Bill Ayers, Blackberries and John McCain

I hope John McCain brings up Bill Ayers every chance he gets in the debate tonight. McCain is trying to make the absurd and implausible argument that Barack Obama is somehow a terrorist or a threat to the US because he served on a board and knew Bill Ayers years ago. This is the kind of argument that might work for McCain if the economy were doing well, the country was at peace and McCain were already up in the polls, but in this election, this issue will not get any traction for McCain.

That is not, however, the reason, I hope McCain dwells on this issue. The Bill Ayers issue underscores just how out of touch John McCain is with the country he seeks to lead. To McCain's ears, Bill Ayers and the Weatherman conjure up images of dangerous radicals seeking to overthrow the American government, which is, to a large extent, what the Weatherman were. However, for many Americans, Bill Ayers and the Weatherman are something from the history books, and probably from a chapter they didn't bother to read. The Weatherman were, after all, a fringe group and largely a footnote to the history of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Therefore, mentioning Bill Ayers is, for many Americans, just another way for John McCain to tell us he is old. Focusing on Bill Ayers is about as helpful as McCain turning to Obama during the debate and saying "I don't know how to use a Blackberry, but you do." Americans of all ages, but particularly those under 50, are simply tired of hearing about the 1960s. Obama has understood this, and probably felt this as well. This has contributed to his success in winning the Democratic nomination and his ongoing popularity among young people. McCain clearly is still somewhat stuck in that decade. Parenthetically, I understand that many of the Weatherman attacks occurred in the 1970s, but the 1960s lasted well into the 1970s. In fact in my hometown of San Francisco, the 1960s lasted well into the 1980s. It is now, however, 2008 and the 1960s are not very salient for voters anymore.

So let John McCain talk about Bill Ayers all night. If he does he will be breaking one of the cardinal rules of politics, and probably life, when you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

Comments

[rivahcat]

'Americans of all ages, but particularly those under 50, are simply tired of hearing about the 1960s... McCain clearly is still somewhat stuck in that decade... It is now, however, 2008 and the 1960s are not very salient for voters anymore.'

Excellent observations! I'm now 55, and having lived thru the 60s can say that that decade is simply not relevant any more, even for me and my fellow 'baby-boomers' (how I hate that moniker). I believe that McCain and the GOP are just trying to scare me and my peers AND my elders with images of black militantism, rioting in the streets, etc. But it just doesn't apply nowadays; and people 20 years or more younger than me don't remember or weren't alive then, so those images are merely movie scenes and chapters in history books for them.

[notb observer]

Obama's "high road" approach to his campaign really precludes him from taking the gloves off in responding to McCain's insinuations relating to Ayers. He demonstrated that during tonight's debate by providing a very factual account of his relationship with Ayers, and delivered it in a characteristically composed manner.

But the real villain in this Ayers affair is Palin. She has been the one mouthing off about "palling around with terrorists" and "who is Barack Obama ?" at her rallies. Since she is too incompetent to be let out to meet the press, she can hide comfortably in her shield of ineptness, but she is the one that truly needs to be called out.

I don't know if McCain's camp will continue with this losing attack, but if they do, we need a high powered Obama surrogate to hit the radio and TV circuit and start asking at every opportunity: "Who is Sarah Palin", and "Why is she married to a secessionist ?" Also, it might be useful to ask why McCain thinks so highly of Gordon Liddy...

[IQvsEQ]

I am a democrat but have a hard time not believing that Obama is an exteme leftist. Poll after poll says he is the Senetor farthest to the left.

He started his campaign with Ayer, he was with Reverend Wright, he was the driving force of ACORN. He got the most money from Fanny Mae and Bernie Mac. I just don't buy this Obama didn't know any of this.

His wife was is sad to be an American.

At least McCain is in the center and is willing to work with others. How can Obama work with others when he is so far to the left?

Also, how can he be the best at the economy when he has never been in business?

I just not buying it....

[Robbul]

He got the most money from Bernie Mac? I think I'm backing off my support also.

[egal]

That's flagrantly false. Just do the basic Google research, don't listen to the uninformed.

[egal]

First, Obama has studied the Constitution and the laws thus derived, and has a very good grasp of our rights, freedoms, and government, which should be the most important thing.

Second, you'e just spouting back all the spurious claims from a McCain ad when doing a quick Google search would disabuse you of your ostentatiously false assertions.

NO data whatsoever show Obama farthest to the left or anywhere near it. Also, the United States political system is such that Obama is very nearly right in the center of the two extremes--we lean VERY far to the right., making current President Bush and candidate John McCain basically RADICAL RIGHTISTS and Obama a moderate centrist, when viewed with any understanding of sociopolitical reality.

