“Why, once I met this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy’s cousin…”
–SpongeBob SquarePants
If you’ve been following the Breitbarteers since their fearless leader died, you know that they’re currently deeply involved in vetting President Obama. Why are they so deeply invested in vetting a guy who’s already been vetted, you know, by being president for three years? Bill Ayers, ACORN, New Black Panther Party, Where’s the Birth Certificate, that’s why!
Today’s shocking revelation is so shocking that you will be shocked. Are you sitting down? Are you? Really? Okay, here goes….
It turns out that back in 2005, some guy heard that then-Sen. Barack Obama attended a barbecue at Bill Ayers’ house on the Fourth of July! And the guy knows, because went to a party at the house of a guy who lived next door to Ayers! All right, he didn’t actually see Obama there, but he heard a rumor that Obama was there, and isn’t that just as good as actually knowing things?
You think I’m exaggerating. You are wrong, mister:
Dr. Tom Perrin, Assistant Professor of English at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Alabama, was a graduate student at the University of Chicago at the time, and maintained a blog called “Rambling Thomas.” He lived next door to Ayers and Dohrn in Hyde Park. He wrote at 8:44 a.m. on July 6, 2005:
Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama! Actually, that’s a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.
My God, someone at his party thought they saw Obama at a party! I’m sure there’s rock-solid evidence of that.
Or, you know, not; as Charles Johnson at LGF noted, the rest of the post was at follows:
Despite posting someone on Obama-watch at the window, we didn’t manage to spot him again as we had our rained-off picnic in the living room. Instead we all went outside again and sat about under umbrellas. All around the south side sounded like it was involved in a small war, so presumably lots of people had been to Indiana to buy proper fireworks, which are illegal in my corner of the Midwest. We, however, made do with party poppers from Osco Drug (which you have to be 21 to buy). Then everyone ritually beat me up and threw me out for being British. Actually, that’s a lie.
Yes, that’s right — someone thought they saw Obama at a party in a neighbor’s yard, and then they never saw him again! This proves, beyond a doubt, that Obama has an invisibility cloak. He could be right by you right now.
Honestly, it does the heart good to see Breitbart’s high journalistic standards being carried on.
So you’re suggesting that if Obama was in fact at Ms. Dohrn’s house for a barbecue, that would be a significant issue? Or is this one of those arguing in the alternative things?
Robert – a political candidates associations are always of significance, because they affect voters’ perceptions of them. If I heard that a political figure here in the UK went to a party held by, say, Ron Paul, when they were last in the US, that would probably weigh against them when I next vote.
For other people, that same information would create a favourable impression, and for many others it wouldn’t matter in the least.
So I’m not sure what you’re asking. The fact that some people are desperately trying to claw at scraps of unreliable information to prove that Obama was fraternizing with Ayers and Dohrn demonstrates that those people think that that fact could sway some voters. They’re probably right about that, though my guess is that most voters who are likely to listen to this in the first place are already decided. In that sense, it’s significant.
Are you trying to imply that there would be any other type of significance here?
I’m one of the people who was “desperately trying to claw at scraps of unreliable information”, if by that you mean compile excellent research of publicly-available data (he said modestly) that indicated Mr. Obama was being somewhat less than honest in his characterization of his relationship with Bill Ayers (“just this guy in my neighborhood”). (http://www.bloggernews.net/118235)
My query to Jeff was aimed at finding out whether it mattered or not to him if the belief – admittedly, totally unproved at this juncture – that Obama was over at Ayers and Dorn’s house in 2005, was true or false. In other words, if the totally unproven blog post had instead been a totally proven blog post, complete with video of Obama and Ayers doing jello shots in the back yard and holding up a copy of the July 5, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times for the camera, would Jeff have posted something about how the connection doesn’t matter, or how Ayers is a misunderstood figure, or about how racist it is to look into Obama’s associations, or whatever? Or would he have posted a “oops, looks like Obama and Ayers WERE friends, well, this is a problem” post? Or nothing at all?
Robert – my comment about desperately clawing scraps of information refers specifically to the quote given in Jeff’s article, not the general attempt to uncover reliable information on the question of Obama’s connection with Ayers.
I understood your question to Jeff, I’m just not understanding the relevance of the question – but I was looking at it from the point of view of Jeff’s post, not from the point of view of a more general interest on your behalf on the question of Ayers. If you’re interested in my opinion – I think Ayers is a prime example of a person who made some highly regrettable choices in how he chose to achieve his goals in the past. I also think it’s highly debatable that he has shown enough understanding of why his actions were problematic. However, I don’t see why it would be problematic for Obama to have an association with him nowdays.
