« Why Obama's conventional Veep choice should free McCain to make an unconventional one (Palin or Jindal) | Main | Teddy at the DNC »

Monday, August 25, 2008

Why I probably ought never be in the same room with Barack Obama

I've never been arrested. The closest I've come as an adult to being in a fist-fight was more than 10 years ago, when a drunk sucker-punched me after I knocked on the door of his ski condo at 3:00 a.m. to ask him and his friends to turn down their music, and by the time I got off the floor the door was locked again. In fact, I try to stay out of situations in which I might lose my temper.

That's why if ever I found myself in a room with unrepentant former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, I'd immediately leave the room.

Bill Ayers, trampling an American flag for an August 2001 article in Chicago Magazine entitled 'No Regrets.'I know myself well enough to know that the odds would skyrocket that I'd get into a fist-fight, and even that I'd throw the first punch, were I to find myself face-to-face with a would-be cop killer whose motto is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird — America is a great country!" Even if he wasn't trampling on an American flag at that precise moment, I could no more break bread with such a man, or share a round of beers, or shake hands with him, than I could with Osama bin Ladin.

If Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorn are what pass for respectable members of liberal Chicago society now, that's among the most shameful indictments I've ever heard of the honesty and integrity of that city's citizens.

Barack Obama continues to profess that it's perfectly okay for him to be friends with this man, to have served on a corporate board with him, to have exchanged back-scratching and doled out millions of dollars in grant money to his pet radical education projects, and to have even used Ayers' home to beg him and his radical friends for political contributions. Obama says that the fact that Ayers' self-admitted terrorism occurred in the 1960s and 1970s — crimes for which Ayers is not still in prison now only because of law enforcement blunders — makes it perfectly okay for Obama to associate with Ayers in the 1990s and 2000s. The Obama campaign is even running a TV ad to make that argument.

To which my reaction is this: I probably should never be in the same room with Barack Obama either. We could probably have a civil conversation about most things. I could probably shake his hand, break bread with him, or share a beer with Barack Obama, no matter how much I disagree with his positions. But if, while I was face to face with him, he had the nerve to make the same argument to my face about Bill Ayers that he makes in this television commercial, I'd have to immediately leave the room. I know the limits of my temper, and that would put me too close to losing it.

I'm pretty sure that Secret Service agents hit much harder than that drunk did at the ski condos, and I know that people who try to punch a presidential candidate in the nose get prosecuted. And they should (get prosecuted, I mean).

From Obama's ad on Bill AyersThe issue is not Obama's judgment when he was eight years old. The issue is Obama's judgment during the last ten years that he's been associated with Ayers — including his judgment now in refusing to renounce his friendship with Ayers.

If there's anyone who ought to have been (metaphorically) ground into paste already under the rear wheels of the Obama campaign bus (along with Tony Rezko and Rev. Wright) a long time ago, it's Bill Ayers. Obama's association with him, and his continued insistence in defending this terrorist who won't repent his own violence, is the single most contemptible thing I know about the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

Ayers was a twisted dollop of evil scum in the 1960s and 1970s, and he's still evil scum. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that someone who might become the president of the United States could call such a man "friend."

From Obama's ad on Bill AyersIt is wholly insufficient — a pathetic joke of an excuse — for Obama to "denounce Ayers' crimes" when Ayers won't denounce those crimes himself. A four-year-old child can understand that. Why can't Barack Obama? Or rather, why does Obama pretend not to understand it?

Does Ayers have something he's holding over Obama's head that we still don't know about? Can you think of any other good reason why Obama would abandon Rev. Wright or Tony Rezko, while continuing to defend his relationship with the even more odious Bill Ayers?

Posted by Beldar at 06:40 PM in 2008 Election, Obama, Politics (2008) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Why I probably ought never be in the same room with Barack Obama and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) hunter made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 7:06:29 PM | Permalink

Well said.
Obama's choice of friends says as much about him as his bizzarre-o goofing around with the Presidential seal, or his infamous thin skin.

(2) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 7:14:27 PM | Permalink

Twisted dollop of evil scum? Not a bad description of something that you'd have to scrape off the bottom of your shoe after being careless walking around a kennel.

(3) A.Reader made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 7:21:10 PM | Permalink

You're talking about the Secretary of Education in the Obama administration. Can you think of a more appropriate appointee?