As far as Obama not voting in the center of OUR left and right, look around you. Every problem we have right now has been created and exacerbated by our right's policies. These led to concentration of wealth amongst the wealthy, which inevitably destroys an economy; to no oversight, transparency, responsibility, or accountability; and, amongst myriad other fatal issues, to an illegal war fought to put power and money into the hands of a favored few at the cost of our nation's security, wealth, stability, influence, military, liberty, and just about everything else of any value.

[egal]

HuffPost's Pick

It is McCain who voted along with his party 98% of the time and along with President Bush 95% of the time, making McCain FAR RIGHT of the average American stance. Obama has voted with his party nearly as often, but that position is actually the median and mean of American viewpoints, making his votes more reresentative and emblematic of what our people want. He also works with others much better than McCain, seeking to find similarities and focus on the essentials rather than championing the poisonous partisan politics Mccain now represents.

Obama has consistently worked out overall pleasing compromises at his state and lower levels, and has stood up for the Constitution, the rights of our people, and the needs of our soldiers rather than focusing on special interest lobbyists and self gratification. While McCain continues to favor putting money and tax cuts into the hands of the wealthy, Obama champions an economic model that actually works--as the middle class drives our economy.

Ayers didn't know who Obama was, and vice versa, basically until this election. At no time did they have a friendship, or a business acquaintanceship, or any political relationship. No money has ever passed between them. They lived in the same neighborhood and served ALONG WITH MANY OTHER PEOPLE, including many Republicans, on a charity board funded by an organization funding McCain's current campaign.

At that time, Ayers was a teacher whom Obama has since agreed committed heinous acts when Obama was eight.

[egal]

Ayers NEVER funded anything for Obama, had nothing to do with any stage of Obama's political development, and the only fete of Ayers' that Obama attended was for another politician; it was SHE who invited Obama.

Obama's wife said: "For the first time in my ADULT LIFE, I am VERY PROUD" of our country. She has always been proud of the United States. Parsing the English language would be a skill worth developing.

In fact, it is McCain whose funding came in large part from Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and it is McCain who has ardently fought to prevent oversight and regulation of such organizations. McCain was also involved in a scandal years back--the Keating Five--in which his actions in helping organizations avoid proper oversight just because they gave him so much funding resulted in criminal abuse and huge economic ramifications.

McCain has lobbyists for those two hugely corrupt and risk-taking organizations that are costing the taxpayers so much, and has received huge amounts of funding from them and othes like them. He also has still-active lobbyists for many other such interests in his campaign--including lobbyists for Saddam Hussein and for Saudi Arabian interests against American interests--Obama literally has no tie to those two agencies or similar corrupt behemoths save that one of his people used to work for a financial institution as a lobbyist.

[egal]

Obama's former pastor was a good man who served the neighborhood and did many wonderful things for the needy. The clips of his anger at our nation's actions were from a Sunday when the Obama's were NOT PRESENT in his church, and were extremely atypically anti-US. Most black churches decry injustice, but while it is true that our actions in the Middle East fomented the hatreds that made us a target, Obama's former pastor did not speak so disrespectfully of the nation around Obama.

Obama DOES NOT and NEVER HAS had anything to do with funding ACORN. It is a program that provides many services to the extremely poor, including helping them to vote. This is vital because Republicans constantly disenfranchise such voters and make them feel that the political process is a sham that only rewards the wealthy and therefor voting doesn't matter.

The defrauding of ACORN by some of the people it hires to sign up voters HAS NO IMPACT ON THE ELECTIONS. IT NEVER HAS, because no name signed up can be used by anybody without legal identification proving them to be that person who signed up. So, in the exceedingly rare cases of fraud, ACORN ends up haing spent money to provide a service that was taken advantage of, and on voting day, NOBODY CAN VOTE UNDER THE FRAUDULENT NAMES.

[NABNYC]

You are so right. He kept gushing over his heroes, (he could only remember one name). I kept thinking he was going to say "And we need more great Americans to lead this country, like Walter Brennan and Gabby Hayes." Or he might talk about the great female beauties of our nation who inspire us every day, like Mae West. Or talk about the "real heroes, like Errol Flynn." Or maybe tell an anecdote about one day he was talking with his good friend Wallace Beery. I hope somebody puts up a name marker on his chair this time so at least he won't wander around the stage muttering like he did last week -- so embarrassing.

[theoriginalfeminazi]

Some of the other comments here are "right on"! LOL McCain wants to revisit the War in Vietnam. That's why he's so determined to "win" in Iraq rather that just finally giving up like in Vietnam.

But the main thing that makes McCain different than the rest of his generation is that HE MISSED THIS PERIOD OF TIME IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY. He and his surrogates talk endlessly of his time spent as a POW. Since you can't be in two places at one time, it's clear that McCain did not ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE the late 60's and early 70's. It's impossible to haved the gut understanding of anything from reading about it afterwards from a perspective of complete isolation. This part is not his fault, but he truly "doesn't get it". How could he?