You don’t see why it would be problematic for him to have a relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist who founded an organization that used bombing public buildings as a tool of public protest, and which killed four people in the pursuit of their aims?
Would it be OK for Mitt Romney to chum around with the Unabomber?
I think Mitt Romney’s gay relationship with the Unabomber is highly inappropriate particularly since it involved them trolling for young Catholic boys on Craigslist together while smoking crack.
At least, according to this one guy in my bowling club who totally told me all about how his neighbor totally heard it from this guy at the office who got an email from this gal in HR at his company that she forwarded from her pastor about it.
Robert – I would see nothing particularly problematic if Mitt Romney had been known to associate with a prominent academic in his constituency who had a history of mostly non-violent, yet serious, criminal actions thirty years prior and who was suspected (with a reasonable but not conclusive level of evidence), but never convicted, of murder. I would not take that to be evidence that Romney endorsed the man’s actions.
I would see something problematic if Romney, or Obama, was actively maintaining a friendly relationship with a convicted murderer currently serving his sentence.
Really? I do.
We live in a country of 300 million people. I hope that Obama could try to select social partners from the other 299,999,900 or so who haven’t managed to kill people and yet be out of jail.
Those numbers bespeak a very touching faith in your fellow Americans, and/or the efficiency of American homicide investigators. I salute you and your idealism, sirrah.
Grace
I hope that Obama could try to select social partners from the other 299,999,900 or so who haven’t managed to kill people and yet be out of jail.
So, any Republican senator who ever socialized with Ted Kennedy is suspect because Chappaquiddick, right?
I can’t believe that even Robert is defending this bullshit. This isn’t ‘Obama is still a close friend of Ayers’, this is somebody claims they were at a party where somebody might have seen Obama present seven years ago. If this were a HuffPo article breathlessly recounting that Romney might have kind of possibly been at a barbecue seven years ago with a reviled right-wing public figure, we’d be laughing at it.
Grace, I’m sure that the homicide investigators do their best but miss a lot of people; if, however, the number of non-murderers isn’t pretty close to 300 million, then there is one heck of a good conspiracy operating to “disappear” murdered people from the recollections of their friends and family.
Elusis – How in the name of God’s dunkin donuts do you rationalize characterizing the actions of the Weather Underground, which bombed public buildings and murdered 4 people, as “mostly non-violent”? Was there a two-decade period of Weather Underground bake sales to which the bombings and murders were some kind of bizarre counterpoint?
Mythago – It moved past needing to prove close association when Obama denied ANY substantive association. Now the bar has been lowered; we just have to show that he’s lying about that. It’s like in a criminal case, if the defendant claims he never used ANY drugs in his life, therefore the prosecution theory that he murdered Franco in a drug deal is ridiculous, then to discredit the defense, you don’t have to get video of the defendant shooting Franco, you just need credible testimony that the defendant used drugs a few times. The strength of the defense claim lowers the bar for the prosecution. Obama now claims no substantive relationship with a man he served on boards with, shared offices with, reviewed the books of, etc. So he’s already standing on a mountain of his own BS and trying to keep his footing; we don’t need to find another mountain of his BS to get him to slip and fall. A few shovelfuls oughta do it.
And it’s not bullshit. I understand the dismay of liberals or progressives who find that someone they empathize with or support got such velvet-glove media treatment that there are potential disqualifiers (or at least body blows to electability) in his closet. That doesn’t make hanging out with Bill Ayers a non-issue.
Robert – it was me, not Elusis, who used the term “mostly non-violent”. I tend to use the word “violence” only when there are living things involved. I do not dispute that the Weather Underground’s bombings were acts of terrorism.
I do fail to see the logic in the rest of your argument, though. You seem to be saying that because Obama might have lied, and because you perceive these lies to be in the public interest but they haven’t gotten much attention, it’s ok to accept really flimsy evidence? Even though you claim there is better evidence out there?
You shouldn’t be defending the allegations quoted by Jeff as they are weakening your claims, not strengthening them.
Eytan – Sorry. All you e-named people look alike. ;)
The Weather Underground murdered four people. Therefore, your nuanced position regarding what’s “violent” is unneeded. Groups that murder people are violent.
You mischaracterize my argument; since I can’t say it any clearer than I did say it, I’ll refer anyone who’s confused to what I said. I’m not defending the statements quoted by Jeff.
Robert, how certain is is that the weathermen murdered four people? Accidentally blowing yourself up with a bomb that was intended for nonlethal use is not murder.
