Powered by TypePad

« Booing The New Politics | Main | Ron Brownstein On Obama's False Consciousness »

April 19, 2008



Jim Geraghty wrote a piece yesterday (LUN)asking if the reader could serve on a board with a terrorist like Ayers, or shake his hand, etc.

My reaction was that I certainly could shake Ayers hand and I'd love to have a conversation with him, because I'd want to know why.

I want to hear what Bill Ayers has to say. I'd want to know his vision for America, then and now. Is it the same? Has it changed? Is he smug about getting away with it? Where does actually killing someone sit in his conscious? How does he feel about the Court system that got him off? Does he think he pulled one over on people? Does he think most Americans are stupid?

I might walk away in disgust after, but I'd definitely covet that opportunity.

And then you bring up Eric Rudolph, who I might talk to given the chance, but I doubt I'd shake his hand. The difference I guess is the jail thing. I don't know.


I think it is fascinating that your interest in Ayers is analogous to Obama's interest in small town Pennsylvanians.

In both cases the subjects are of interest because they are curiosities.


Rudolf didn't come from a rich family like Ayres and his cause was not popular on college campuses as the Weatherman's was. That's the only difference. That the Univ of Ill gave him tenure and that Northwestern law school gave his wife tenure is to me a shocking chapter in the history of America's universities.


In both cases the subjects are of interest because they are curiosities.


I think you are right. I was brought up to cleave to differences because that is always where the really interesting stuff is. What i found really interesting tho, is my lack of interest in Rudolph, at least in comparison.


In everyday life, we make judgments about people based, to some extent, on their association with others. In making these little social judgments, we consider their friends, their business, their mentors, their family and other similar indicators of their life choices. While it does not hold true in every instance, it has been my experience that the old phrases, “A man is known by the company he keeps,” and “Birds of a feather, flock together,” are distillations of accepted historical observation.

It is unreasonable to conclude that one’s associates have no influence. In ordinary life, we would certainly have serious qualms about someone we just met if we learned that he was a friend of an 1960's terrorist and still in communication with the terrorist. More so if we learned he had used the terrorist’s home for a function. It would give us pause if we learned that our new acquaintance attended a church where the pastor was a racist and taught anti-American canards as a usual staple of Sunday worship. If we learned that our unknown acquaintance had a great house financed by a slum lord on trial for several felonies, we likely would shy away.

Just one of these associations would be a warning. All three constitute a pattern that reflects a certain choice of attitude and manner. If our new acquaintance told us he disagreed with these friends of his and really did not hold any of the same values, we would find it hard to believe, unless he were Jesus eating and drinking with sinners. But, even then, that was to bring the sinners to repentance. Our new acquaintance seems not to be teaching, but to be taught. I think most people would be reluctant to become involved with this hypothetical person.

Yet, about half the country and most of the media have suspended disbelief with regard to Obama. Moreover, Obama’s clever maneuver is to make it sound racist or irrelevant to inquire about the obvious or to form ordinary judgments. It is a charade and a dangerous one.

Danube of Thought

Mornin', Jane. Mornin', all.

The guy could maybe spin those associations as evidence of a wide-ranging intellectual curiosity, an effort to mingle with and gain an understanding of folks with all different points of view--think Wm. F. Buckley, for example. He could say it was essential to understand all these points of view in order better to "transcend" them, to bring them all together in harmony.

His problem is that he hasn't done anything of the kind. His associations have been exclusively with people ranging from the Left to the Far Left to the downright dangerous and kooky Left. Ih his entire lifetime he has shown not the slightest curiosity about the views of the obviously alien types in small-town Pennsylvania. Pressed on the matter of his associations, the best counterweight he could come up with was Sen. Tom Coburn, a guy he surely met for the first time when he entered the U.S. Senate.

He's a charlatan, a fraud.


Your "Pattern" theory is dead on.
I'm beginning to detest the guy based on things he has said and done. Things he doesn't deny.


You have to remember, to the radical left Ayers and Dohrn were idols. While the rest of them were sitting in the dorm room passing around the bong and listening to ELP, the Weatherman faction were actually starting "the revolution".


