Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
Today at RealClearPolitics, Michael Barone published an op-ed entitled “The Rules Change for Obama.” One thesis of the article was Obama’s (and Obamaites’) anger and/or surprise that his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers have been questioned by the media:
“Barack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question. At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.
The Weather Underground attacked the Pentagon, the Capitol and other public buildings; Ayers was quoted in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
It was at Ayers’ house that Obama’s state Senate candidacy was launched in 1995; Obama continued to serve on a nonprofit board with Ayers after the Times article appeared.
Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that “we are the change that we are seeking.” Or to once again bash George W. Bush.
There was some of that in this debate. But Obama was asked about his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his remarks about wearing an American flag lapel pin, his comment that “bitter” small town Pennsylvanians “cling to guns and religion” and his “friendly” relations — “friendly” is his campaign adviser David Axelrod’s word — with William Ayers.”
Barone concludes:
“But Obama’s choices to associate with Wright and Ayers tend to undercut his appealing message — very appealing after 15 years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — that we must strive to overcome the racial and cultural and ideological divisions which have dominated our politics.”
I agree with Barone’s thesis that Democrats generally believe the media should be on their side, but this is the rare instance where I don’t completely agree with his reasoning. Specifically, I don’t agree that Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers undercut his message of overcoming divides. Instead, I think Obama’s associations reveal the scope of his message.
Obama’s powerful message is that there should be no divisions between Americans, and he is the person who can overcome any divisions that exist. His message embraces tolerance and acceptance, a message that especially resonates with young people who have been educated to accept many lifestyles and values.
Tolerance is certainly a good thing but excessive tolerance leads to a world that accepts any lifestyle and all values. Obama’s willingness to associate with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers – people who preach and embrace values that most Americans renounce – illustrates just how far Obama’s tolerance and acceptance extends.
Ultimately, Obama’s message is that – to overcome our divisions – Americans must learn to live with values they renounce. Ultimately, I don’t think most Americans will agree.
EDIT: I’ve been hammered in the comments for what I wrote and deservedly so. I didn’t communicate what I was trying to say because I failed to draw a distinction between accepting people and accepting values, so I’ll briefly try again:
Obama ostensibly preaches the message that all people should be accepted regardless of their values. His message seems more inclusive and tolerant but ultimately it rejects conservatives who believe that all people should be accepted but not all values. Why? Because it’s impossible to accept all people regardless of their values when some values can’t be reconciled.
That leaves conservative values voters with two choices: Renounce their conservative values, or renounce Obama.
— DRJ
DRJ, that was a strong finish. And I have to reluctantly agree. Just finished an awkward conversation with a Hillary supporter, one I have known for two years, and he is an “all or nothing” kind of voter. He has no idea I am conservative, because he has never bothered to ask my opinions. He is a fascinating study of a person (I wonder how common?) that assumes everyone shares his values (Hillary’s) and will not tolerate anything less. Charles Krauthammer coined “BDS” (Bush Derangement Syndrome), an affliction that impacts otherwise normal, smart, nice people that are irritatated and militant just by the very existance of GWB.
Obama appears to tolerate intolerance. However it shakes out, I agree with your close that most Americans won’t agree.
Timesdisliker (9c6655) — 4/19/2008 @ 7:45 pmI agree, DRJ….It’s hard to be Gandhi. Everyone wants to wear the Gandhi T-shirt, just like they want to wear the Che T-shirt, even though they don’t have a clue.
I think Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ summed up his underlying problem best, last week:
“He’d actually created the perception that to challenge him was to challenge ‘hope’ itself…’Yes we can’ has devolved into ‘who the heck is this guy?'”
And then we figured out he was just another pompous liberal dork.
He’s going to win the Dem nomination, but I can’t see him defeating McCain. Callow youths can overcome that defect with enough time, but for a callow middle-aged man, time has run out, and it’s just lame. He should stick with community work, just as Jimmy Carter should have. Make him Vice-President of Habitats (an organization I support). Just don’t let him
By this time next year, Barack and Michelle will be bitter Internet trolls, just like the rest of them. Set your filters.
driver (faae10) — 4/19/2008 @ 8:00 pmObama’s message is, essentially, Carter’s message.
They’ve gone down the “No pre-judgement!” path so far, they ultimately can’t judge. Anything.
Al (b624ac) — 4/19/2008 @ 8:12 pmThe William Ayers story is not going to go away, at least not as long as Hillary is still running.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/19/2008 @ 8:57 pmSometimes with secret pride I sigh
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/19/2008 @ 8:59 pmTo think how tolerant am I.