From a Guardian piece:
Regarding the bigger issues, if this piece of pointless time-wasting crap can be called a bigger issue, Ayers seems like a nontroversy to me. And although Obama has denied that he has a “substantive relationship” with Ayers, he certainly hasn’t denied knowing Ayers or ever socializing, so even by those standards whether or not Obama was at this barbecue seems to have no relevance. (Or are you saying that if they were at the same bbq, that proves they had a “substantive” relationship?)
Building a bomb in an apartment complex is overall in and of itself incredibly negligent. In this case it may well border on psychopathy or narcissism – the fact that I want to do something means that even deadly risk to others is irrelevant. I’m not sure how to legally class what happens should it go off and kill someone while you’re building it. Is that manslaughter? Some less-that-first-degree murder? I’m not a lawyer. Building it successfully and then setting off somewhere while not intending to kill someone is highly illegal for a number of reasons, one of which is how confident can you be that you’ve successfully arranged circumstances so that no one gets hurt?
I think that any educational institution that hires anyone knowingly associated with such actions has gone off the rails and needs some correction.
“Accidentally blowing yourself up with a bomb that was intended for nonlethal use is not murder.”
True. The people who blew themselves up were not murderers.
The people who encouraged them to build a bomb, however, were. If someone is killed in the commission of a felony, then the people responsible for the commission of the felony have committed murder. The Weather Underground was responsible for the commission of the felony.
And by the way, the “intended for nonlethal use” clause is just priceless. Yeah, I did build that nuclear device…but I only INTENDED to use it to scare people by detonating it out in the desert. So I’m not really a terrorist, or anything. I’m just enthusiastic about atomic power!
Not going to get into quibbling over which people the WU killed should count on their list. And I’ve already disassociated myself from the barbeque issue.
I know there are several others more qualified to answer this, but as I understand it, legally, building a bomb is a strict liability action. Because it’s considered inherently dangerous, you don’t have to prove that you intended to kill people with the bomb. If it happens to blow up wherever, you’re liable for their deaths, period. What that translates to in criminal charges, I have no clue. I’m sure there’s a whole slew of laws that could come into play.
As for the people that enabled you to build the bomb or encouraged you, I figure that they would also be liable. Perhaps in conspiracy, which could translate to felony murder. This is all common law stuff, though. I’m not aware of specific New York statutes.
I never said they weren’t terrorists; I said they weren’t murderers. Please stop lying about what I said. That was a really, really assholish and unfair thing of you to say.
I have zero approval of the Weathermen, to be clear. What they did was disgusting and wrong. I would certainly have favored Ayers doing jail time for his part in organizing the Days of Rage in Chicago.
But I can think that what people did was reprehensible, and wrong, and immoral, without thinking that all distinctions are pointless.
Being a terrorist who blows up empty buildings is wrong, but it’s NOT as evil as being a terrorist who shoots cops to death. That’s not a meaningless distinction. Nor is the distinction between idiots blowing themselves up and what the Manson family did meaningless.
And just to be clear, I also think that blowing up empty buildings is obviously wrong — not least because (although the weathermen appeared to have been lucky in this regard), blowing up empty buildings is taking an entirely unacceptable risk that you’ll accidentally blow up occupied buildings. People are unpredictable; they are sometimes where you don’t expect them to be.
However, I still think that a terrorist who deliberately blows up empty buildings in order to avoid killing people is morally superior to a terrorist who deliberately blows up occupied buildings in order to kill people. Both are doing wrong, but one is doing something worse than the other.
However, I still think that a terrorist who deliberately blows up empty buildings in order to avoid killing people is morally superior to a terrorist who deliberately blows up occupied buildings in order to kill people.
I think you are right, in the exact same way that Hitler (racially/religiously prejudiced genocide) is slightly worse than Stalin (genocide for purely economic/power reasons) is slightly worse than Mussolini (half-hearted genocides, mainly done to curry favor with worse people than him). And in the event that, at some future date, we are called upon to rank the perfidy of evil in an exquisitely nuanced ratings list, the moral calculus our species has developed will be up to the task. Good to know!
But in the meantime, it’s a much more useful heuristic to be aware that that whether the dictator is communist, fascist, or Nazi, all you really gotta know is which button fires the weapon and which one is for reloading. The RESPONSE is the same: kill that guy, he is bad.
For your terrorists, morally superior to one another or no, all we need to know, really, is that anyone who is friends with either of them is an asshole who should be kept far away from political power.
I have no idea whether–sorry, weather–or not Obama elected to hang out with Ayers. But before I go there, I’m interested in the “so what?” question.
If hanging out is irrelevant, then it doesn’t matter if he did it or not.
If hanging out would be very relevant, then it matters quite a bit.