This even applies to his carlessness in throwing out negative red meat to the crowds in his rallies. He did not personally experience the riots and killings of most of the war protests and civil rights movement to understand that he's playing with fire. Worse, he's never learned like the rest of us that sometimes our govenment is NOT the good guy in struggles like this.

[SeabeeC]

Very good points!

[midknightryder13]

I had never thought of it that way -- but those are indeed excellent points.

[sfden50]

It's still the 60's here in SF (except for the rents)

[motley2]

In the last debate, Senator Obama used his "21st Century" tag line more than a couple of times. Good thing too, because Senator McCain, and many of his supporters, seem unable to let go of the 20th..

[BillCarson]

Actually McCain and his supporters seem unable to let go of the 19th century.

[Noogie]

I really believe that the reason McCain has become SO preoccupied with this faux controversy is because Ayers' actions helped bring a "dishonorable" end to the Vietnam War, a war which McCain STILL believes America could have won.

[PDinCA]

That's why McCain wants to be commander in chief (I don't think he really wants to be president, and deal with all that boring economy/governing stuff): he wants to win the Vietnam war, and live up to his father's and grandfather's legacy.

[swift goat pet for truth]

"In SF the '60's lasted well into the '80's"

LOL.
True, and that is why it is funny.

[susie1776]

I'm an older woman who remembers the 60's and 70's quite well and this has always been one of the reasons I would not vote for McCain. Every time I heard him use his POW experience as an excuse, it only reinforced my opinion that in many ways McCain has never moved past that period in his life. He still thinks with a 60's mentality. McCain's problem is not that he is chronologically old....I know many people who are as old as he is......McCain's problem is that he is mentally old. He has not accepted that we live in a different time...a time of instant communication, of global contact, a time that requires mental flexibility which he just doesn;t have anymore. This is why the issue of Bill Ayers is nonsense. Most people don't know or care who he was and even people like me who lived that period have totally forgotten him. It is far more important to be mentally young than chronologically young. But the times are just too perilous to elect a man who's is still living in the past.

[realmystical]

This is a very astute analysis as to why John McCain is so out of touch with the future of America.
I, too, am an older woman who was a teen and young adult during the sixties and seventies. When I listen to John McCain, I feel generations younger that he and also frustrated about all the recycling of nonsense. Even his posturing on the debate platform seems like someone who is inadequate at all forms of effective communication, not just those newfangled computers.

[insanityfollows]

Good point. Yesterday I was behind an elderly couple in line at the store, and they were using their debit card and prattling on to the clerk about getting their coupons from the internet, while holding their blackberries. They had to be at least 80 if they were a day. From a technologically nimble standpoint, they were 25 years younger than McCain.

It isn't his crhonological age. You're right. His inability to adapt should concern people when considering him for president. We need someone who is able to function in the here and now which requires technology prowess. That is just the way it is.

Well said.

[suntzu]

McCain will bring up Ayers no matter what the downside is, because Obama called his bluff, and with his temper, McCain cannot stand to let that go. He is reckless, and good judgment has nothing to do with it.

[publanski]

Obama painted McCain into a no win situation. And, with his "he won't say it to my face" comment, he looked strong doing it.

It'll be nice having a smart president for a change.

[Luigi53102]

Good points. The reason Obama is winning this fight is because most of the American people, including a pretty fat percentage of old geezers like me, have decided that the Boomers have screwed the country over six ways from Sunday, and it is time to hand the reins to a new generation.

[rainbowblue]

This is the first time I've heard that mentioning Ayers is a dig at McCain's age. I agree. I liked the dig at the Weatherman as a footnote. I'm not sure how many students are actually aware of the Weatherman without actually taking a college class on terrorism (that's how I found out about them). I've read Ayers' book, he comes off more as a self righteous name dropper (did you know he had connections to Peter Jennings?) than a terrorist (oh and somewhat of a womenizer).

I would love to know how many conservatives getting angry about this have actually done their research on the Weatherman. At the same time, how many of those people don't have a beef with the Turner Diaries (which I've had to read as well).

[ronnierayjenkins]

They need a good old protesting song now days, and I'm just the guy to do it:

http://www.ronnierayjenkins.com/topics/deathinappalachia/Empty_Chairs/

Throw this up on the front page, you threw good old Hank WIlliams Jr up catterwauling about a McCain/Palin Tradition. To protest these bums is a tradition. Let's see what happens.

[Kiwis4Obama]

Looking forward to the debate - more consistency and calm from Senator Obama and more mangled language from Sen. McCain. Shame it's not a standing/stool debate so Mc could have another go at looking for his little dog!
Go Barack - I know it doesn't go down well in some US circles. but for the sake of the USA and the world!