You cannot judge one person's candidacy based on the extreme actions of others. I don't disagree that promoting violence is an inappropriate means to achieving a cause. Obama does not agree with this either, hence his adamant push for diplomacy with our adversaries. But that does not mean that I, or he, for that matter, disagree with the cause that a radical might be fighting for. I am not defending Bill Ayers' actions. I am bringing attention to what Ayers has fought for- poverty, the working class, an end to unjust wars. He is no better than the Bush administration in using preemptive attacks against other nations when disagreeing with their policies. I agree with those who stand against Ayers' past actions. War is not the answer. But, there are still problems to be addressed- another unjust war, dire poverty, the decline of the working class. Obama has always been working to fight for these type of causes. He has never, in doing so, promoted violent means to meet his ends. He has never been associated with violent actions, nor has he ever condoned them. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama might agree on the need to address poverty. This does not mean then agree on the best way to achieve that goal. True, Both Obama and Ayers were
members of the Woods Fund. This is the mission statement of that organization-
"Woods Fund of Chicago is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.
The Woods Fund has a strong belief in the need for and effectiveness of including the less advantaged in the entire process of addressing issues that affect them. To this end, the Woods Fund encourages and supports organizations and initiatives that promote “participatory policy making” by reaching out to their less advantaged constituencies. Such efforts should involve the less advantaged in identifying and defining the issues that face them, and in forming effective solutions to these problems.
The Woods Fund believes that encouraging a close, learning-based partnership with its grantees can further the causes of Chicago’s less advantaged residents and communities. All grantees of the Woods Fund are expected to engage in a learning partnership. Through this partnership, the Woods Fund expects that grantees will share best practices and successes with the Woods Fund and fellow grantees, as well as those challenges that impede effective implementation. This powerful collaboration has the potential to inform the Woods Fund's grantmaking process and to educate the nonprofit community and others about ideas and strategies that they may successfully adopt."
This is a noble cause. Obama should not be discredited for working towards a noble cause because someone else who is working towards that cause has in the past used tactics that most wouldn't agree with. (Just an aside- Ayers is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, so perhaps the causes he stands for aren't all so bad) But, unlike the Bush administration and Mr. I-used-to-stand-up-against-torture McCain, Obama believes that you can work with those you disagree with at solving a dangerous problem.
You have not heard the Obama campaign attacking McCain on those whom he has associated with, and believe me, there are plenty who could be questioned. How about the Rev. John Hagee? In 2008, McCain says of Hagee, "I'm glad to have his endorsement." These are some of Hagee'
s quotes..."All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment."
Is this not a little extreme?
Better yet, go ahead and google G. Gordon Liddy, a Watergate felon who McCain refers to as, "an old friend". Here is one of his quotes...
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests ... Kill the sons of bitches." Liddy, like Ayers, was openly promoting armed resistance against the U.S. government.
Or McCain supporter and endorsee Jerry Falwell, who McCain has certainly associated with, who said...
“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”, and...
“It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening”
Not an association I would be proud of.
The Obama campaign has strayed away from attacking McCain's questionable associations, which perhaps has hurt him in this age of sensationalized news coverage. But the Obama campaign knows that there is too much to actually talk about in this election; too many problems that need to be addressed; too many policies that need to be reformed. And he has laid out his plans to do so. This is where McCain's problems lie. He doesn't have the policies that will change our course. He has no clue. He is in this election to win this election...not to change the course of our staggering nation.
6 comments:
Am new to this site (thanks Teeni) but wanted to post this commentary from Deepak Chopra about the Palin phenomena. It puts things in an interesting light:
>Obama and The Palin Effect
> From: Deepak Chopra | Posted: Friday, September 5th, 2008
>
> Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
>
> She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of 'the other.' For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
>
> I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
>
> Look at what she stands for:
>
> --Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
>
> --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
>
> --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
>
> --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
>
> --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
>
> --'Reform' -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
>
> Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from 'us' pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of 'I'm all right, Jack,' and 'Why change? Everything's OK as it is.' The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
>
> Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Thanks everyone for hosting this site...
Hypocrite.a.tree, how can you say “You cannot judge one person's candidacy based on the extreme actions of others” and then later in the same blog say “But, unlike the Bush administration and Mr. I-used-to-stand-up-against-torture McCain”.
Last time I checked Bush is not part of any campaign and that means he to is an “others”.
You did this to your self and it discredits you and your blog’s!
anonymous.
Nice try, but terrible point (or lack thereof). Nowhere in my blog did I judge McCain based on Bush's actions (although doing so would be much more warranted, since his policies have been a failure and McCain has been consistent in voting for them). I merely explained that unlike our current president, and his party's new nominee, Obama supports diplomacy. You would have been better off calling me a hypocrite for pointing out McCain's negative associations, since I claimed that associations should be irrelevant. But, my point in suggesting these associates of McCain was to explain that at least Obama can say he agrees with the causes his associate was fighting for, which does not mean he agrees with his actions. McCain cannot claim the same, or at least shouldn't, since these associates are bigots who stand for hate and division. Please do not clutter my blog with petty, thoughtless comments.
I'm a liberal and a decided Obama voter. But Democrats' excuses for Obama with respect to Ayers are extremely annoying to me. I haven't seen in the press a clear explanation of why Obama attended an event at Ayers' home, or whether or not he knew about Ayers activities. But, if Obama didn't know that Ayers' was a terrorist, who is today largely unremorseful, then let him clearly tell us. If Obama knew Ayers was an unremorseful terrorist, then let him explain to us why he felt it was okay for him to call on Ayers at his home.
I draw the line at violence. If Ayers were a retired Palestinian terrorist, or anti-Indian Sikh terrorist, or Irish terrorist, or a former brutal murderous Nicaraguan contra rebel, my opinion would not change. Core values about life and death should not be flexible in the face of partisan challenges. Everything I'm reading now from fellow liberals is mere excuses. Until Obama adequately replies, John McCain has every right to attack him on these grounds.
I don't understand this idea that somehow, by working with Bill Ayers on projects to improve funding for education in Illinois, Obama is guilty of supporting radical actions. Bill Ayers is a "reformed" 60s radical, who used abrupt and controversial practices to get his point across. Obama was not a part of these practices, nor has he ever condoned them. Bill Ayers now holds the title of "Distinguished Professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Why has the University not been diminished of their credibility due to his acceptance as a distinguished employee? Maybe it's because regardless of his past, Ayers is currently working peacefully to make a difference, and his past is now the past.
I currently have an employee at work who is an ex-con. He used to rob banks, and now he is a reformed and peaceful man who I believe wouldn't harm a fly. Am I guilty of endorsing his past actions because I am giving him a job, a second chance?
I think that this is not a fair attack on Obama and although I believe that Obama has come out and explained his relationship with Ayers, it continues to be a non-issue to me. Obama is not involved in violent or obstructive behavior and never has been, which is clear if you take the time to look at his record. He has always been an advocate for peace and diplomacy, and he should not be discredited for that because he has worked with someone who at one point in time 40 years ago did not follow the same principals. It is ridiculous. I am done entertaining this silly argument.
Post a Comment