What Isn’t Is
OK, it’s a little bit of double-reverse Clintonism. It’s a question of what isn’t don’t. In this ChiTrib article, Ayers is quoted explaining that Obama was his “neighbor and family friend.” But the enemy campaign’s “dishonest narrative” distorted that, and was even so vile as to suggest he was an unrepentant ex-terrorist.
To anyone influenced by the neocon media machine, as Ayers so aptly describes it, his protestations may sound ridiculous. But having studied this closely, I now see that Ayers has been grossly misrepresented. Allow me to explain:
The Palin narrative, of course, was that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.”
Yeah, I was initially confused, too. As a professional tabloid editor, I work with words every day … often looking for shorter ways to express things … and I can assure you “pal” is generally an acceptable substitute for “friend.”
But it’s not that simple.
“Palling around” implies hijinx, beers, late-night bull sessions, maybe watching a football game or playing golf, exchanging sly observations about the hotness of the yummy mummy down the street, maybe discussing the latest polemic on the constiutionality of redistributing wealth, that kind of thing. If that kind of palship did not transpire, the “family friend” characterizaion may instead refer to an arm’s length, even relationship of forced association. Because the wives or the kids are chums, or because the two guys share political objectives and therefore were forced into awkward socialization and periodic small talk, something like that. In that case, “pal” may in fact be a stretch.
You might make the argument that Ayers’ characterization of that stretch as a “dishonest narrative” is itself a stretch in the other direction. And there’s the dilemma. One of many dilemmas in the Ayers-Obama affair, but it is incumbent on all of us who have relentlessly criticized and/or both Ayers and Obama to be absolutely precise, and maintain a high degree of narrative irreproachability.
The other part of said Palinist narrative of course was “with terrorists.” Whatever he may have been, Ayers is arguably not currently a terrorist. He’s a professor of education. So the narrative is dishonest on its face. Now, some people might be inclined to say “once a terrorist, always a terrorist.” Especially when the person in question is an unrepentant one.
Here Ayer picks a major bone. Not only is Ayers not not unrepentant, he wants to make it very clear he has nothing to be not unrepentant about.
In the updated version of his 2001 book “Fugitive Days,” Ayers calls into question one of the more incendiary quotes attributed to him during the campaign: “I’m nowadays often quoted as saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs. I wish we’d set more bombs. I don’t think we did enough.’
“I never actually said that I ’set bombs,’ nor that I wished there were ‘more bombs.’ … I killed no one, and I harmed no one, and I didn’t regret for a minute resisting the murderous assault on Viet Nam with every ounce of my being.”
He was particularly disturbed by a newspaper headline published in 2001: “No regrets for a love of explosives.”
“That’s neither my narrative nor my sentiment,” Ayers wrote, “but the idea was seized upon by the neocon media machine: I was an unrepentent and violent terrorist.”
To prove his point, we’ll go to the actual article. NYT, Sept. 11, 2001:
”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.
I don’t know how it could be any clearer, and if you’re not getting it, it may just mean you’re Fargo-dumb like Sarah Palin. Applying Clinton’s Razor, there is a clear and indisputable correctness to his repudiation of the “love of explosives” headline and his claim to have never said he “set bombs” or wished there were “more bombs.” His actual statement, ”I don’t regret setting bombs,” is one I myself could make in good conscience. I don’t regret setting bombs either … because I never set any.
OK, I’m sorry about the “Fargo-dumb” remark. I know this material isn’t easy for stupid peasants. Let’s try it this way. Had he actually set bombs, he would have more correctly said, “I don’t regret not setting bombs.”
As for “I feel we didn’t do enough,” that clearly could refer to any number of activities that concerned citizens might engage in. He could be refering to bake sales and street-corner leafletting. Maybe even more audacious acts. Code Pink, for example, likes to dispatch elderly women to bear their breasts at politicians, and also enjoys upsetting the families of wounded soldiers. After the fashion of the day, maybe he means more flowers in more National Guard rifle barrels, more of John Kerry’s medals tossed over the White House fence, more draft cards burnt.
Why should anyone assume, after he clearly states that he doesn’t regret setting bombs, that enough in the next sentence would then refer to more bombs? It just doesn’t make any sense.
But we aren’t letting Ayers entirely off the hook. As a professor of education, it’s fair to assume Ayers is reasonably conversant in the English language and familiar with its effective use. So Ayers may be tweaked for failing to tell the NYT scribbler more directly ”I never set any bombs” and maybe “I wish that setting bombs wasn’t part of what the criminal organization I aided and abetted did.” But it’s not Ayers’ fault that the neocon media machine at the New York Times can’t wrap its had head around a couple of double-reverse negatives, and can’t figure out something as simple as what does doesn’t.
