Don't Forget Bernadine

Keep 'em coming.

So, what ties Obama to the two who were convicted in 1990 - 9 years before he served on a board with Ayers and 11 years before Ayers gave $200 to a re-election fund?

Are there, in fact, any?

That is, are there any actual _facts_ rather than supposition and innuendo?

I wasn't born when Hitler was terrorizing Europe, but that doesn't mean I don't know how evil he was. Stupid argument, but a lot of stupid people will buy it.

Stupid argument, but a lot of stupid people will buy it.

Which is the stupid argument? The guilt by association one?

I recently met and shock hands with Georg Von Teissenhausen.(http://www.namebase.org/main2/Georg-Von-tiesenhausen.html).

He worked for/with Werner Von Braun, who most certainly met Hitler and knew how evil he was. I was asked before hand under no circumstances to mention the war.

So I've got 1 handshake closer to Hitler myself (I used to be 1 more removed than that) - mean anything no.

Was Dr Von Teissenhausen anything other than a superb lecturer and amazing guy, despite what he helped to do during the war (which did kill people my mother knew as a teenager in London)?

No. It wasn't.

Steve Diamond's rambling rant aside, there is no evidence for anything that will stick out of this mess.

Live with it. The Dow is currently 750 points down today.

Which is the stupid argument? The guilt by association one?

No, the argument that he was eight years old in 1969.

The Dow is currently 750 points down today.

Probably because Obama is up in the polls.

So do you have any of those bothersome things they call facts yet? Call me when you do. I'll be hovering with anticipation...

er... actually, no I won't.

Probably because Obama is up in the polls.

LOL - keep 'em coming.

The popcorn is a treat right now, I can tell you Rand.

Can't wait for tomorrow night.

Heh-Heh.

Rand, sounds like you are getting desperate!

So do you have any of those bothersome things they call facts yet?

Yes, a vast array. Your ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

Rand, the facts you have are:
1) Ayers and Obama met in 1995, and live in the same neighborhood.

2) Obama and Dohrn MAY have met when Obama was a summer intern at one of the largest law firms in the country.

3) Dohrn and Ayers were terrorists in the 1960s.

What you don't have are:

1) Proof that Obama knew of Ayers' history in the pre-Google era of 1995.

2) Proof that Dohrn and Obama met at all in the 1980s.

3) Proof that, out of the thousands of students in Columbia University, a poli-sci undergrad (Obama)
and a PhD candidate in English (Ayers) ever met.

4) Proof that, in 1990, Ayers was even in contact with the remnants of the Weathermen. Since teh fugitives been involved in a shoot-out with the FBI, one would suspect that the FBI would have attempted to make a link to Ayers if they could.

5) Proof that Obama was particularly aware of the 1990 Weathermen's last gasp. I wasn't at the time.

Daveon wrote:

So, what ties Obama to the two who were convicted in 1990 - 9 years before he served on a board with Ayers and 11 years before Ayers gave $200 to a re-election fund?

It isn't about the ties that Obama had directly to these two specific individuals. It is about the argument that Obama is making that the people he did have an association with were part of a terrorist group which ceased to exist 40 years ago. The actions of these 2 during the mid 80's in the name of the Weatherman prove that in fact the group has operated for much longer and more recently. Thereby, debunking Obama's timeframe, which he is ostensibly using to obfuscate the seriousness of the aforementioned association.

However, let's put it another way. If what Ayer's did in 1969 was so long ago that it didn't matter -- just the actions of a naive kid. Then, why was the notion that George Bush tried to dodge Vietnam back in 1969 such a big deal during the last election? Evidently, Dan Rather thought it was a big enough deal that he used made up evidence to support the claim. Unfortunately, for Ayer's all the evidence against him appears to be true.

Besides Ayer's association to a terrorist group he also admits to being a communist. That in of itself is no small thing. Finally, one can even push these 2 things aside and just look at Ayer's cuckoo ideas of how to educate kids and wonder what the hell Obama was thinking to let this guy anywhere near an education position. This was his only executive level position that we can find in his short list of experiences, and this is what he does? Bad, bad, bad -- judging by the state of Chicago's school system we can see where that has landed them. Let's hope we do not end up down that path for the rest of the nation.