It is like blogs. We tend to hang out with people who hold similar views, on most subjects anyway. We don't all walk lockstep with each other, but we are not falling off the universe on the left or right. That Obama chose these people to hang with says he shares their views. I can disown a comment or two made here, but I can't disassociate myself with the overall feeling of this blog. I would never hang with the Kos crowd and visit but don't linger with those on the far right. The same can be said of Obama. He can disown a flagrant comment or two, but he can't disassociate himself from the overall views held by the people he has hung with. And that he thinks he can says more about his supporters than him.


I clearly was one of the bong people.

Mark, I think you are right about the pattern. And don't forget, with BO it's not curiousity but rather association.

Good Morning DOT. It's a beautiful day here. I've been scrubbing the deck and preparing a new garden. And I'm about a month ahead of schedule. It's ugly to imagine we could actually have another frost.

And my very favorite holiday is on MOnday.



Do you mean Earth Day?


You may not realize it, but Kathy Boudin who did serve jail time for her role in the Weathermen bombings was the neice of Mrs. I.F. Stone. Mrs. Stone lived across the street and was a friend of mine. Kathy's role and her subsequent imprisonment left her young child in the custody of her mother who was unable to take on this task. (Someone else--maybe it was Ayres and Dohrn, but of that I'm unsure took on this job. Rather like O's grandmother did when mom fround the cultural patterns of Indonesian village blacksmiths more compelling an activitiy than raising her child.)
Boudin's father was a very lefty lawyer and a nasty man. Her brother (like Mrs. Stone) was conservative--a Reagan appointee to the US Ct of Appeals who in time gave up that post to return to private life which he preferred.


Anybody listenting to ELP...oh damn, there is no hope for America.


I was right--Ayres and Dohrn raised Boudin's son:

I hope so too, but there's several ominous signs that Boudin hasn't changed. She's relied on the usual support network of the radical left, instead of disavowing and distancing herself from them, and instead of teaching her child that her crimes and the raw hatred that lead to them was wrong, she's trained him to follow in her anti-American footsteps. On going to prison, Boudin gave custody of her one year old baby boy, Chesa to two friends and former terrorist colleagues, Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn (famous for her public salute to Satanic cultist and mass murderer Charles Manson).

For the next eighteen years, Ayers and Dohrn raised Chesa Boudin in their own image, teaching him to hate America, all with the cooperation and complicity of Boudin. If Boudin had really reformed, she would have removed her child from the custody of two unrepentant terrorists. But she didn't. If Boudin really regretted her felony murder, she would rebuke her son for declaring that his imprisoned "parents were all dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world," and announcing his dedication to the same cause.

But she hasn't. Instead, she's helped teach her son his ideology, a leftist idiocy wrapped in a bundle of lies. (This was no obstacle to his being awarded a coveted Rhodes Scholarship -- and in fact was probably a help.) Now Chesa Boudin sits smugly, a youth of immense privilege, encouraging the working class families of her murdered victims to forgive. "I was also a victim of that crime," he told the New York Times, "I know how important it was for me to forgive." With his Yale education, Rhodes scholarship, two living parents, and, thanks to his mother's crimes, a spot on the profitable left-wing lecture circuit, Chesa can afford a fatuous gesture or two. This crass comparison of his own bright situation to that of the dead offices' families proves that Boudin has raised him to be a moral cretin like herself.>Chesa Boudin

the event was also a magnet for every "Free Mumia," "Free Palestine," "Free Cuba," Emma Goldman, Sacco & Vanzetti, Marxist, Communist, Che Guevara, Black Panther, pseudo-revolutionary cause de guerre you can possibly imagine.

"Free Cuba"? Something in this list does not belong.


Do you mean Earth Day?/i


Patriots Day. It starts out with a reenactment of the battle of Concord and Lexington and proceeds to the Boston Marathon. People line the streets for 26 miles, cheering on their favorites. My favorites are rick and Dick Hoyt - (LUN)who have been competing as long as I've been watching. The Red Sox play early that day and the game gets out in time for the entire crowd to cheer on the winner.

