The Hot Blog

I have attempted to take this question to a serious level by looking specifically at ways in which Obama seems to share POLICY goals with Ayers, the cuddly Hyde Park terrorist who never meant to kill anybody, which is why he designed FUCKING NAIL BOMBS.

But, for the second time in a row, I find myself being called out individually in a mendacious fashion by a lefty movie blog owner who insists that I'm doing what I've explicitly set out not to do.

I'm not going to argue with someone who lies about what I'm saying and tries to portray it in exactly the childish partisan fashion I have plainly made the effort to go beyond. I'm not going to be the lone supposed right winger (not that I am any such thing) on a site where I'm not extended the courtesy of honest engagement. I'm not going to sit and be called a racist by midgets like IOIOIO and people I wish knew better like Jeffmcm. Especially when sexism against Sarah Palin and provincialism against flyover country is oozing up from the drains at the same time.

Good day.

But Mgmax, after now having read Stanley Kurtz's columns, your whole issue about *policy* is really about one legislative decision Obama made in 1998, ten years ago. He gave a favorable review to Ayer's book in 1997 and made a move politically that Ayers would approve of the following year.

And again, Ayers is not Osama bin Laden. He never targeted a human being. To label him as a "terrorist" is a bit misleading, don't you think? Especially considering what the word "terrorism" has come to mean in the years since Ayers' ridiculous actions. I mean, honestly, do you place him on the same level as bin Laden?

And truly, Mgmax, I like having you around and I agree with you more often than I don't. I think you add a lot to the discussion around here and I enjoy engaging with you. But this time around, I just don't see this as being a big deal.

Using a multisyllabic word does not make you right or on some higher ground, Mgmax. And there is nothing dishonest in my representation of your positions - a minor part of this piece.

I haven't called you a racist. And I don't think you are a racist. I don't even think you are intentionally unfair.

I do think that the whole Ayers thing is a ridiculous smear. The strongest argument you make in your comments is that YOU disagree with Obama's educational policies and they remind you in some ways of Ayers' beliefs. But they would also remind you of THOUSANDS of other educators' beliefs, if you cared to think beyond this smear.

I honor your right to feel Bill Ayers should be in jail and even that he was gotten out of jail time through family connections. But again, welcome to America. The law is the law. And Bill Ayers is not an educational radical, even if you think he is dead wrong.

You are mixing one issue with another and there is no indication of any relationship, no matter how much you seem to believe it in your gut. And that, dear sir, is a smear.

"I'm not going to be the lone supposed right winger (not that I am any such thing)..."

Ah...um...really, now...

...screw it. Not worth it. I could waste a bunch of time Googling and pasting his "not right-wing" posts, but we're all familiar with his record.

(Hey, D.Z.! Looking for something to do?)

Anyway, there he goes again. I just heard the door slam.

Does he know that he's in the hall closet?

And by the way... when I say that Anne Coulter is better equipped to be VP than Sarah Palin, I am not remotely kidding. She is also a righty extremist, but she knows her stuff, however twisted her persepctive in my mind.

I still don't think McCain could have won with Coulter, but that debate would have been a real debate with a man of great experience and a woman who knows all of what's been happening in this government for the last decade-plus. I'd be scared of her in a debate because kid-gloving her really would be dangerous. She has all the self-marketing skills of Palin and she actually knows the territory.

Oddly, this reminds me of some of my criticisms of certain media outlets that bring in very good reporters onto the movie beat, but who have no idea what the reality of this business really is... and they get their ass kicked all day every day while still flying the banner of their major, important outlets. Just because the paper says the reporting is fit to print does not make it so... Joe. The answer is in the reporting itself. It is either accurate or not.

You throwing out "sexism" is as reactionary and false as someone throwing "racism" at you, methinks.

You still don't get it, DP. Its not the extent of the relationship between Ayers and Obama that's problematic. I doubt that they've ever been "pals" (although that's the kind of provocative comment required to raise the issue again, dormant since the primaries). The issue is, and has been, despite reductionist responses like, "So you think OBAMA is a terrorist?" is that associations matter. Shame on you for equating these direct, proactive associations with some eight-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon BS.

You cannot say with any certainty that Obama doesn't share militant views with these people. Can't do it. The fact is, you make judgements based on associations all the time. We all do. But you're making an exception for Obama.

"You throwing out "sexism" is as reactionary and false as someone throwing "racism" at you, methinks."

You've repeatedly used the race card. For Mgmax, methinks its just a matter of time.

"You cannot say with any certainty that Obama doesn't share militant views with these people."