Also, don't give me this BS that Palin was associated with the AIP and that is somehow the same thing as what Ayer's did with the Weatherman. One group tried to make change by figuratively blowing up the ballot box. The other literally blew up a person and property. Not the same thing folks, not by a long shot.

1) Ayers and Obama met in 1995, and live in the same neighborhood.

2) Obama and Dohrn MAY have met when Obama was a summer intern at one of the largest law firms in the country.

3) Dohrn and Ayers were terrorists in the 1960s.

Why do you leave out the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (among many other things)? This is nothing but Obama campaign talking-point spin.

George Bush's actions in 1969 are relevant because he later ran for President. They reflect on the candidate, just as McCain's actions in Vietnam reflect on him.

Ayers' actions in 1969 don't reflect on Obama because first, Ayers isn't running for President, and second, Obama wasn't an adult then.

Obama's actions once he became an adult (1980s) are what's relevant.

Rand - Considering that the Annenberg Challenge was where they met, I thought that was obvious. Now, what proof do you have that the Challenge was anything other then an ineffective attempt to improve Chicago Public Schools?

So you two reprobates expect everyone to believe that two men serving on a board and dispensing 10s of millions of dollars, meeting in one of their homes which are in the same neighborhood to launch a political campaign and serve on another board over a period of 10 count 'em 10 years, won't know the others history? Is the Uno's intellectual curiosity so stunted that he wouldn't wonder who is this guy I'm spending millions with? Especially since they agreed on the premise of the CAC. That alone should tell you they had some discussion about beliefs and methods. Can you, at least, tell me what the definition of "is" is? Smell test result: failed

Considering that the Annenberg Challenge was where they met, I thought that was obvious.

They didn't just "meet" there. They worked together on it. The kickoff of Obama's first campaign was at Ayers' (and Dorhn's) house. He wasn't "just a guy in the neighborhood."

And now, of course, Obama's saying "that wasn't the Bill Ayers I knew."

Getting awful crowded under that bus.

Bill Maron - 1995 to 2001 is 7 years not 10. In 2001, everybody found out about Ayers (including me) since that was when the Chicago Tribune ran a feature article on Ayers. These boards met once a quarter, and there is nothing to indicate that they had much interaction other then that. (The NY Times article points out that Obama had a lot of "introductory coffees" in the neighborhood - Ayers' event wasn't special.)

How do you know your neighbor (or me, for that matter) isn't an ax murderer? Especially if you can't run to Google. Ayers was walking free, working as a "distinguished professor" at U of Chicago, "palling around" with respectable folks and as far as I can tell, hadn't given an interview about his terrorist past since 1981.

All you have is supposition that Ayers' commie-terrorist cooties somehow rubbed off on Obama. You have no facts.

Chris, in his own autobiography, Obama said that he went out of his way to hang out with radicals. Again, it's not very hard to connect the dots here. If he was so politically naive as to not know about Ayers' past (I'm not that much older than him, and I certainly knew who Bernadine Dohrn was), he's too naive to be president.

Rand - I'm glad you knew who Dohrn was. Many people here in Chicago didn't. Neither Dohrn nor Ayers were engaged in particularly radical stuff in the 80s, the period Obama was looking for radicals. Sidley and Austin (Dohrn's workplace) is one of the whitest-shoe law firms in Chicago, hardly a nest of radicals.

I'd like to edit my comment - Dohrn is still a radical individual. However, going to look for radicals at Sidley and Austin is like looking for steak on the menu at a vegatarian restaurant.

Thereby, debunking Obama's timeframe, which he is ostensibly using to obfuscate the seriousness of the aforementioned association.

No, really, it's not. Especially given the pre-web nature of the time period at hand.

However, your real point (I think, buried in there):

If what Ayer's did in 1969 was so long ago that it didn't matter

Who said that? Obama didn't. They said that what Ayers did was when Obama was a child. Not the same thing.

-- just the actions of a naive kid. Then, why was the notion that George Bush tried to dodge Vietnam back in 1969 such a big deal during the last election?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign and Obama himself have said that what Ayers did was not acceptable. There's a video and everything.

Second: Ayers isn't running for President, W was.