Then wonder which is really mine:
Tolerance, or a rubber spine?
I certainly intend for no one to forget Obama’s association with Ayers. Nor his time on the Joyce Foundation’s board of directors funding gun control groups.
Neither will go over well in the bitter rural state in which I live.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/19/2008 @ 9:10 pmDRJ, in order to show that Obama is really ultra-tolerant, you have to show that his tolerance for these particular people is not really just because he doesn’t view their views as objectionable. Ann Coulter has shown from Obama’s own autobiography that he has a lot in common with Wright. He is deeply suspicious and angry toward white people.
As to the rest, when we find that Obama has had a years-long personal relationship with someone that leftists would object to, then I’ll consider the possibility that he is really uber-tolerant and not just a hate-filled racist who hangs with other hate-filled racists and a radical leftist who hangs with other radical leftists.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 4/19/2008 @ 9:10 pmSEND WILLIAM AYES TO THE ELECTIC CHAIR SEND STUPIDNOPLUS TO ELBA II
krazy kagu (0225b1) — 4/19/2008 @ 9:19 pmI am more concerned for the lives of the three children with whom I was punished than myself. The Obama philosophy of government intrusion into all aspects of our lives because we can’t be expected to help ourselves is not one I relish the country adopting. Government redistibution of income through the income tax system based on some moving and arbitrary target of fairness is an anathema to me when income taxes should ideally be used just to fund governemnt operations. Let voters have a say on income redistribution through the ballot box if our dollars are to be used in this way. Appeasing foreign dictators in the name of tolerance has also not worked out well for America in the long run.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/19/2008 @ 9:24 pmUltimately, Obama’s message is that – to overcome our divisions – Americans must learn to live with values they renounce.
Well, maybe that would be his message if he actually had some right wing friends and/or right wing views or had ever said “boo” to a left wing position. Instead, his message is that
to overcome our divisions – conservatives and some moderates must learn to live with values they renounce.
Tom Maguire (b338c4) — 4/20/2008 @ 5:13 amSpecifically, I don’t agree that Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers undercut his message of overcoming divides. Instead, I think Obama’s associations reveal the scope of his message.
Does Obama have similar relationships with right-wing bomb throwers (literal and figurative)? If not, then you should conclude his attitude towards Ayers and Wright is closer to sympathy and agreement than “tolerance.”
I am not impressed by Obama’s efforts to “overcome divides” between the respectable Left and the criminally insane Left.
Serenity Now (b08c67) — 4/20/2008 @ 7:12 am#10 TM nails it — BO is tolerant as can be with America’s enemies (with whom he seems to have a lot in common), but with honorable citizens on the other side politically or culturally…not so much.
BO’s tolerance = appeasement and dhimmitude. Most Americans who remember Jimmy Carter will say: Thanks, but no thanks.
capitano (03e5ec) — 4/20/2008 @ 7:39 amObama may claim to “reach across the aisle” but it is the aisle that devides center-to-left and the far-left. There has been no reaching out across the aisle to the right.
Do bills that Obama wrote like the one that would give millions to “black” univsersities exclusively being earmarked for “minorities” exclusively show us anything? It shows us that while he may claim to want to judge those by the “content of their character” he has no problem giving money to those judged by the “color of their skin”.
Obama’s book is a long read into one man’s journey to find his “blackness”. A “blackness” that viewed white people through a jaundiced eye with great suspicion. This is a man who attended a prestigous school, was ensconced in the white community and where minorities were the whites. Yet, he sought his “blackness” and even critized his own mother because she thought Harry Belefonte, a black man, was the best looking man on earth. That her admission of that would make him “uncomfortable” is telling.
Obama also has a habit of trying to make a moral equivelance between those who are radical and those who have a belief that disagrees with his. His willingness to throw granny under the bus (completely changing the story as told in his book) for the purpose of defending Wright; his equivalence between a man who had sworn to take lives to a man who had sworn to save lives based on his disagreement with both is stretching such equivalence to the breaking point.
We can question Obama’s decision to join Trinity, when he was advised against it by other “black” ministers in the area, as being either his desire to gain street cred with the community or his acceptance of the hateful rhetoric of Rev. Wright. Either way, it shows a man who is not what he pretends to be. The Pied Piper of the DNC.
We cannot look at his state Senate history. He claims he did not keep any correspondence from those days, unlike (according to the Illinois Senate historian) his fellow Senators. We cannot question his associations, as he is the untouchable one. Nor his patriotism, although by his declaration of the flag lapel pin, he questioned the patriotism who were not pushing legislation that he deemed worthy. (Read his quote on this subject and you will see what I mean)
Obama is an onion, so far with only a few layers peeled. But what is clear is that the more layers come off, the more there is an unmistakable stench.
retire05 (7f46a6) — 4/20/2008 @ 8:05 amMy first introduction to Obama was a speech of his where he said that Republicans are selfish and don’t care about the poor. Doesn’t sound to me like he is trying to reach across the aisle. Sound like he is trying to make extremists on his side look respectable and respectable people on the other side look like extremists.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 4/20/2008 @ 9:40 amI truly hope not!! What the Pope’s visit and his words point to is the distinct opposite of Obama, Wright and Ayers and the entire tinfoil hatted leftist loon contingent that is fueling Obama. No one on that side will listen to one word the Pope has to say, but, they are only about 20% of the population…the rest of the country seems to have more brains and reasoning than these fools.
BTW how does a terrorist get tenure? Proves a point doesn’t it?
Sue (a1f830) — 4/20/2008 @ 10:18 amI’m not very comfortable putting Wright and Ayers together; they seem quite different to me. If Ayers was already a part of Chicago politics when Obama entered the scene, I could see how he’d go along with everyone else and treat the guy like just another politician. I’m not saying it’s right, I sure don’t think I could stomach it, but it is something politicians tend to do: work with someone with a bad past to further common goals.
Wright, on the other hand, is not someone with whom he occasionally worked. Close friends, mentors, hearing countless sermons over 20 years, you know the list.
It’s a small point and certainly not meant to defend Obama. Just maybe to spread the blame to Mayor Daley and the Chicago political community for embracing Ayers.
MamaAJ (788539) — 4/20/2008 @ 10:26 amAyers was a “rich kid”. Daddy Ayers was President of Commonwealth Edison–the electric utility that serves Chicago and the northern part of Illinois. He went off to Michigan, got involved in the bombing bit and hid out for 10 years.
The prosecution for his criminal activities got derailed because of prosecutorial misconduct during the years of looking for the putz. So now on his website he claims he was “found innocent” of any misdeeds. (He’s a liar as well as a terrorist)
But at least part of Chicago society welcomed the prodigal son back into the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 4/20/2008 @ 10:53 amObama isn’t actually a far leftist as many commenters would attest. The truly frightening thing about BO is that he isn’t anything. His own words tell us that he has “chosen” his affiliations – Ayers, Wright, Rezko.
This is someone who has purposefully formed a vague persona, which has the effect of shielding him from attacks, as they don’t quite ring “true” to those who are trying to evaluate him. He’s all over the map – talking of unification and change while simultaneously voicing his “uncomfortable” feelings regarding racial statements made by his own family members. Absent from any racial evaluation is of course his own beliefs.
He’s not in this to further the cause of the left. He’s in this for money and power, and has correctly identified the route by which he can more easily attain both without having to answer questions. To his moderate supporters, the cries of “Leftist!” seem innacurate because they are, and to his far left supporters his chosen affiliations point to a secret allegiance to what they crave.
Thus he presents different faces to different crowds, aided by a swooning media, all the while his detractors attempt to peg him as racist or leftist, thus missing the point. He is running a scam, and the evidence for this is his complete lack of any concrete ideas. Vague statements of “hope” are the con, government service is the vehicle, and accumulation of power and wealth is the real goal. He’s not a leftist, unless it gives him more money and power. He’s not for “change”, unless it gives him more money and power. His “hope” is for a positive “change” in his assets.
There is nothing there, and that is what makes him so dangerous.
Apogee (4e1b69) — 4/20/2008 @ 10:54 amJust as many politicians, he wants to “be” something, more than he wants to “do” something.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 4/20/2008 @ 11:45 amIt’s interesting how easy it is to say things that make people come to opposite conclusions. I wasn’t trying to do that with this post but that’s what happened. No wonder people can listen to Obama and hear what they want to hear.
Obama accepts Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers as people, regardless of their values, but conservatives generally accept people based on their values. Young people are attracted to Obama because they are uncomfortable judging people’s choices and values so his message resonates with them. On the other hand, many conservatives and older Americans are primarily concerned with people’s values. It’s a fundamental philosophical divide.
My point was that Obama says we should accept all people no matter what their beliefs but he has not demonstrated a willingness to accept all values. Some commenters have objected to this as a one-sided tolerance, and perhaps it is. I consider it excessive tolerance because it accepts people while selectively accepting or rejecting their values.
Unfortunately, I didn’t do a good job making my point clear. The good news is these comments have helped me focus on what I meant to say and, hopefully, say it better next time.
(And I’ve edited the post to try to make that clear.)
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/20/2008 @ 11:55 amTolerance is certainly a good thing but excessive tolerance leads to a world that accepts any lifestyle and all values.
Since when does “tolerating” free speech expressions and the somewhat localized, acceptable legal acts of others also mean at the same time not being able or allowed to exercise one’s own free speech rights in criticizing the speech of others, and likewise also mean not being able or allowed to legally oppose the proposed or expanded actions of those with whom one disagrees?
We already have an extremely tolerant society and system, both in theory and in practice.
Obviously, then, the very same Progressive tolerance Obama touts and hopes for is instead Regressive – at best – with its real intention and effect being thought/speech control and the extermination of all freedoms.
Obama-speak is nothing new.
J. Peden (a41433) — 4/20/2008 @ 12:00 pm“Tolerance is certainly a good thing but excessive tolerance leads to a world that accepts any lifestyle and all values.”
If you accept “all” values, do you have any values at all?
Do we put human sacrifice on the same level as the sanctity of life?
In an America, where the content of one’s character is more important than the color of one’s skin, someone who accepts all values (as equal) is an “empty suit”, and not worthy of the highest elective office in the land.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 4/20/2008 @ 12:21 pmSorry…
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 4/20/2008 @ 12:22 pmdelete comma after “America”!
Apogee: Obama isn’t actually a far leftist as many commenters would attest. The truly frightening thing about BO is that he isn’t anything.
Obama seems to have rejected his brother for not embracing afrocentrism. So, BHO actually does have some beliefs and is even capable of making hard choices based on them. They’re just not the kind of choices that reflect a committment to “tolerance” and “overcoming divides.”
Serenity Now (b08c67) — 4/20/2008 @ 2:12 pmSerenity – Yes, I’ve seen that. I just don’t buy it. If Obama really rejected his Brother over not-embracing afrocentrism, then he’s truly a freak and should be disqualified on that alone. Someone that f’d up should never be anywhere near the White House.
I actually think that this is a fanciful BS story spun by Obama to accomplish three things.
1. To prove his credibility to African American culture.
2. To hide more mundane aspects of the “frosty” nature between the half-siblings. (Drunken fathers, abusive families)
3. To remove his half-brother from the electoral equation, as the stories might not be all that flattering. (Nobody knows you like family – and as I said in my post, Obama purposefully formed a vague persona)
This wasn’t a hard choice. It was easy, and necessary. All the more frightening.
Apogee (366e8b) — 4/20/2008 @ 2:32 pmTheir all three radicals and as usial liberals will just ignore the truth like many in the liberal left-wing news media often do
krazy kagu (a2e13d) — 4/21/2008 @ 12:49 pmIn a healthy family, the tolerance of differences is a necessary virtue. Tolerance at the same time hinders and promotes disagreement. This is a healthy circumstance in a family. Without tolerance, acute chaos and disharmony would rule. No family can function in perpetual chaos and disharmony.
The same is true of a society. It too cannot long endure the absence of tolerance or its opposite . . . forced compliance. In a society, as in the home there are values that are worth protecting and while one might exercise tolerance to views that endanger those values a complete surrender to them is not necessary.
Thus, there is a slim line that families and societies must take care not to cross. Such is the line that divides dearly held values, such as a belief in God, and the need to tolerate those who do not believe in God without surrendering to them. An example of not surrendering to those who don’t believe in God is to fight to keep the phrase “In God We Trust” on money without insisting that atheists believe in God.
If both sides don’t recognize that each has something to hold onto in this example, chaos and disharmony will result.
A.D. (496827) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:20 pmAs a Canadian, I have a pretty good objective view of how the American voter’s mind works — ‘Your guy sucks, my guy (or gal) is better’.
It would be nice, once and a while, to hear some of you admit that neither side of this lawn looks greener…you have some pretty lousy options, in my opinion. Be disappointed.
Dan TW (b68754) — 9/11/2008 @ 11:30 amYou obviously haven’t paid much attention… NONE of us think McCain is the best.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/11/2008 @ 11:36 am