanted to read one of his books, I'd choose "To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher":

http://store.tcpress.com/0807739855.shtml

For what it's worth, and at the risk of enraging you, my understanding of Ayers' and Dohrn's ever-present attempts to avoid human casualties in their violent activities of the past, while NOT excusing their criminal activities, already puts the actions in a different category for me than the abortion clinic bombers who specifically targeted doctors.

Pat, I doubt that you and I are far apart in our revulsion about acts of violence committed for political ends. Of course there are exceptions and complexities and slippery slopes--if only life were all black and white. For example, I'm guessing you would not necessarily condemn the violent actions of some resistance groups who were fighting the Nazis during World War II.

[Danny]

Oops, sorry. That first link should have been:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/teaching/

[Danny]

Hmm, looks like my correction didn't post. Is this site filtered against links to Bill Ayers' website? (Joke.) The first link above should be:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/teaching/

[PatHMV]

Re: your last paragraph... that's precisely why I limited my earlier statement: "Violence to advance political causes in a country as free as ours is not simply unacceptable but abhorrent."

Naturally, another qualifier, left unstated, is the nature of the perceived wrong against which one is fighting. Even had the Third Reich been a free democracy, violence to protect Jews and other oppressed groups from concentration camps and execution would be, in my view, morally appropriate.

But that last qualifier has the potential to be a very slippery slope. Ayers and Dohrn and their cohorts (not all of whom were nearly as careful of human life as they claimed to be) no doubt really, truly believed that their violence was morally justified as part of an effort to stop the war in Vietnam, or perhaps the oppression of black people in America, or whatever. Similarly, Malcolm X truly believed that the oppression of black people in America justified resistance "by any means necessary." Certainly the abortion clinic bombers believe that their actions are morally justified in order to save what they truly believe are the innocent lives of the unborn.

And that's the thing. To associate and treat Ayers with respect is to say, well, his motivation for violence was an adequate justification for that violence. He is a revolutionary rather than a terrorist.

I put little stock in the "but he didn't really try to kill people" line of defense. One, we have mostly his self-serving word for that. Yes, calls were made for some of the bombs, but certainly not for all of the Weather Underground bombs. He has hinted very clearly that he knows the current whereabouts, or at least is still in contact with, other members of the Weatherground who remain fugitives from justice, and who did kill people. Also, hardly all abortion clinic bombers specifically targeted doctors. Some did, some didn't. Most were people with actual mental issues, like Eric Rudolph. All of them were repeatedly and loudly denounced by both pro-choice people and also by almost all pro-life people, and when caught were prosecuted and sent to jail.

The fact is, when you bomb, you endanger lives. You do not sufficiently care about avoiding killing other human beings to not set the bomb to begin with. When you couple that with countless writings justifying political violence in order to convince the proletariat to revolt, I see zero moral distinction there.

Oh, and I've now read Ayers "Conceptions of Teaching" tract. Far from reassuring me, it confirms that he continues to be a radical. At the risk of enraging you, I don't agree with the statement that "Training is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees and good soldiers."

He criticizes a member of higher education for saying: ": “I have an advanced degree in communications, but that doesn’t qualify me to comment on the New York Philharmonic." Ayers says: "? Why not? In his categorical scheme of things we must wait passively for some authority, someone with an advanced degree in… what?—Appreciation? Composition? Performance?—to tell us what we think of the New York Philharmonic. Everything chopped to bits, the cult of the certified expert perched atop a single arid domain."

I lack, of course, the full context of that remark, but judging by the rest of the Ayers tract, I feel confident in disagreeing with his result. Certainly one does not need a degree to know whether we like something or not, nor should we need to be told by an authority what to like. But not everybody is expert in all things, and there IS a substantial place for authority in life, and in school.

His approach certainly seems to be along the lines of "the child is the center of the universe." I don't want wrote obedience from children, but I do think it appropriate that they learn to respect each other and authority... and that they learn that sometimes, you know, you really do have to do things that aren't "fun" or "creative," because, well, they have to be done.