I'm not that much older than him, and I certainly knew who Bernadine Dohrn was

But that really proves nothing. Did you know who Ayers was? Would you have done when you were the age at which Obama would have been when he met him?

Would you have put 2 and 2 together if you'd met him in the 90s? Sans, as it has been said, Google?

But do carry on the ranting. It's fun to watch.

Your positions and predictions are becoming as clear as Kristol ;)

Rand,

You are tying yourself up in knots.

Either come up with some real evidence or please stop making a fool of yourself.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Nobody is buying that crap.

Chris Gerrib wrote:
....Ayers' actions in 1969 don't reflect on Obama because first, Ayers isn't running for President, and second, Obama wasn't an adult then.

I was talking about Ayer's actions reflecting on Ayers -- not Obama's. I guess what one does early in life doesn't count unless you yourself run for president. I guess my guilts can go right out the window, then.

I don't understand why you continue to think that we are making the case that a 7 year old Obama had anything to do with Ayer's back in the '60's. I guess even I give the Weatherman a bit more credit than to think they would actively enroll an adolescent. It is about Ayer's actions in the '60's which are used to describe Ayer's character as a person and then makes us question Obama's association with him during the '90's.

So none of you Obama fans would have a problem with McCain knowing and working alongside Eric Rudolph? Or would your heads explode if someone similar could be even remotely tied to McCain? No way in Hell do I believe any of you would simply shrug it off. You'd want to know WTF McCain was thinking. Then you'd start to wonder whether McCain might just be sympathetic to Rudolph's views. Personally, I'd be hard pressed not to haul off and slug Ayers in the face if he were ever in my presence. Then again, I feel very much the same way about Rudolph (and McVeigh, though for him it'll have to wait until I die and go to Hell; which is where I'd go, being an atheist and all). I have a VERY low tolerance for thugs of any philosophy.

Then you'd start to wonder whether McCain might just be sympathetic to Rudolph's views.

That's the key point. I'm not sure what Obama is supposed to be sympathetic to. Pulling out of Viet Nam? Silly. Bombing as political protest? Hardly.

Sarah Palin's husband was for many years a member of the AIP, an organization dedicated to secession from the Union, an organization whose leader has expressed his hatred for the rotten American flag.

Barack Obama served on a committee with University of Chicago Distinguished Professor Bill Ayers, a committee dedicated to public education.

I think that about sums it up.

I think that about sums it up.

That only sums it up if one is a moron...

Obama's buddy made bombs with the intention of killing American soldiers.

The organization that wanted to secede (a notion for which there's no evidence that Sarah Palin agreed) wanted to do so via ballot.

But please, continue to beclown yourself here.

That's the key point. I'm not sure what Obama is supposed to be sympathetic to. Pulling out of Viet Nam? Silly. Bombing as political protest? Hardly.

Here's why it's important to examine Obama's association with Ayers:

1) Ayers never renounced his terrorism. Someone who is running for President collaborated extensively with Ayers and apparently never thought there was a problem. IOW, Obama either thought that Ayers's terrorism was no big deal, or Obama didn't care because Ayers's terrorism was no big deal in the circles they both ran in. Either way, Obama's judgment in this case seems remarkably poor.

2) Ayers narrowly (on a legal technicality) avoided long imprisonment for participating in multiple terror bombings. He subsequently channeled, and continues to channel, his destructive energies into educational "reform" that promotes leftist consciousness-raising while ignoring real reform in the teaching of math and other essential skills. The benefits of Ayers's efforts in Chicago have been nil for Chicago school children and have cost tens or hundreds of millions. Obama, when he served on the CAC board, collaborated with Ayers on some of these projects. So, again, Obama's judgment seems remarkably poor. Either he supported Ayers's corrupt educational "reform" efforts, or he went along with those efforts for cynical political reasons, or he's incompetent.

Jonathan, I think that's was a pretty good summary. Notably, you're not saying that Obama is a crypto-terrorist or anything far-fetched like that. For each of your two points, I admit you could be right, but I think you could also be wrong. Rather than try to persuade you (or anyone else), I'd just like point out that you left out some logical possibilities.