Personally, I’m in the “it would be very relevant” camp. Ayers is a domestic terrorist. Voluntarily socializing with him reflects unusually poor moral judgment. Moreover, voluntarily socializing with him reflects even worse political judgment. Even if you’re in the camp who believes that Ayers is NOT a domestic terrorist, he’s a bad person for your political figures to associate with.
That said, I still have no idea whether Obama actually hung out with Ayers or not.
I hated Ted, actually; he should have been convicted of manslaughter IMO.
Social shunning would have been appropriate. However, unlike Ayers, who could be avoided without significant issue, Kennedy remained a powerful elected official. I’ll give people a bit of a pass, just as I wouldn’t expect Obama to shun powerful Republicans. (Also, although it pains me to have to rank them, accidental manslaughter is not as bad as domestic terrorism.)
I don’t think anyone here (including Robert) is seriously debating the “was Obama there?” question. We have almost no evidence either way.
So we’ve moved on to the much more interesting debate, which is the “would it matter if he was?” question.
Sure. But when you are talking about the “blowing things up as a terrorist act” category, you might want to use different semantics. I.e. “Osama is worse than Ayers” is true and won’t raise objections. “Ayers is better than Osama” is logically identical, but will raise objections.
That said, I still have no idea whether Obama actually hung out with Ayers or not.
If the best evidence for this is “OMGWTFBBQ!” then I’m inclined to guess not.
“If the best evidence for this is “OMGWTFBBQ!” then I’m inclined to guess not.”
It’s not. That’s a recent attempt at some OMG, rightly mocked here and elsewhere for its utter inadequacy.
The best evidence I’ve seen is the evidence I personally compiled during the election. (There may well be some better; I haven’t looked at the question since.) I linked to it. Do you think it’s credible?
But I don’t believe that the death penalty for Ayers would be a just result, not even if I assume the death penalty can be just in some cases.
Do you really rate policy issues as that meaningless? For you, all we need to know is who was as the same party as Ayers?
If Ayers was a professor in Massachusetts instead of Illinois, and was likewise a bigwig in Massachusetts education policy who lived in Romney’s neighborhood, it’s plausible that Romney would have been at the same parties as Ayers a couple of times. If that was the case, would you now be planning to vote for anyone but Romney? Or might you decide that — third parties being irrelevant — you’re going to vote for the person whose policies you believe would do the most good (or the least harm), regardless of who he was at the same BBQ as years ago?
Ayers wasn’t in the list of people who should get shot for being dictators. They were an analogy.
If Romney were a friend of Ayers, then I would have worked strenuously against him in the primary (instead of being “meh, whatever, I have my own shit going on”) and I don’t think he’d have had a chance in hell. If he did somehow become the nominee, then I would sit this one out unless the Democrats were running someone I could stomach. (It’s happened.)
I think Ayers is totally unsuitable to hold any public office, not that there would be any chance of that. I would certainly understand a level of outrage if I discovered he was on a candidate’s payroll. But I seriously do not see why he is so toxic that he would make other candidates tainted by occasional social association. It’s not like we’re talking about Obama’s best friend here – taking Robert’s list as a guide, we’re talking about mostly professional and wide social-circle level interactions.
I’m not saying that this is the smartest connection Obama ever made – G&W is right that there are questions of political wisdom here – but I really, really don’t see how this is anything but a miniscule issue in evaluating a candidate.
I should point out that I’m Israeli; considering the track record of most of the people on our election ballots, I’d be overjoyed to find a candidate whose greatest moral lapse is that he fraternizes with terrorists.
Thanks for clarifying re: death penalty for Ayers. Sorry I got that wrong.
Robert, if Mitt had been at a couple of parties with Ayers, he STILL would have been facing a field of Republican opponents who didn’t have nearly the stature or funding to compete with him — plus a governor of Texas who turned out to be a disaster on the campaign trail. So I suspect he still would have won.
On the one hand, I disagree with you; this is the sort of meaningless issue that, if you care about it, I wonder why you’re interested in politics at all. If Romney wins, UNFPA will be defunded and thousands of women will die for lack of medical attention. So for me, the idea of weighing something like that against “he socialized with a local political bigwig who blew up empty buildings when Obama was a child” and deciding that Ayers is the MORE important consideration makes no sense at all. It would only make sense if you DON’T believe that there are crucial differences in policy outcomes between the two candidates.
On the other hand, it’s not like one vote in Colorado — or in Oregon, for that matter — is actually going to change the outcome. So from that perspective, if you want to use your vote to register disapproval of being at parties with Ayers, then sure, that’s reasonable. It’s ultimately meaningless, so you should use your vote in whatever way makes you feel best.