Well, that may be because you can't prove a negative. No-one here has ever come out in opposition to sticking their butt in ice cream, so unless anyone wants to explicitly deny it, I cannot say with any certainty that everyone here does not like ice cream in the ass.

[ass in ice cream example courtesy of Louis C.K.'s excellent unreleased movie "Tomorrow Night"]

If you think that Obama does share militant views with someone, give an example of what, in his track record as a politician, would indicate that with any degree of certainty whatsoever.

McCain has favored war as the answer in almost every major recent foreign policy crisis, and that is why he scares the hell out of me and I hope he loses.

1) I live in a fly-over state.

2) Sarah Palin does not. She lives in Alaska, and has a horrible fake accent.

3) I could throw Mgmax. So stop hating, tiny.

4) Palin is associated with a witchunter. This must mean she's a witchhunter. McCain is associated with right-wing preachers. Who believe the US deserved what happened on 9/11. So that must mean he's a bigoted, hateful, and fucked-up ass. Who holds views that do not make him one of US!

5) Palin is an idiot. If she were not an idiot. More people would not have watched the VP debate than the POTUS debate, because they wanted to see a train wreck of PALIN PROPORTIONS. She's a national joke. Accept it, embrace it, and live with it.

"You cannot say with any certainty that Obama doesn't share militant views with these people. Can't do it."

And you can't say with any certainty that McCain isn't The Manchurian Candidate.

What are you talking about? The guy has a record and a very specific policy position and now you are making shit up? "Well, he might..." Yes, and Bush might be idiot enough to try to occupy Iraq for 6 years.

The game of trying to get someone to prove the negative is lame.

"The fact is, you make judgements based on associations all the time. We all do. But you're making an exception for Obama."

I don't on these issues. I look at what McCain has said... what comes out of his mouth. And same with Palin... and what doesn't come out of hers.

This is not a sporting event. it is more than that.

"direct, proactive associations"

What EXACTLY are you talking about? Are you talking about sitting on a charity board? Are you talking about Ayers having a fundraiser in his house 12 years ago.

That's "direct?" That's "proactive?"

Come on. You're kidding, right?

"Well, that may be because you can't prove a negative."

To put another way, then, you cannot dismiss the possiblity that Obama has militant views. There's too much circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise. And if he doesn't share these militant views (which is a conclusion I don't object to, at this point), one can easily conclude that Obama shows terrible judgement for someone so politically calculating.

Yes, mystery. And I can't dismiss the possibility that you are John McCain himself... or that McCain is having sexual relations with George Bush & a parakeet...

I will ask the question again... what do you think is "too much circumstantial evidence?" And if all you really have is that they were in a room together a dozen times in the last 18 years, you lose utterly.

As for judgement, you can never find worse judgement than Gov Palin represents... nothing close... it rivals going into Iraq.

I think John McCain and Sarah Palin have radical militant fundamentalist views too. Cos they do.

Christian: THEY DO NOT! THEY ARE DOWN WITH JOE SIX-PACK! THEY UNDERSTAND THE REAL PEOPLE! THE REAL PEOPLE! Fuck that nonsense. The "REAL PEOPLE" my ass. Apparently the real people only include those upstanding people that vote for the Republican party and who are usually white. Yay. You've got to love that party.

"The guy has a record"

The guy's record is extremely left wing. Fits the profile. :p

"I don't on these issues. I look at what McCain has said... what comes out of his mouth."

Isn't McCain a liar? You're not going to be taking McCain's word at face value anytime soon. When it comes to associations, I am looking at what Obama says and does not say.

"That's "direct?" That's "proactive?"

What the hell would you call it? AYERS holding a meet-and-greet for OBAMA at his house. What is that, a chance encounter?

This, along with their other connections, IS NOT ENOUGH to pin radical views to Obama's lapel, although it's clear that Obama used Ayers to propel his political career, and that Ayers is certainly more than just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” It is disconcerting. Obama's unmistakably-close 20-year relationship with a racist, militant pastor IS NOT ENOUGH to pin radical views to Obama's lapel. It is, however, disconcerting. Following in the footsteps of Saul Alinsky, who wrote the book on radicalism, IS NOT ENOUGH to pin the entirety of Alinsky's radical views on Obama's lapel. But...

As I've stated repeatedly, assigning a radical political ideology to Obama is still a tenuous assertion. However, it is not beyond comprehension. Obama has shown a penchant for making cynical connections with unsavory persons for political gain. He's shown poor judgement. And judgement is the thrust of his campaign.

One last thing: why do you feel the need to reduce the connection between Obama and Ayers beyond what is public record? "...in a room together..."? Really?