Another thing. Any suggestion that this photograph is any kind of evidence of anti-Americanism on the part of Professor Ayers is neither an honest narrative nor his sentiment:
Still just not getting it, hopelessly slavish to the neocon media machine:
Protein Wisdom, “Honestly, I don’t know what’s most galling about this: Ayers’ weaselly attempt to walk back his well-publicized and constant “regret” that he hadn’t “done more” as a member of the Weather Underground; or Obama’s having once again lied to the American public about the extent of his relationship with a radical domestic terrorist …”
Macsmind, “lying sack of Ox Crap.”
Hot Air, “The bad news? Obama was lying to us when he dismissed Ayers at the debate as merely ‘a guy who lives in my neighborhood.’ The good news? We already knew that … ” Also, Terrorist Says Good Morning to America … shouldn’t that be AmeriKKKa?
Malkin, “Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers is a busy bee. The violence-embracing Marxist is on the lecture and media circuit, hawking his repackaged memoir, promoting a new book on race, and basking in all the post-Obama victory attention.” Also, Putting the “Unrepentant” in “Unrepentant Terrorist.”
RedState, “Barack Obama is a degenerate liar. Not one single Republican should trust him.”
Flopping Aces, “What the heck do I and 47% of the US population who did not fall under the Obama spell know?”
Tim Blair, “Meanwhile, an accused terrorist tries the Ayers defence (”I killed no one, and I harmed no one”) in the UK.”
Well, at least one commenter at Gateway gets it:
The election was 9 days ago.
Is this what conservatives are going to do for the next 4 years?
Ayers! Wright! Rezko! Birth Certificate! Kenya! Socialist!
Maybe Fausta gets it, too: “… good capitalist, William Ayers … ”
Thank Gaia someone appreciates the torment this man has been subjected to. The Other McCain: “Bill Ayers, Victim.”
Meanwhile, the definitive neocon media machine putdown from Whiskey Fire:
OMIGODZ teh Obama is TEH TERRIST! IS PROVED!!!
This I believe calls for two gnomes AND a leprechaun.
(stomping gnomes + one leprechaun icon)
If any further response to the Intellectual Right Blogosphere is required, I am quite sure I am baffled as to what it might possibly be.
WELLCOM WISKEE FYER REEDURS HOPE U CAN REED THIS PLEEZ DON LET AYURZ KICK MY WIDDLE WHINEY ASS
Topics: moronocy, terrorists
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:56 pm on Thursday, November 13, 2008
8 Responses to “What Isn’t Is”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
So… McCain 1, FactCheck.org 0
I might keep a running score, but frankly, it would get tedious once we got into double digits.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
One of the first things a dedicated Marxist learns is, he must always insist that black is white, up is down, and good is bad, and he must keep repeating it until the rubes believe it.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
[...] update: Jules Crittenden has more. Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:21 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “A day of Revelations!”, [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am
[...] I see Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenen has done a link here, giving me a “neo-con” pan review. Or how was it he put it? Still just not getting it, [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 12:29 am
[...] yammering on about it: Jules Crittenden, Macsmind, Gateway Pundit, Whiskey Fire, http://www.redstate.com, Flopping Aces, Atlas Shrugs, Tim Blair, [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 6:46 am
“that’s neither my narrative nor my sentiment.” Hilarious. It’s the truth, but apparently that word isn’t in his lexicon.
I do think it’s unfortunate that the McCain campaign chose the word “terrorist” even though it is true. It sounds like overreach, to those who live in the world of sentiment and narrative.
I wish McCain has said something more like “this man committed evil 30 years ago, but then so did my captors, and as I have said, I was able to forgive them. So I can theoretically forgive Mr. Ayers for his past actions, but what’s relevant to this campaign is the actions he took with Mr. Obama when they worked together on what they called school reform. These actions harmed children. I direct your attention to the facts….” The facts about their Marxist education program are chilling.
But I guess that’s too complicated. Apparently we only get four words these days to express our narratives and sentiments.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:24 am
‘Ayers is quoted explaining that Obama was his “neighbor and family friend.”’
Obama is friends with an America-hater, a terrorist, and a traitor. What more need be said? He obviously doesn’t have a problem working with people who hate America, who engage in terrorism or who betray our country…as long as working with such people benefits Obama.
Good choice for president while we”re engaging in a war against America-hating terrorists.
Not.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I watched the ABC morning show interview with Ayers. The interviewer was someone I had never seen before, and probably won’t again, as he had the balls to do followup questions. Ayers stuck to the same meme about “I knew him as well as thousands of others”. And (to help sell the book to ultra lefties) continued to declare it was the right thing to rail against the government that was “far more violent” blah blah.
I was left yearning for a better attack from the interviewer but I gotta tell ya this was the closest to actual interviewing I have seen on the MSM in 2 years. I’m sure the guy was fired after the interview and has to get his resume ready for Fox.
http://www.jourtegrity.blogspot.com