With regards to Jonathan's post mentioning William Ayers of the Weather Underground and his connections to Barack Obama, the following anonymous comment caught my eye:
Since it is clear that over two years of intense scrutiny has turned up precious little evidence of wrong doing or poor judgment, it is not surprising that his political adversaries would try to attack him with examples of what other people said or did. Why don't people who are opposed to the upcoming Obama presidency try to make valid arguments against his policy proposals? When you try to convict him of guilt by association you just reinforce the conclusion that the opposition to our 44th president is baseless and purely partisan.
My italics highlight the sincere question and following a tradition in American politics, I'll respond with several questions of my own.
1) Assuming you are an Obama supporter since you refer to him as the 44th president, shouldn't we expect you to respond with as much indignation when his policy proposals, like teaching sex ed to kindergartners, are simply mentioned, let alone argued against, as was evidenced several weeks ago by other supporters?
2) Does "precious little evidence" explain the all-out offensive against Stanley Kurtz launched during his appearance on WGN-AM in which he discussed his research into the matter?
3) In light of (2) above, isn't it natural that the question "What are they hiding?" is the one that comes to our mind?
Fortunately, Stanley Kurtz's first amendment rights haven't been denied him, and
he has a new article out today on the topic. Excerpt:
Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.
The piece goes on to deduce from the facts the intimate collaboration that must have occurred between William Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that, for some reason, Obama wants to dismiss or at least downplay by saying "Hey, he's just some guy, you know, I met once or twice." He concludes that "participation" is a far better word than association to describe Obama's involvement with the known radical terrorist.
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
I'm going to close with another anonymous comment from the
first post which I found to be interesting though speculative.
I have in the distant past been in the company of both Ayers and Dohrn (even in their home). Being the ideological antithesis of the 'Weathermen' movement and having more than a casual knowledge of their operational goals for reasons I choose not to share, I was nonetheless curious to see what mindset is in play, that contributes to the development of what is referred to today as 'domestic terrorism.'
This is my take on the couple. They are as charming and intelligent as they are committed and venomous. They are not aging hippie types whom time has past by, but rather they still maintain the fire of commitment to their shared anarchists ideology of some four decades. As much as they would like the public to think that their activism, terrorism as it were, was successful in achieving their ultimate goals (i.e., "legends-in-their-own-minds") they know on balance they failed. Both of them are too intelligent not to have analyzed and reflected on the facts (over all these years) and then concluded they have not yet achieved goals set out for themselves in the 60's & 70's.
However, I would submit that an Obama presidency would finally provide them an institutional ("establishment") vehicle to finally achieve what they failed to achieve 40 years ago. Mark my words; because of their personable, charismatic and intellectual persona's -- in an Obama presidency, I would expect Ayers would be appointed to a high ranking policy position in the Department of Education. Dohrn on the other hand will be appointed to a policy position in the Justice Department. Not exactly the kind of domestic terrorism they cut their teeth on so long ago, however, this scenario would finally provide the couple an opportunity to achieve from the inside what they failed to achieve from the outside looking in with their bombs. Remember, the Justice Department oversees the FBI and eduction provides knowledge to our progeny. What better way to clear the slate of all past failures to destroy the "military-industrial complex" through violence than to manipulate a way they can join that 'complex' and then destroy it from within like a cancer. Then these two leftists along with their cronies can begin to seed their brand of social responsibility in the minds and hearts of our youth.
Although I believe Obama to be a bright fellow, he has a long way to go to be the intellectual equal of either Ayers or Dohrn. Truth be said, Obama is a mere stepping stone for the couple to have their ideology aired, otherwise he is meaningless even if he were to become president.
[cross-posted at scrappycons]