(4) Evil Pundit made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 8:00:26 PM | Permalink

Hmm ... I wonder if the Annenberg documents withheld by the UIC might have shed some light on the hypothesis that Ayers has something to hold over Obama's head?

(5) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 8:36:43 PM | Permalink

Dera Mr. Dyer: Get with it! Why on earth should Obama repudiate Ayers? Ayers is pure, and has the University of Chicago appointment to prove it. Jacob Weisberg and Andrew Sullivan have your number (and mine): we object to Obama because we are bad faith RACISTS (TM). Get used to this brand of name calling whether The One wins or loses. Bah.

Obama's sticking to Ayers is a symptom of what is wrong with elite liberals today. They can make moral distinctions; there's plenty of tenured imbeciles howling that John Yoo should not only be canned from the Berkeley faculty for working in Bush 43's Justice Department, but tossed in the klink to boot. So they can make distinctions. But Ayers is one of their own, and gets a pass today, tomorrow, and forever, touched with envy that he got to be a Radical Revolutionary During the Struggle Against The Man(TM). What puzzles me is how either of the Richard Daleys would allow Ayers to get tenure. I think you are right that there is a strong odor of blackmail in this relation. Obama has shown himself capable of the utmost ruthlessness and has been for years. For this reason I am surprised that the University of Chicago Special Collections are going to allow Stanley Kurtz to examine the Annenberg Challenge papers, which should show some of the details. The sudden opening of the archives after the initial refusal makes me wonder how much has been taken. What a pity Mr. Kurtz didn't use a front man for his initial visit.

For A. Reader: No no, the Cabinet requires Senate confirmation, and The One doesn't want such an uproar. Kitchen Cabinet, that's what'll happen. Just as effective in spitting in The Man's eye, and much less effort.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

(6) Greg Q made the following comment | Aug 25, 2008 10:35:51 PM | Permalink

Does Ayers have something he's holding over Obama's head that we still don't know about?

I noted Saturday that Michael Barone had answered your question. William Ayers was likely Obama's entry to Chicago politics, which is to say William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, is the reason why Senator Barack Obama is the 2008 Democrat Party nominee for President of the United States of America.

(7) stan made the following comment | Aug 26, 2008 11:04:29 AM | Permalink

I think it would be best for the GOP if Obama continues to try to portray Ayers (and Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, et al) as mainstream the way Daley did. These people are clearly very influential in the Democratic party in Chicago. Their views are widely held by millions of other Democrats.

It would be a good thing for America if all the bitter, gun-clinging Reagan Democrats really understood what millions of Democrats (along with Barack and his wife) consider "mainstream".

(8) obob made the following comment | Aug 26, 2008 3:56:12 PM | Permalink

Just for the record Mr. Koster, Ayers is not on the faculty of the UofC. He is on the faculty of another school in the area (too lazy to look up but if memory serves), I believe the UofIllinois at Chicago.

(9) jimbot made the following comment | Aug 26, 2008 4:31:08 PM | Permalink

why will people not vote for him...it's not the color of the skin -- it's the content of character, of which Barack Obama has none.

(10) Hoystory made the following comment | Aug 27, 2008 12:03:08 AM | Permalink

So, it probably wouldn't help you keep your temper if I were to raise the distinct possibility of a President Obama inviting Bill Ayers to the White House to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom.

(11) Linda Starr made the following comment | Aug 27, 2008 1:38:08 AM | Permalink

Lawyer Steve Diamond poses this question:

"If someone inside UIC raised an alarm about an Obama critic on its turf, who did they alert? It is at least reasonable to fear they spoke to Bill Ayers, a prominent and likely powerful member of the UIC faculty."


(12) Doris Sachetti made the following comment | Aug 29, 2008 12:58:29 PM | Permalink

Well I can see why you wouldnt want to be in the same room as Obama, you sound like a real jerk, knocking on someones door at 3:00 AM in the morning (yeah sure he was a drunk in there.....Get Real...if you are speaking of ski lodges, you wont find a pack of drunks because they are there to ski...Get some sleep!!!

(13) TLV made the following comment | Aug 30, 2008 10:40:46 AM | Permalink

If you are going to blame Obama for the words and actions of Ayers, then you might as well blame McCain for the failings of Bush. Why would anyone vote for a man who voted with Bush nearly 100% of the time?

The comments to this entry are closed.