Your second point is easier to address. You're saying he is either corrupt, cynical, or incompetent. But educational reform is just like any other difficult project in that you can be quite competent and still fail. Failure can have many different sources. People who think a lot about engineering can appreciate that.

For point 1, above, you say Obama either didn't think the terrorism was a big deal, or didn't care because of local social norms. But there are other possibilities: Obama might have been intrigued by someone who had seriously mellowed out and had reformed in deed although not in word. Another possibility is that Obama was willing to work with people on projects, even people he didn't agree with, if it would get things done. That doesn't mean that it wasn't bad political judgment to work with Ayers, but working with someone doesn't mean that you condone their beliefs.

I personally find that I really enjoy talking to (and working with) right-wingers, but I certainly don't condone or agree with their beliefs.

I don't expect any of the above to convince you, but I think you should reflect on the fact that you can't read Obama's mind, and the fact that the circumstances surrounding school reform are always complex.

In the end, I think Obama may have showed bad judgment, but not bad enough judgment to refrain from voting for him.

Rand, you said:

Obama's buddy made bombs with the intention of killing American soldiers. The organization that wanted to secede (a notion for which there's no evidence that Sarah Palin agreed) wanted to do so via ballot.

Obama wasn't working with Ayers when Ayers was building bombs - that was forty years ago! Obama was working on Education! Whether that educational project was successful or not is a quite separate matter. They were not designing bombs on an Annenberg grant.

The AIP- the organization that wanted to secede, was actively promoting secession while Todd Palin was a member (you wouldn't be a member if you didn't agree with the views of the party) and Sarah Palin was sending them congratulatory messages. The hated flag was the US flag while Todd Palin was an active member.

I think there is a big difference.

There is guilt by association and guilt by guilt. In the Keating scandal as in the AIP issue it is the latter. In the case of Obama it is purely the former.

It is also clear looking at Obama's record that he really is ready to work with a wide spectrum of people on both the left and right. I think that is a good thing. Of course it also opens him up to innuendo from the usual suspects.

Hmmmmm.

Obama was appointed President of the Chicago Annenberg Challege by Ayers. Then he promptly took the $60 million yearly budget and then shoveled the money into radical groups founded by Ayers.

You simpering twits.

Seriously. If you're going to suck up to Obama do it on an Obama website please.

Oh btw. The reason why Ayers and Obama didn't spend a lot of time together during this time period? Because Ayer realized that this would be a clear conflict of interest if anybody tied together the fact that Obama was taking Annenberg Foundation money and essentially giving it to Ayers.

Same neighborhood my ass.

Hmmmmm.

"There is guilt by association and guilt by guilt. In the Keating scandal as in the AIP issue it is the latter. In the case of Obama it is purely the former."

Yeah because one wanted change by ballot while the other wanted change by murder.

Hmmmmm.

@ Bob

"Your second point is easier to address. You're saying he is either corrupt, cynical, or incompetent. But educational reform is just like any other difficult project in that you can be quite competent and still fail. Failure can have many different sources. People who think a lot about engineering can appreciate that."

The money from the CAC did -not- go to schools.

It went to radical groups like ACORN.

Which frankly is as far from education as I can possibly imagine.

Bill Ayers 'terrorism' was no big deal. You'll live.

The Vietnam war was a bid deal. Easy to forget for someone who most likely wasn't even born then.

I'll take Ayers 'terrorism' over your 'war' any time.

Bob wrote:
Your second point is easier to address. You're saying he is either corrupt, cynical, or incompetent. But educational reform is just like any other difficult project in that you can be quite competent and still fail. Failure can have many different sources. People who think a lot about engineering can appreciate that.

Memomachine nailed it. If you still don't get it, read what Stanley Kurtz wrote about which organizations Obama and Ayers gave grants of Annenberg money to and which they didn't.

For point 1, above, you say Obama either didn't think the terrorism was a big deal, or didn't care because of local social norms. But there are other possibilities: Obama might have been intrigued by someone who had seriously mellowed out and had reformed in deed although not in word. Another possibility is that Obama was willing to work with people on projects, even people he didn't agree with, if it would get things done. That doesn't mean that it wasn't bad political judgment to work with Ayers, but working with someone doesn't mean that you condone their beliefs.