I don’t care that Obama has “been at parties” with Ayers. Since you were the first commenter on my research three years ago (and had substantive suggestions – thanks!) then you should be aware that their connection is not “they’ve been at the same parties.”
Their connection is that Ayers created a foundation which Obama chaired for its first four years of existence, handling about $100 million in grants. They served together on the board of a different foundation for three years. Ayers mentioned Obama favorably in one of his books, and Obama reviewed that book in the Chicago Sun-Times. They appeared together at a panel discussion of that book, organized by Michele Obama. Obama launched his state Senate campaign at Ayers’ house, receiving the blessing of the outgoing progressive favorite and raising funds at the event. Ayers contributed money to a subsequent Obama state Senate run. For four years Obama and Ayers shared a suite of offices at the University of Chicago.
If that is “going to a couple of parties” then I am Marie of Roumania.
Excluding this blog (since blogs weren’t around in those days), you and I have *considerably less* formal, documentable connection and relationship. I’ve reviewed one of your books (in a considerably less prominent venue than the Sun-Times), we went to college together, probably a few people could be found who would attest “yeah, they used to hang out sometimes”. But we haven’t done business together, I haven’t set up a foundation and made you its chairman, etc.
If I had been a Stormfront Nazi, fulminating about the Jews and (back in the Oberlin days) sending bombs to “empty” synagogues, but had later mellowed out a little bit and only thought SOME Jews needed killing, etc., and you had nonetheless, bizarrely, continued to be my friend, do you think the level of relationship you have chosen to maintain with me would be sufficiently indicative of your bad judgment and/or basic nuttiness?
I sure do. And someone who did worse stuff than I (hypothetically) did, and had a much more deep relationship with you? That would be a no-brainer.
While I’m beating the subject into the ground:
He lied about his New Party membership, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz
Name me a major party presidential candidate in, oh, the last 32 years who isn’t/wasn’t a lying liar who lies and I’ll be concerned with the current candidates’ lies. I don’t think you can become a major party presidential nominee without lying consistently.
I think “total honesty” is indeed a high bar that relatively few would pass.
I think “honesty about their political affiliations” is a relatively low bar that most would pass.
In other words “I am going to make this White House a totally transparent place where no lobbyists dare enter” – ok, you’re full of shit, but whatever.
“I was never a member of such-and-such party and I never knew this other guy” – ok, but dude, we know you did, so what are you saying here? That you used to have these opinions, but decided they were shamefully wrong and changed, but can’t admit to having been wrong in your past? That’s kind of a red flag. Are you saying you had these opinions only to get momentum with a certain faction so they’d propel you into mainstream office, where you could then turn your back on them? Different-shaded red flag. And so forth.
There are lots of interpretations for Lie Type One that throw up only light pink flags (with pretty lace edging). All the interpretations for Lie Type Two throw up crimson.
Right you are. Sorry, I had forgotten all that.
I still don’t see much relevance to this, or to the New Party lie. (Did Obama ever actually claim “I never knew” Ayers?) Neither Ayers nor the New Party have anything to do with how Obama has actually governed.
It’s not that I give Obama a pass for lying. It’s just that the lies that get me angry are the ones that mattered to the policies he’s pursued — broken campaign promises regarding the national security state, medical marijuana, the telecom immunity act (what a socialist he is!), etc..
The stuff you’re talking about in this thread — and I realize the subject of this thread was set by Jeff , not you — strike me as nontroversies. Obama simply isn’t a secret socialist plotting to destroy capitalism, nor is he planning to blow up government buildings to protest the US militarism he’s stepped up in several cases. I reserve my anger for stuff that actually matters.
Changing one’s policy opinions, but denying that you’ve done so is a red flag? Is that a standard you’ll hold Mitt Romney to?
Depends on the policies, and the nature of the denial. And I’ll think less of Mitt (not that he’s particularly high in my pantheon to begin with) the more he does so. And yes, I know he has done some of that – you know the joke:
A conservative, a liberal, and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender cries out “Hi, Mitt!”
I wouldn’t expect any progressive to care in the slightest that Obama was a New Party member or hung around with Ayers, just like if you found evidence that Mitt was a founding member of the Federalist Society you wouldn’t expect it to bother me. But we both might expect the hypothetical wiffly-waffly uncommitted voter to care.
Obama’s only statement, that I know of, on his relationship to Ayers: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.” (He then went on to condemn Ayers’ actions and to say it was unfair to judge Obama for Ayers’ misdeeds, because Ayers’ misdeeds happened a long time ago.) His campaign has made further statements/denials but I don’t know their substance. And I’m more concerned with what the man himself says, since minions often get it wrong. (Stupid minions.)