Sporadic Fellow-Traveling
NYT examines the Ayers-Obama link. It’s about sporadic path-crossing, bygones, rehabilitation and a sort of non-contagious fellow-traveling. Includes radical assurances that Obam is no radical. Director Blue casts a more jaundiced eye at the bygones, the ex-Weathermen Obama fan club, the fellow-traveling. It’s about dead cops, dead marines, and their killers.
Topics: Obama, crime, history, traitors
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:46 pm on Saturday, October 4, 2008
2 Responses to “Sporadic Fellow-Traveling”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Yeah… if the connection was so harmless, then why did Obama deliberately try to mislead people by calling Ayers “just some guy in the neighborhood?”
Obviously he felt he had something he needed to cover up, yes?
A good reporter would realize that, and be immediately suspicious, and might just go digging after the truth. A good, *honest* reporter, anyway. There are a few left at the NYT, but they don’t seem to cover politics much.
October 5th, 2008 at 1:12 am
It is logically inconceivable that this “fellow-traveling” did not reflect some spiritual overlap. Ayers chose to mentor Obama. He supported him for the Chair of an enormously powerful committee (surely no one can deny that a committee that disbursed that much money was enormously powerful). Does anyone believe that Ayers didn’t care who chaired that committee? Or that he pulled Obama’s name out of a hat? We all know damned well that there were interviews, and that Ayers came out of those interviews believing that he had found a kindred soul. Otherwise he would have offered that plum spot to someone else. So Ayers concluded that Obama was an anti-American bigot like himself (as did Wright, apparently) and acted accordingly.
While almost all Obama supporters (which includes at least 98% of the press) ignore this matter, a few have attempted to defend him. There seem to be two defenses. The first, which includes the New York Times, asserts that the Ayers-Obama association was trivial and incidental. I’m sorry, but anyone who argues that a seasoned radical activist like Bill Ayers would have offered control of a multi-multi-million dollar pot of left-wing money to an incidental acquaintance is either a committed liar or is so terminally clueless that he warrants no response beyond pity.
The second defense is that Obama was using Ayers, as he was using Wright. This defense is much kinder to Obama’s candidacy, and, if there is a valid defense, much more likely to be right. But it leaves us with a man who is perfectly comfortable trucking with anti-American terrorists (and anti-American racists, and criminals) to advance himself politically. Do his supporters really believe that their candidate is that despicable a person?
There was a time some months ago when liberals around me (and I am inundated with them) were actually positive about his fellow. But those noble sentiments have vanished with the summer fog and the cold light of day. Now, they are increasingly defensive, even when talking to one another. When pinned down, they sort of admit that they support him either because he is black or because he does not belong to the party of George Bush. We are beginning to see just how much they will sweep under the rug to rationalize those positions.