|
|||||
UnconvincingI don’t know anything about the “American Issues Project.” I know nearly nothing about Texas billionaire Harold Simmons. I really don’t know as much as I would like to about Barack Obama, first term senator from Illinois and Democratic Party nominee for president. I do know rather too much about former Weather Underground domestic terrorist Bill Ayers to feel entirely comfortable about the fact that Obama launched his political career at Ayer’s house. Even as I try to remain cautiously agnostic on the issues of the circles they both moved in and the boards they both served on – I’m not long on the notion of guilt by association and the Chicago political gene pool is pretty small. Nevertheless, when Simmons sponsors an attack add on the Ayers issue through the AIP, what I’d like to hear from the Obama camp and its proxies is a pointed refutation of the facts. Instead, what I hear is a demand to shut down disagreeable speech through transparent intimidation tactics, a campaign rebuttal that doesn’t actually touch on the facts asserted, and an unprovable – or at least unsupported – allegation that John McCain is illegally colluding with the actions of a 501(c)4 non-profit. It’s an unconvincing “Type M” argument that deals with the motivations of the players involved rather than the content of their allegations. It’s also frankly unimpressive. Elections are won by cementing the base and attracting enough of the center to get the favored candidate across the electoral bar. The first is done by paying obeisance to interest groups and doctrinal orthodoxies, the second – mostly – by casting doubt on the opponent. A poorly framed attack invites factual rebuttal, which, when gracefully executed, discredits the attacker. A response that questions the attackers motives while avoiding the substance of his argument helps to soothe the ruffled feathers of the base, but does nothing to reassure the uncertain center. Thuggish intimidation tactics ought to worry practically everyone. Update: Hugo Chavez nods.
14 comments to Unconvincing |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
I agree with your lack of enthusiasm for guilt by association. I suspect trying to make a name for yourself in Chicago politics would necessarily put you in proximity to Ayers. We have no idea what Senator Obama’s feeling towards the man are – but that is the problem. We don’t really know what Senator Obama thinks about anything. I get the impression that he has some overarching goals (socialist) and everything else is calculated to get him to the top. He has already thrown his own grandmother under the bus to achieve his goal, is nothing sacred?
Most politicians annoy me. Senator Obama truly concerns me.
In a normal election, you would be right when you say:
But this is hardly a normal election now is it. We have a race-baiting man of God and a terrorist listed as Obama’s original inner-circle. This entire election has been off the charts from the very beginning.
The media are such sycophants about the Obama’s that any dirt about Ayers will be conveniently swept under the election rug.
And the sheeple that worship at The Messiah’s feet will never be the wiser.
Which is a scary thought for the future of this country.
Whatever happened to “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?” Evidently Democrats don’t extend these courtesies to anyone except Islamic extremists. Certainly not to fellow American citizens who happen to belong to a different political party. Pat Moynihan must be whirling in his grave.
Marianne
Lex –
The Obama camp can’t refute the ad based on facts, because there is nothing factually incorrect in the ad. All of the below are a matter of public record:
1. Ayers is a terrorist.
2. On precisely 09/11/01, Bill Ayers appeared in a New Yorker article claiming that he had no regrets for his terrorist activities and “wished he had done more.”
3. Obama did have an early campaign meeting with Ayers, which has been presented in many forums as “launching” his political career.
4. Obama has defended Bill Ayers in the past as “respectable and moderate.”
5. Obama did serve on the board of more than one left wing organization with Ayers.
Given that everything presented in the ad is a widely accepted fact, I don’t see where the ad was somehow crossing the line in asking questions of Obama’s judgement. Why has he been an associate of an unrepentant terrorist?
The Obama campaign can’t refute the ad, all they can do is attack it as viciously as possible. Which will only attract more attention to the ad – with any luck, it will be like Johnson’s “Countdown” attack on Barry Goldwater, aired only once but known by all.