It's the best day to be in Boston every single year.



Fix it.


Oops, I see you saw it first:)


"Free Cuba"? Something in this list does not belong."



What is really interesting is that the only practical difference between Ayers and The Unibomber is that Ayers blew stuff up then went to grad school. If the Unibomber had done it that way, he'd probably have gotten a tenure track job as well. There is a deep sickness at the core of the American Left these days, and the success of Ayers is a symptom, not a cause.

BTW, note that under the definision that Ayers uses to claim that he wasn't a terrorist (that his attacks were not random, but targeted to "educate") Eric Rudolph isn't one either. So they are, in fact, perfectly analogous individuals.


Rudolf didn't come from a rich family like Ayres and his cause was not popular on college campuses as the Weatherman's was. That's the only difference. That the Univ of Ill gave him tenure and that Northwestern law school gave his wife tenure is to me a shocking chapter in the history of America's universities.

yes and

There is a deep sickness at the core of the American Left these days, and the success of Ayers is a symptom, not a cause.

I have to say the story I read about Ayers the other day, discussing how clever were all the different weather-themed names of their organization, sickened me.

I do find the Terry Nichols comparison really interesting too. Or (as I've mentioned elsewhere) the idea of John Doe 2 actually existing free out there somewhere. What if he turned up in virtually the same position as Ayers? It could happen.

Nichols and McVeigh were anti-government, just as the Weather Underground were. They were more libertarian/right wing perhaps, but they were railing against the intrusiveness of government. Their bombs were also more successful.

At what point could John Doe 2 start paling around with politicians? I mean, openly, so that the politicians know exactly who he is.

Obama met with Ayers 20 years after the group disbanded. The OKC bombings were 13 years ago today.
Could John Doe 2 turn up in 7 years and sponsor a party for the future president of our country?


Remembering The Clintons' Terror Pardons


Nichols and McVeigh were anti-government, just as the Weather Underground were. They were more libertarian/right wing perhaps,

There's the crux of it. And Nichols/McVeigh also lacked the radical chic elements so necessary in attracting the left. Sad to think that an element of hipness is all it takes to gain some people's sympathy.

Which reminds me, I'm curious about Tom Wolfe's take on Obama. Now there's a Wolfe novel waiting to be written.


Would people applaud if Bush commuted the sentences of Nichols or Rudolph?


ELP Emerson Lake and Palmer? All I can say is :





Run Rudolph Run


You were being ironic, with that definition of decent people, using an Op Ed News link; the favored reservoir of Chavista Wayne Madsen and Truther Ray McGovern. Frankly, Ayers is lucky that thanks to Mark Felt's
temper tantrum over Nixon, the FBI's case against him, was essentially voided.(the old domestic surveillance chestnut was at the root of it)Of course, if he had died like Fred Hampton, at the hands of the Chicago cops, well nothing much ever really came of it. Ayers was rehabilitated in part thanks to Obama, and now spreads his leftist claptrap not unlike Antonio Negri,
the ex Brigatti Rosi, whose books have become an inspiration for the anarchist
'black bloc' not unlike Angela Davis, who's
latest cause in abolition of prisoners, Tom
Hayden, whose beliefs seem to be preserved in aspic; he was touting anti war book at the local Book Show,


The reason is that Ayers is lauded by the left, yet Rudolph is vilified is simple. The Right rejects the politics of intimidation. The left thinks we are all either too stupid, or too evil to be convinced rationally. That if their views are not agreed with, they have the right, nay the duty to compel agreement.

This is why terrorist tactics are still seen as a viable form of political expression by the left, including many of the Democratic party. This is why so much of the "Hate America First" crowd had such a hard time condemning the 9-11 attacks. To them, murdering innocents in the name of a political ideal is justified, is a "good thing" To them reason does not work, because even after they present their arguments, a lot of folks still disagree.

Because many folks find the arguments of the left unpersuasive, the left has no problem murdering their political opponents. Since the proletariat is nothing if it is not revolutionary, its okay to murder folks who have no idea, nor control over the issues the left cares so much about.

