What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Ayers?
During a Chicago Public Radio discussion yesterday, Public Affairs host Jeff Berkowitz made the argument that Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers "reflects bad judgment" and that John McCain should have broached the issue during the debate Tuesday night. "I think it's worth a shot," Berkowitz said.
Tying Ayers to Obama's "judgment" in this way is commonplace on the right at the moment. Most prominently, Sarah Palin said on the stump this week that the relationship "goes to the heart of judgment of a person." Right-wing bloggers and conservative pundits have been arguing the same for months.
But judgment is a broad and subjective concept, one that can be construed and extrapolated in myriad directions. So as more and more commentators take to the airwaves to rail against Obama's faulty "judgment" in working with Ayers, I'd like to see hosts and anchors ask them to explain what this relationship supposedly tells us about how he would govern as president.
To put it another way, I'd like to hear some of the hypothetical "I told you so" moments that Republicans envision occurring if Obama is elected. What do they foresee happening in an Obama administration that will lead them to say, "You should have listened to us when we were hollering about Ayers"?
If their suggestion really is that Obama is a sleeper radical, then they should be forced to articulate those views out loud. If they really think that on January 21, 2009, Obama is going to invite Ayers over to the White House so they can set off fire bombs throughout the West Wing, I want to hear them say it.
If they believe that Ayers is going to advise President Obama on matters of national policy, I want to hear them say it.
If they believe that the Ayers relationship signals that Obama will depart from his center-left legislative record and implement a radical policy agenda, I want to hear them say it.
If they're simply arguing that this association proves Obama is a poor politician, I want to hear them say it.
If they believe the Ayers issue will manifest itself in other ways, I'm all ears.
The underlying premise of the broad "judgment" claims boils down to this: "He's not who he says he is." And as subtext, it's powerful stuff. But when said out loud, those who support Obama can respond directly. For instance, if a Republican were to publicly argue that Obama's 15-year plan has been to hide his radical views until he reached the presidency, one could challenge this logic: If that's the case, why would he have publicly associated himself with Ayers in the first place? Wouldn't he have known that would blow his cover?
Further, when such specific scenarios are articulated, voters can assess them head-on. They can decide for themselves if these concerns are reasonable or paranoid. My guess is many would opt for the latter. And it seems the Republicans agree.
(Cross-posted at Progress Illinois)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama has crossed paths with Ayers at one time. Republican translation: he has been "palling around with terrorists
I hear you. Is Obama a terrorist or is he a black radical Christian? He's one or the other and they can't even give us a true answer to that. It's shameful and it's not a good look for McCain. He can't even deal with the way his supporters are carrying on. Did you see him hang his head today when someone said something derogatory about Obama?
He's not a terrorist, and he's not a political radical.
What I want to know is why John McCain is accepting the endorsement of Mrs. Annenberg, who provided the funds for the Annenberg Challenge, the very same board on which Obama and Ayers sat together. So if Obama "pals around with terrorists" then a McCain supporter provided the funding for the terrorist, which is probably worse. That's why I question McCain's judgment and readiness to be president.
This Ayers connection is really starting to hurt Obama.
There is no connection. Ayers was a radical who was tried, imprisoned and has long since served his time and reformed. He and Obama served on the board of a charity together and Ayers threw a fundraiser for Obama's campaign. That's the extent of their involvement. They were polite collegues, not close friends.
Now, would you like to talk about some of the people McCain has been associated with?
Ayers was never convicted of anything after he turned himself in. billybilly's viewing habits must be limited to faux news and right-wing websites. His post raises questions as to whether or not he reads.
When was he imprisoned? He served 10 days in 1965 for participating in a sit-in in a restaurant that refused to serve African Americans. I'd like to know when, besides that, he was jailed.
Ayers turned himself in and was not even charged.
How do you know that?
Where did you get this tidbit of information? Link, please.
Someone explain to me please, why they are even calling it (AyersObama) an "assocation".
Isn't that like saying:
Since I work with a convicted drunk driver, I might be one too.
Since there is a convicted felon in my book club...
A schizophrenic in my family....
OK, what does all that make me?
I mean seriously.
I think a better analogy is to say if I was President of a multi-million dollar organization and the CEO is a unremorseful terrorist people might question my judgement. Oh wait, that's not an analogy, that's pretty much what really happened.
ROFLMAO
A domestic terrorist who was tried, imprisoned and served his time over thirty years ago. Obama has never given any indication he supports Ayers views and he's denounced them every time they've come up. Are we going to start condemning people for being polite to their collegues now? Because if we are, there's some McCain associates who could really say something about him.
If that's what happend, what organization are you talking about, that Obama was the president of, and Ayers was the CEO of? The fact is it's not what happened, nor is it even an analogy. It's fiction thru & thru.
Stop trying to find logic in this style of attack. Palin (mostly) and McCain are just trying to associate themselves with people who are racist and/or angry about the crumbling of Republican control. They want to change the topic from the stuff that matters to stuff that just garners headlines (even websites have limited space). The people recorded at these Palin rallies seem to enjoy hating Obama, and Palin is goading them onward and giving them a ton of baloney info to feed off of. It's a kind of catharsis for some people, apparantly. Palin and McCain are dangerous for this country because they would clearly do anything to win. Maybe that shouldn't surprise us, given the nature of power and how it makes us behave. However, the media and responsible citizens need to keep calling them on it for what it is: hate-mongering. We need to move forward, people. Roll up our sleeves and get to work by participating more intensively in our governance, and keepign our communities whole and as healthy as a possible.
But you see, it all makes sense to Gov. Palin, Ginger. Remember too that she acquired foreign policy knowledge through osmosis as well. She's all about just bein around stuff doggonit. That's how she learns, by standing next to stuff...sh
An I'll betcha she's gonna regret hammerin this point when the MSM further investigates her secessionist husband. Well gosh darnit, i'd say it's pretty treasonous to wanna secede and since todd palin is a known associate of hers... well, i think there's more the american people need to know. dontcha know.
Perhaps we need a national discussion on the idea of social rehabilitation of persons formerly engaged in or associated with criminal activities. It makes me think of felons sent to prison and forgotten about. Where is the national will to fund literacy and job training and post-release job placement and support for ex-felons, to allow them to rejoin society and make positive contributions for the rest of their lives? The news accounts say that charges against William Ayers were dropped due to government misconduct violating his constitutional civil liberties. Will it be possible for questioning Americans to accept that Professer Ayers has ceased to be involved in conspiracy to plant bombs, and that he has been making positive contributions to society in the field of education reform? It seems like Chicago politicians, political activists and education reformers have shown maturity and put the past in proper perspective.
Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime. People are such MSM-GOP dupes when they buy the line that Ayers is a known terrorist.
And Robert Blake and OJ weren't convicted of murder.
Please read my post more carefully. I thought I clearly pointed out that William Ayers was never convicted. We will never know whether he was innocent of the charges, because those investigating him broke the law. Those voters who still put any credence in these accusations by the McCain campaign should MOVE ON. Professor Ayers has apparently been quite a good citizen since.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