Mgmax, if you're out there, I apologize if I hurt your feelings my bringing up 'racism' because I do indeed respect you and consider you to be an honest, well-intentioned person, unlike others I could name. My point was not to describe the Ayers/Wright attacks in terms of the perjorative, or to demonize you, but literally to describe their form and function. I believe it's possible to see Ayers and Wright's connections with Obama as troubling as problematic (I disagree and am not convinced of their significance) but beyond that issue the point I'm trying to make is that, divorced from actual content, the Wright/Ayers attacks are based in a subtle subtextual coding.

For a different example, go back to the sex education TV ad. The content of it is arguable (again, weak, but arguable) but the form and intended subtext (creepy leering images of Obama, the connotation of a black man interested in children and sex) is based in traditional racist stereotypes. Likewise, the various code words out there for 'uppity' that have been used (and yes, this includes Biden's condescending 'nice clean black guy' phrase). I hope that, independently and objectively, this can be seen because I really would prefer to stay outside of the traditional blog name-calling cascade of misery.

After all I've wrote, I just wanted to tidily sum up my feelings on this matter. I do not think Obama should be guilty by association. I do, however, think his associations make him a 'person of interest' in the search for radical political leanings, and the case isn't closed.

....and the case isn't closed...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
Seriously, dude, get a real issue.

I'm becoming convinced that you are doing a satire on a right winger, mystery.

"a person of interest"

"Fits the profile"

"I am looking at what Obama says and does not say"

I mean, good God, could the right need any more to send Obama to Guantanamo?

"Obama used Ayers to propel his political career"

I don't know you, mystery, but it doesn't sound like you have been to a lot of fundraisers and at-house events for politicians.

Why do I feel the need to reduce the connection between Obama and Ayers beyond what is public record? "...in a room together..."?

Because that is all that seems to exist. And this is not remotely surprising to someone who does go to small time fundraisers and knows how houses and people are chosen to host.

Like I said, I have fraternized with these people... it doesn't mean that I endorse their behavior in the 60s and 70s. I made cookies for gerald Ford when I went to an event in Hollywood, Florida when I was 10 or so... didn't make me a Republican. I enjoy musicals... it didn't make me gay. My best friend in Jr High was a complete pothead... didn't make me smoke pot.

If your standard for a Presidential campaign making public attacks on the opponent is, "it is not beyond comprehension," then your standards are low enough to vote for McCain/Palin.

mystery does Sarah Palin "fit the profile" of a religious extremist because of the church's she has belonged to in the past and her statement that the Iraq war is God's will?

How about her husband's involvement with the AIP? Has that party always put America first?

"I mean, good God, could the right need any more to send Obama to Guantanamo?"

All I've maintained, with Wright and with Ayers, is that its not nothing. You may be content to believe all of this happened in vaccuum, but not me. These associations, taken together with many other examples, lead me to conclude that Obama has poor judgement. As for radical views, I've seen enough to raise an eyebrow; enough to keep an open mind. Do you remember open-mindedness, DP? You know, that pesky virtue you had before single-mindedness took over?

You've also attempted to make an equivalency argument by citing allegedly tenuous associations of Palin and McCain. Nice try, but you'll have to concede that I'VE NEVER dismissed these associations as nothing. My only hesitation is that you might be incapable of dealing with these associations in a manner consitent with how you treat Obama's associations. But go ahead and vet them. I remain consistent.

Mystery... you are, indeed, a mystery.

Sorry, but "you may be content to believe all of this happened in vaccuum, but not me," is the foundational rationale of McCarthyism.

I believe you are sincere. But I don't think you are open minded at all. You would rather rationalize why it's okay to be on the wrong side of this argument - with no facts, just instincts - than get down to real issues. That is the lie. That is the dangerous stuff.

All this stuff today about racism without racism is right up your alley. Not because you are a racist or because you are even a racist witout portfolio. But it's this thing where you are so committed to your gut that you can rationalize almost anything. Myopia. Very dangerous. Many millions killed by it over many centuries.

"Sorry, but "you may be content to believe all of this happened in vaccuum, but not me," is the foundational rationale of McCarthyism."

There you go again. I've been very careful to keep my assertions about Ayers and Wright in a realistic perspective, but you continue to exaggerate them to ridiculous degrees in an attempt to discredit me. Guantanamo? McCarthyism? How intellectually vapid. My evidence? Circumstantial. My conclusions? Besides the reflections on Obama's judgement, they've been relatively innocuous. No conspiracy theories, no midnight rendezvous. The fact is, YOU have made this Ayers topic bigger than it deserves by refusing to concede the minimum.