I would agree in general with his comments about the dangers of the panopticon and the oppressive level of surveillance which we are beginning to experience (and look at England, where it is really getting scary), but I think that he and his ilk are part of the reason our society has instituted such measures. When government offices are subject to bombing by people like Ayers, is it any wonder that government responds to protect its employees by implementing security and surveillance measures?

So I continue to think that Ayers is a low-life scum who should be shunned by all in our society. Were he to merely hold his wrong-headed educational views, I would agree that associating with him would not be anathema. But he also bombed people and helped organize a gang of murderers and thugs, and he neither condemns nor regrets those violent actions, so I condemn him, and those who willingly associate themselves with him and rely on him for political support.

[Danny]

With all due respect (and I truly mean that, because I actually do respect your views even though I disagree with many of them), I think your assessment of Ayers' educational philosophy is highly skewed, just as you suspected it would be, by your unshakable view of him as "low-life scum." Not that I agree with every word he's written in his books, but on the whole I would say from my personal experience in the world of education that those resources have helped countless educators (and their students) in very real and profound ways. But I'm not trying to convince you of that and I don't blame you for being unable to separate your views of Ayers the radical with Ayers the educator. That would be a very tall order seeing as how strong your feelings are about his past actions and what you believe are his current beliefs. To find a common ground, while you advocate shunning him and those who would align themselves with him, I HOPE we can agree on how great it is to live in a country where someone with a radical past such as Ayers can still publish his thoughts and views instead of being thrown in front of a firing squad.

I love this country, I know you do, and I would **guess** that Bill Ayers would say that he does, too, albeit in ways that repulse you.

And now that I've been beating this horse silly all day, I want to formally resign my post as the Official Defender of Bill Ayers, a job I have never been comfortable with and one I'm sure I would have been fired from by Bill Ayers himself if he happened to read this blog!

[Meade]

Bill Ayers will be interviewed by Chris Cuomo on ABC's Good Morning America tomorrow. Now that the election is over, the national media feel themselves free to ask questions of Ayers but ten days ago they did not. Why?

I think that should bother Americans much more than it apparently does -- especially self-identifying Progressive Americans who, I thought, see themselves as being in a never-ending quest for truth and justice.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[amba]

Meade,

What I heard was that Ayers made himself unavailable and kept a really low profile -- was even hard to find -- during the campaign.

Draw from that what inferences you will. Also, the media did not really press Obama on the question of the degree of their involvement. Still, whether the media were "in on" Ayers's absence during the campaign, or just the campaign was, or whether it was the choice of Ayers himself, is an unknown.

[amba]

Remember, though, that after Ayers published a book on the juvenile justice system (well before his memoir), the CITY OF CHICAGO named him its Citizen of the Year in, I believe, 1997! That being the case, a younger person to whom the battles of the '60s were the dusty past could not be faulted to the same extent for associating with him. After his memoir came out, it was a different story (not that his Weatherman involvement was a secret before then, but that was when his unrepentant attitude became manifest, perfectly timed to coincide with 9/11). And supposedly some Chicago citizens were very upset that they'd honored him.

[Meade]

"And supposedly some Chicago citizens were very upset that they'd honored him."

Let me be the first to honor those Chicago citizens who were upset for having honored him. It's never too late to repent. Until it's too late.

Obama's shady associations with felons, Marxists, communists, and chic psychopathic violent radicals-come-academicians will dog his administration. And it won't be hypoallergenic.

[PatHMV]

Danny, pleasure debating with you.

[karen]

FRIDAY-Nov 14, a.m:

ok- no terrorism acts committed. Get that, America?? People were not targeted and in a War where 2,ooo were killed weekly- what else could be done to stop the War(other than bombing our Gov't)?

Bill Ayers. What a schmuck.