What evidence do you have that Ayers ever "seriously mellowed out"? All he did was change his tactics, since bombing didn't get him what he wanted, and further bombings would probably have led to his long-term imprisonment. In 2001 he said he "hadn't done enough" during his terrorist days, and you can find a YouTube video of his more recent lecture to a bunch of communists in Venezuela.

Obama formed alliances with other anti-Americans besides Ayers, so there's a pattern. (And note that these were alliances, not mere associations. A lot of mutually beneficial work was done, and substantial amounts of money changed hands, over long periods.) Obama wants to be President. The burden is on him to explain why we should trust him, not on us to give him benefit of doubt.

Jane wrote:
Bill Ayers 'terrorism' was no big deal. You'll live.

I was playing around with dynamite in some buildings. But hey, man, it was no big deal! I was mad about Vietnam, so that makes it OK. Anyway, it was just buildings, man! If anyone gets hurt it's their fault for being there when they shouldn't.

I was playing around with dynamite in some buildings.

I guess that makes you a terrorist. So what is it, a good old boy just havin a little fun on the 4th of July? A gook protecting his home in Vietnam? Or a terrorist?

Quickly now, millions of lives are at stake!

Freedom fighter? Or terrorist? Or tourist?

What's it gonna be? Vietnam? Or Iraq?

Obama formed alliances with other anti-Americans besides Ayers, so there's a pattern.

I guess that was just a pattern of bullets at Kent State.

Do you even know what happened at Kent State?

Were you even alive then?

Considering Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family and helping them to leave just after 9/11, Bush's ties to terrorist numero uno and public enemy number one Osama Bin Laden himself are much closer than your supposed "Obama Bin Barack"'s association with Ayers. Guilt by association is very cheap Rand and you know it as point out by Daveon but you choose to deny it because you just hate the guy's guts.

Do you even know what happened at Kent State?

Yes.

Were you even alive then?

Maybe you should find out what happened at Kent State. Two key things to realize: first the Ohio National Guard didn't intend to shoot people (though using live ammunition near civilians was incredibly stupid and criminally negligent) and second, the governor of Ohio (James A. Rhodes) was responsible for deploying the National Guard. Then you would understand why it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Just because a government acted heavyhanded in a particular case and killed people as a result doesn't give someone the right to bomb a different government. As far as I know, the Weathermen never targeted a Ohio government building. So it would seem to me very foolish to rationalize Weathermen terrorism via the Kent State shootings.

Obama wasn't working with Ayers when Ayers was building bombs - that was forty years ago!

No matter how many times a moronic argument is repeated, it doesn't become less moronic.

In the end, I think Obama may have showed bad judgment, but not bad enough judgment to refrain from voting for him.

Of course you don't think that. The point isn't to persuade koolaid drinkers--it's to make the American people aware (they've been largely kept in the dark on this issue so far) so that they can make their own judgment.

Considering Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family and helping them to leave just after 9/11

This is a myth.

you just hate the guy's guts.

I do not hate any portion of Senator Obama's anatomy. I simply don't want him to be Commander in Chief.

Hmmmm.

@ Jane

"Bill Ayers 'terrorism' was no big deal. You'll live."

Unless -you- are the person Bill Ayers was trying to kill.

That's the biggest problem, of a vast number, I have with liberal Democrats. You simply cannot believe that any of this could happen to you. You guys live in a world of cardboard cutouts that walk and talk, but aren't real people. In your world you are the only real person and what happens to the other cardboard cutouts is tragic, but not important as you.

It's interesting how easy it was for Obama to renounce his former pastor that baptized his children. Just don't ask him to renounce a terrorist that, after 9/11, said he wish he had done more. When asked about his association with a known and unrepentant terrorist, his only reply was, "he's just a neighbor."

What amazes me from reading the rebuttals against connecting Obama to Ayers is that none of them claim what Ayers did was wrong. Indeed, we have people defending Ayers bombing as reasonable at the time. We also get people attacking McCain for fighting in the Vietnam war under a Democrat President. Nice.

This is easy. All Obama has to say is:
There are no excuses for such actions. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and should be denounced. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for." He said that about his Pastor for 20 years. Why not say it about an unrepentant terrorist? Certainly, Obama knows Ayers history now.