Yeah, Obama actually worked for Ayers as part of a socialist/left wing educational council in Chicago that applied for, and won, millions of grant dollars from the Annenberg Challenge. IIRC, The Omamassiah chaired one of the groups that sought to undermine the teacher’s unions and Mayer Daley’s office in favour of community councils which would decide what was taught and under what conditions.
The Obama camp can’t refute the ad based on facts, because there is nothing factually incorrect in the ad.
I hate when that happens. Puts me in good company, though. John Kerry hates it too.
The real issue here is not guilt by association per se. The issue is that a candidate as clearly inexperienced as Obama needs to be surrounded by trustworthy advisers, much as McCain will need to have a palatable, healthy veep due to his age and medical history. Fair or not, it is what it is and Obama has shown zero ability to select advisers (spiritual or otherwise) that aren’t nuts.
Today’s Investor’s Business Daily quotes a Japanese proverb: “When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.”
Obama is not running for Chief Speechmaker or Chief Policy Wonk: he is running for Chief Executive. One of the most important executive responsibilities–maybe THE most important executive responsibility–is selecting people. And since Obama has never held an important executive position, we can assess this skill in his case only indirectly. I think it’s entirely appropriate to look at the overall pattern of people he has chosen to associate himself with.
Capt Lex,
You are pretty doggone eloquent there, sir. I wish I had your command of the English language. Your points are extremely incisive and well taken.
Subsunk
I dunno Skipper.
Some of the best advice I got on my way to boot came from a crusty old Korean/Viet Nam/Cold War vet who told me simply “Careful who ya run with.”
That sync’d up pretty well with Momma’s advice “You’re known by the company you keep.”
Went well with Dad’s comments about innocents shot at Kent State “best to just stay clear of some things and some people and avoid fallout of their actions.”
Come to think of it, that all lines up pretty square with caution about associations/progression of relationships in Psalm 1 (walk, stand, sit). The road to perdition…
At best this candidate has really bad judgement about avoiding appearance of evil associations.
At worst he’s consorted & colluded with the enemy.
Time will tell.
There’s always Nancy Pelosi who believes that natural gas is a clean alternative to fossil fuels.
Bullying dissenters? Do I sense a pattern emerging?
I think the Ayers association will hurt Obama not because of Ayers’ history and positions, but because of the way Obama has handled the questions about the relationship.
I’m not trying to be quip here but I honestly don’t understand. How can the media be so starstruck with a candidate who has such a questionable background and ties with unsavory characters. Saying “you can’t make this stuff up” doesn’t do it justice. Please, somebody tell me: do they actually invision some utopian world where terrorists are left alone to rape, pillage and burn with what’s left of the US refusing to act because “war is bad”? Isn’t that how the planet got sucked into both WW’s? Good men doing nothing for fear of causing waves. I know, I know… breathe, slow down, trust… Dang!
I suspect trying to make a name for yourself in Chicago politics would necessarily put you in proximity to Ayers.
As a resident of the Chicago area I would say “No.” It is not necessary to associate with Bill Ayers to make a name for yourself in Chicago politics. But apparently the University of Illinois in Chicago doesn’t have a problem with having a terrorist and murderer (even if he did get off on a technicality) on their faculty, and he has made a name for himself in the study of education. His background also fails to make him a social pariah in the Hyde Park area of Chicago – take your own conclusions from that.
Mind you, I believe in redemption. But the last time I checked it was dependent on having and voicing regret and asking forgiveness for one’s sinful actions. That’s not the case here.
I have myself advanced David’s argument in my own circles. The job of a Chief Executive is not to run things but to select the people who do, and to have some estimate of their character. Given who I’ve seen surrounding Sen. Obama I’d have to say FAIL.
Thuggish intimidation tactics ought to worry practically everyone.
That’s exactly my take-away out of this brouhaha. But, that said, it’s not out of character for Obama and his party.
On another subject entirely… I’m impressed by the great good sense displayed by everyone commenting on this thread. At least until Fliterman shows up. Just kidding!!