In short, they see themselves as always right, and they put no limits on winning the argument. They see violence and terrorism as valid tools and tactics. The right does not. To the left, Ayers is a hero of the revolution. To the right, Rudolph is nothing but an irrational murder that actually hurts their efforts to advance their ideas.


Patriots Day

Thanks, Jane, I'd never heard of Patriots Day before. Cool. Hope you have excellent weather for it!

Soylent Red

As I see it, Ayers is given a pass by the Left because his actions were taken against The Establishment. At that time, The Establishment was waging a war in Vietnam and was led by the evil Richard Milhouse Nixon. Thus blowing up the several odd ROTC Nazis or the Pig was an act of striking a blow for The People.

Contrast that to McVeigh or Nichols, who acted against World Government and were largely inspired by racist and nationalist motives. Additionally, they were acting against the government of one William Jefferson Clinton, whose big government intrusion was only for the purest motives and on behalf of The People.

Bottom line is that no matter how horrible or reprehensible the act, the Left will tolerate it from even their most radical fringes because it is for The People, whereas all conservative and Right motives derive from the premise of Holding The People Down.

We have been, are, and will always be The Man. And it can never be wrong to fight The Man, because The Man is holding you down.

Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller

Barry reminds me of Chauncey Gardiner, the Peter Sellers character.

He doesn't seem to be a real person, but a compendium of ideologies and adolescent longing.

And stuff.

Leftism is the philosophy of adolescence. You can still see that Ayers is that young rich punk with the bad attitude and Daddy to rely upon. Just a filthy little pile of debris.

Who the hell does Barry think he's kidding? He knew them, knew their history, knew they still believed in that shit.

Barry *is* everything the left claims Bush is.

Soylent Red

WRT Patriot's Day

Scott Meyer

Forgive me if this suggestion for a post is simple-minded, but one of the primary points of this post deals with Obama's pattern of diverting discussion to absurd moral equivalents. He did so a couple times in that nonsense Philadelphia speech.

Someone who's been tracking him since he's come under increased scrutiny should do a piece painstakingly detailing these bogus moral equivalents that he offers. In each case, they seem to have some appeal (at least to his supporters who quickly chime in, "Yeah, what he said!"). However, when you let it sink in, or you read it later, you invariably say to yourself, "What the f*** is he talking about? That doesn't make any f***ing sense."

I'll crawl back under my rock.


"You don't need a Weatherman to know which way Obama blows..."

J Bowen

Frank Rizzo wasn't a Republican while he was mayor of Philadephia. He was out of office by 1980 and never ran as a Republican until 1987 if we can trust Wikipedia.

Does anyone think Ed Rendell didn't know that?


Scott, do you mean moral equivalents like Wright-grandmother and Ayers-Coburn? That does seem to be a rhetorical habit of his worth tracking. If there is an ObamaWatch type site out there with transcripts of every speech, interview, etc., that would be useful.


The answer to the original question is simple: "To the Left, there are no enemies."

That, and the Left has no shame.

M. Simon

I used to hate Nixon when I was on the left. Now I'm on the right and still hate Nixon.

Wage and price controls?

Or how about amping up the drug war to go after his political enemies?

Analogy: going after Kosher food to go after the Jews. Or outlawing enchiladas to go after Mexicans.

In fact if you look up the history of the War on Pot part of the reason it was done was to go after Mexicans - la Cucaracha ring a bell? Also the Mormons were in on it after a number of their adherents came back from Mexico with the habit.

The history is covered here in a talk at a Judges Convention in Calif.

Drug War History

He predicted the next great substance war would be against tobacco. About 15 or 20 years ago. He called it the movers and shakers against the moved and the shaken. Kickers against kickees.

M. Simon

When did the war on fat get popular? When the rich got thin and the poor got fat.

It is always something. The class war is not the poor against the rich. It is always the rich against the poor.


I used to hate Nixon when I was on the left. Now I'm on the right and still hate Nixon.

Right on. I have said this exact thing many, many times.


"Free Cuba"? Something in this list does not belong. Maybe the demonstrators meant "Free the Cuba five."

The comments to this entry are closed.