Unless -you- are the person

in a foreign country that an American soldier, and American bomb, an American bullet, and an American land mine are actually killing, in a war based upon lies, without any congressional declaration of war.

Let's just use the first order approximation of a million or so, people, in foreign lands, actually killed, by Americans, by you, for no damn good reason at all.

If there was a reason, it was because your ideaology was inconvenienced, and you are too damn lazy to change it.

Jane wrote:

"Bill Ayers 'terrorism' was no big deal. You'll live. The Vietnam war was a bid deal."

What are we 5 years old? I learned in grade school that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

"Easy to forget for someone who most likely wasn't even born then."

Ah, a weak appeal to authority. I doubt by your logic positioning that you were either.

"I guess that makes you a terrorist.

And a lack of reading comprehension as well I see.

From the primaries, months ago, when Hillary raised this issue: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. "

Source http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

From the primaries, months ago, when Hillary raised this issue: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. "

That might mean something if Ayers himself agreed. He does not, and did not throughout the period in which he was working with Obama. BTW, CNN is reporting that the fund-raiser at Bill and Bernadine's house was planned by them with Obama. But he was "just a guy in the neighborhood."

What are we 5 years old? I learned in grade school that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Which explains why just 40 years later, we are bogged down in Iraq, in another nearly identical war. This time, unlike our Vietnam experience, the problems aren't just going to 'go away'. At least back then the rocket worked.

Again I ask you, were you even alive in the Vietnam era?

...we are bogged down in Iraq, in another nearly identical war.

This comment is horrifically stupid on multiple levels.

Memomachine said "That's the biggest problem, of a vast number, I have with liberal Democrats. You simply cannot believe that any of this could happen to you. You guys live in a world of cardboard cutouts that walk and talk, but aren't real people. In your world you are the only real person and what happens to the other cardboard cutouts is tragic, but not important as you."

Memo, I wasn't going to participate today (too much work) but I keep thinking about your cardboard cutout metaphor. Nice job - very evocative. People really can be like tha sometimes, but why do you suppose that liberal democrats are solely or even more guilty of thinking that way? Think of a war you supported, along with your fellow conservatives. Maybe you supported the first Gulf War (as I did). You know how many Iraqi conscripts were killed by the US during the first day of the conflict, but at the time, and even now, it is hard to really feel their suffering, right? Everyone is guilty of thinking the way you describe - it is a coping mechanism. If you think liberals do it more than conservatives, perhaps it is because your fellow conservatives are just pretty cardboard cutouts to you, incapable of having the flaws real people possess.

This comment is horrifically stupid on multiple levels.

And of course, you can't, or won't, explain.

You're right, Iraq hasn't yet even begun to approach the stupidity of Vietnam, but it has clearly exceeded it in dollar costs by several orders of magnitude, dollar costs that today you will not be able to recover from.

But let's look at the similarities : Vietnam escalation was based upon lies : Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq invasion was based upon lies : Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

Vietnam and Iraq destroyed American credibility and standing in the world. Check.

Vietnam and Iraq killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners. Check.

Vietnam and Iraq have no strategic value. Check.

Did I miss anything? Again I ask, were you even alive during the Vietnam era?

All you've done is expand on the stupidity (e.g., "lies" about WMD).

No matter how many times you ask the stupid question of my age during Vietnam, it remains irrelevant. But for what little it's worth (zero) I was close to draft age during Vietnam.

Obama and Ayers worked on Education in Schools. Let me repeat for the logic deprived here, Ayers was not in the bomb making business when Obama met him. Ayers was a Professor at the Univeristy of Chicago specializing in early education.

Whatever Ayers did forty years ago is irrelevant to what Obama was working on with Ayers. That is unless you can replace innuendo with some proof that there was something else going on.

Twenty some years ago McCain and Keating were fast friends to the extent that they vacationed together at Keating's expense and had joint Birthday parties, while Keating contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to McCain's campaigns. A much closer intimate relationship than Obama and Ayers ever had.

And for the record, Keating did far more damage to the lives of average Americans than Ayers ever did. Ayers wanted a war to stop. He wanted the killing in that war to stop. Keating knew he would be killing off old people by depleting their savings; he wasn't trying to stop any killing. McCain aided and abetted this monster in the midst of his crimes.

Again:

(1) McCain aided and abetted Keating while Keating was committing his crimes against the American People.

(2) Obama worked on schools and education with someone who was then a Professor at the University of Chicago.

Who is the criminal here? Until you can come up with something more substantive, that's where it stands.

Ayers was not in the bomb making business when Obama met him.

Not by choice. He was just trying to continue to avoid prison. He not only never expressed regret for his bombs, but as recently as seven years ago, regretted that he didn't do more.

McCain aided and abetted this monster in the midst of his crimes.

How did he do that? What did he do to "aid and abet" Keating?

Are you saying that (Democrat) Bob Bennett was wrong when he completely exonerated McCain (and Glenn), and said that they shouldn't have been dragged into the investigation?

Rand - yes Bennett was wrong. McCain personally attempted to impede bank regulators investigating a fraud investigation.

but as recently as seven years ago, regretted that he didn't do more.

More of what?

More bombs or more to stop the killing in the war?

Still no proof that Obama and Ayers discussed anything other than Public Education. I'm waiting.

McCain aided and abetted Keating's swindling older Amercians of their livelihood. One met and befriended a current criminal, the other worked with a violent-war-resister twenty years after the fact on a topic far removed from bombs.

McCain clearly was on active duty to hurt older Americans. Obama, not.

yes Bennett was wrong. McCain personally attempted to impede bank regulators investigating a fraud investigation.

Really? Cite?

Why do you think that you know what happened better than the (Democrat) investigator?

Hmmmmm.

@ Mike Gearson

"Still no proof that Obama and Ayers discussed anything other than Public Education. I'm waiting."

Yes because doing the blog equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la la" is soooooo effective.

"McCain aided and abetted Keating's swindling older Amercians of their livelihood. One met and befriended a current criminal, the other worked with a violent-war-resister twenty years after the fact on a topic far removed from bombs."

Amazing. You stated the precise opposite of what actually happened in -both- instances.

Hmmmmm.

@ Dick

"But let's look at the similarities : Vietnam escalation was based upon lies : Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq invasion was based upon lies : Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)."

And funny enough in both instances aided, abetted and -authorized- by Democrats and with a Democrat in charge of the CIA.

How about that.

Won't people learn? Don't have Democrats in charge of the CIA folks!

Hmmmmm.

@ Bob

1. "Memo, I wasn't going to participate today (too much work) but I keep thinking about your cardboard cutout metaphor. Nice job - very evocative. People really can be like tha sometimes, but why do you suppose that liberal democrats are solely or even more guilty of thinking that way?"

I am the most fortunate of men. So.

Why do liberal Democrats think that way? *shrug* Am I to know the secrets of the universe?

2. "Think of a war you supported, along with your fellow conservatives. Maybe you supported the first Gulf War (as I did)."

Yes I did.

3. "You know how many Iraqi conscripts were killed by the US during the first day of the conflict, but at the time, and even now, it is hard to really feel their suffering, right?"

No I pretty much know what they went through. I spent a couple years in the USMC and my specialty was in killing tanks and other armored vehicles. Part of that training is learning what happens to a man when an armor-piercing round either penetrates the armor or causes spalling. Particularly with Soviet style equipment that has such idiotic design flaws as fuel tanks in the doors or live ammunition+fuel tanks surrounding the crew section.

If the spalled armor fragments don't kill you, a mercy really, then the resulting brewup of ammunition and fuel will kill you, but slower.

Frankly war is the stupidest thing that mankind ever invented. But until the other guy puts down his club, we can't put down ours.

4. "Everyone is guilty of thinking the way you describe - it is a coping mechanism."

I think that is what you'd like to believe. But that doesn't make it so. I know a lot of liberal Democrats. And how they view people -is- as if they were cardboard cutouts that walked and talked.

5. "If you think liberals do it more than conservatives, perhaps it is because your fellow conservatives are just pretty cardboard cutouts to you, incapable of having the flaws real people possess."

This passes for logic?

Hmmmmm.

@ Jane

"If there was a reason, it was because your ideaology was inconvenienced, and you are too damn lazy to change it."

Yes Jane.

Because we all know it's extremely effective, when presented with an irrefutable argument, to then switch quickly to some ridiculous strawman pose about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.

The blog version of a squid ejecting a cloud of ink. Rather like a bureaucrat really.

Memo,
Your specialty is pretty interesting. I'd gladly shut up and substitute this conversation for a lecture on tanks and artillery.

Memo, I'm not saying that Democrats don't act that way some of the time. I'm saying that everyone acts that way some of the time. I don't mean any disrespect, but you're the one with the illogical response if your retort is that you know liberal democrats and they really do act that way. You need to explain why conservatives are different from liberals.

I wonder why you are arguing against the common stereotype. Usually, liberal democrats are the ones who get characterized as "bleeding hearts". who are more apt to take low-paying service-oriented jobs, who are naively against violence at any cost, and who will spend too much taxpayer money on compassionate programs, even when they've been proven to be ineffective.

Hmmmmm.

@ Bob

1. "You need to explain why conservatives are different from liberals."

*shrug* might as well explain wind to someone living in a plastic bubble.

2. "I wonder why you are arguing against the common stereotype. Usually, liberal democrats are the ones who get characterized as "bleeding hearts". who are more apt to take low-paying service-oriented jobs, who are naively against violence at any cost, and who will spend too much taxpayer money on compassionate programs, even when they've been proven to be ineffective."

But you see you've proven my point.

Someone who really -is- compassionate would spend the effort on achieving what -works-.

Liberals spend time, money and effort on what -appears- to work without much care if it actually does work. The issue isn't the people being "helped". The real issue is that the liberal Democrat feels good about himself.

Take as an example "diversity" in college admissions. Something that most liberal Democrats would say is a noble ideal. However this principle really only works for -freshmen-. Once you're past the admissions process then it's up to the student to make the grade and if he does not then he either gets discouraged and gives up or he falls behind. Either way he's the one that drops out and ends up in a dead end job.

So how did this student get into a school that he's unqualified for? Why the rules of "diversity" of course. These rules allow a black person with an SAT of 700 to be admitted to the same college (Berkeley College in SF) as an Asian with a 1500 SAT. These same rules, until ruled unconstitutional by a court, also allowed Berkeley College to refuse admission to asians with 1400 SAT at the same time they were admitting black students with SATs of 700-800.

Now tell me. Can someone with a 700 SAT really make it through a 4 years degree when many other students have 1400+??

This is actually a well documented "vacuum" effect where various tiers of colleges act to meet their internal, and entirely illegal, quotas for minority students. Since, for various reasons, it's difficult for a tier-1 school to fill that quota with tier-1 minority students that school fleshes the roster out with tier-2 students. And then tier-2 schools have to do the same with tier-3 students. etc etc etc.

In effect students that could otherwise have excelled at a lower ranked school are, because of liberal Democrat's desire for self-congratulation, sucked into schools where there is little chance they could possibly succeed.

Now after reading that, and I recommend researching it yourself, would you conclude that the people in charge are either:

A. total morons
B. solely interested in self-gratification

And these are people who know precisely what the admissions rate is for freshmen and the drop out rate is for sophmores - juniors - seniors. So it's impossible that they haven't noticed.

Seriously. Would you, under any circumstance, allow someone to be admitted to an tier-1 college with an SAT of --700--?

I don't believe in tier-1 schools. I believe in tier-1 teachers. My mother worked very hard with college students who needed it to keep them in school. She might have agreed with the basic premise that they shouldn't have been admitted, but since they were there, she was damn well going to help get them up to speed. Also, if the alternative was non-admittance, she'd favor admittance and then working with them in a remedial program. She just wanted everyone to be a success. I realize I'm not addressing the problem limited availability. My mother wasn't connected to admissions in any way, so she didn't look at it in zero-sum terms, and given her personality, I think she would have refused to make hard choices -- too compassionate, too liberal.

Hmmmmm.

@ Bob

Nice story about your mother, but this really isn't about her. It's about students who get sucked into academic situations for which they are not qualified.

"I don't believe in tier-1 schools. I believe in tier-1 teachers."

Aaaaaaannnnnnnnnnndddddddddd. Who has the financial support to pay for tier-1 teachers?

Go ahead. You can say it.