Your political crusade has cost you dearly in credibility, and now I can question your deductive reasoning. You are itching SO BAD to compartmentalize me that you view every post of mine through a prism of your own prejudices.

Myopia? Physician, heal thyself.

I'll bite - what is "the minimum" that DP isn't conceding? And along the same lines, what would be "the maximum"?

But you keep saying the same thing, in between repeating how fair you are... you keep saying that it's not a smear because there is one small wisp of smoke that you keep getting told you can see.

And you refuse to take responsibility for YOUR arguments.

McCarthy wasn't a conspiracy. It doesn't require anything close to a conspiracy. Neither does Guantanamo. Both are examples of good intentions - however wrongheaded - gone out of control.

The standard for these things becoming horrors is low... people accepting innuendo as enough to change their perspective and those who see past it remaining silent for even a short while. Once the thing becomes a problem, it has its own life that has nothing to do with the original intentions.

And I will offer the same with both Watergate and Blowjobgate. Even Troopergate. It's the need to keep all the lies up in the air that eventually kills the liar.

I go through this all the time in the business I am in. Studios make decisions one at a time and often lose the thread of what all the bad, small decisions add up to... but we are talking about a very, very narrow thread that is often dismissed as unimportant in this arena.

Thing is, even the McCain camp knows this smear crap is a real longshot for a win... but they don't have ANYTHING else to sell. Nothing. Cupboard is bare.

The minimum? That the association could be more than just "two guys in a room together", and that an assessment that the relationship could be considered problematic enough to be disconcerting is reasonable one, whether or not he thinks it is.

The maximum? That Obama has repeatedly shown poor judgement in who he associates with, and that a pattern of associations with radical people/ideology leaves the door open to the possibility of 'radical' sympathies, however remote (note: I'm not suggesting that Obama is OK with Ayer's past acts). That's the most I've asked anyone to consider.

So let me ask you, jeff, as I respect your opinion. Is the maximum (as stated above, which I'm certain you disagree with) a ridiculous smear by an irrational McCarthyite? Is it dangerous thinking?

"And you refuse to take responsibility for YOUR arguments."

That's your most ridiculous assertion yet. I believe that Obama's association, when grouped with other associations, is problematic. I think it shows bad judgment. I don't think Obama approves of Ayers' past, but I believe Obama had a record of making politically expedient compromises early in his political career. I don't think these associations allow a person to assign the radical views of Ayers and Wright to Obama, but I'm unwilling to completely dismiss the possibilty, however remote. I I I. Me Me Me. Mine Mine Mine.

"I don't think these associations allow a person to assign the radical views of Ayers and Wright to Obama."

All you had to write.

Was it that hard?

Now... is someone who sells the idea that these associations allow a person to assign the radical views of Ayers and Wright to Obama doing the right thing... the honorable thing?

And by the way... do you think that McCain HASN'T made politcally expedient compromises during his career?

Actually, Mystery, I was hoping for a bit more 'Maximum', as in what you think is the worst that could happen given your fears - that Obama will appoint Ayers to be Secretary of Defense and then REALLY blow up the Pentagon from the inside?

Seriously though, while I grant that the of them are connected to a degree greater than 'two guys in a room', I haven't seen any 'consistent poor judgment in who he associates with'. Politicians deal with a lot of people from many different walks of life in their careers; also, and you probably don't agree with this, I don't consider Jeremiah Wright to be as bad as he's been made out to be, nor Ayers for that matter.

To sum up, I agree that Poland is being somewhat monolithic, but I also don't see much that worries me about Obama, especially since his behavior and policies seem substantially less erratic (or 'radical') than McCain's.

"All you had to write.

Was it that hard?"

Not at all. I've said as much over and over in your blog. I've always couched my concerns with that qualification. I've done so several times in this discussion alone.

"I was hoping for a bit more 'Maximum'"

I get what you're saying, and it shows that DP has had some success at framing my assessment as sinister. Exhibiting bad judgement doesn't mean he'll lose Guam in a game of dice, but if you're asking, I'll take a shot at the "maximum": in that scenario, I could see Obama giving juristiction over the US to the ICC; sign the Kyoto Protocol; give blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants, maybe do some "Peace for our time" accord with Iran, and go with Biden's plan to partition Iraq.

Or maybe none of that.

Two of those are AOK with me, and the Iraq partition is dead unless violence flares up in a major way again (which it could).

Radical!!!

Shhh.

From NPR yesterday:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95442902

Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone — including Republicans and Chicago's most powerful business leaders — to work with Ayers on Chicago's public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

Nelson says her fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought."

"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: