The Dillard Doctrine

Urban Conservative Commentary on Politics & Life

Let it Go. Please.

Excerpted from a poster on JJP:

Do any of you really they think so little of our country’s intelligence agencies that they would be so inept as to allow a terrorist to run for any national office, much less the presidency, and secure the nomination of one of its major political parties? Especially after 9/11?

Vote for Obama or don’t vote for Obama, but to demonize him with all this terrorist innuendo in a post 9/11 climate is dangerous and wrong and it needs to stop.

Now, me and said poster have had our beefs in the past (in fact, he’s sworn off speaking to me for, oh, the last few months). But on this one, he’s correct.

I’ve always held that the Ayers connection to Obama was, at best, teneous. Hin and the Weather Underground were blowing up stuff when Obama was in grade school. You could make the argument that it speaks to Obama’s judgement…but even that doesn’t hold a whole lot of weight, as the University of Illinois obviously trusts him enough to hire him as a professor. Not to mention, he had obviously reformed himself enough to be Chicago’s 1997 Citizen of the Year. I don’t think they just hand those sort of awards out.

Disagree with the man if you want; that’s the point of our democracy. But to call him a terrorist-or to suggest he is one because of an association with someone who was one-really only serves to distract from a couple more important things that should really be discussed.

Advertisements

Written by Coby Dillard

October 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Posted in Rants

Tagged with ,

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. D,

    You are missing the broader point. Ayers and Obama have a long association, working together on education reform. Obama tried to cover up and downplay this relationship. “He’s just some guy who lives in my neighborhood”, etc. when in truth, they are much more closely associated. Ayers is still a ‘radical’ who has traveled to Venezuela to praise the education policy of Hugo Chavez! Please go read Steve Diamond, of the blog, Global Labor and Politics for a full account of their relationship.

    http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-ayers-top-ten-10-highlights-of-20.html

    No one is demonizing Obama. They are merely ‘vetting’ Obama.

    D. Okay, vetting is one thing. But I can send you several emails I’ve gotten, from mailing lists, that all but call Obama Osama. Examining the relationship from a point of judgement, okay. That’s fair (though I don’t think it’s the best use of time, as the story’s been out for a while). But that’s not what’s going on everywhere. You and I can discuss it from a point of judgement; I know you’re not gonna go down the “Obama is a terrorist” road, cause you’re smarter than that.

    Call him a leftist, okay. A radical, fair enough. But to insinuate he’s a terrorist is a big stretch. Really, it’s playing to a certain demographic…that in all honestly, didn’t need this to not vote for Obama in the first place.

    s

    October 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  2. When people mockingly refer to Senator Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, they do so in reference to Saddam Hussein (of course, Hussein is a fairly common name of Semitic/Arabic peoples, but let’s not get all educated and stuff). However, there have been numerous American leaders and officials who “associated” with Saddam Hussein when he was supposedly a good guy. Donald Rumsfeld, for instance.

    President George W. Bush is friends with Shafiq bin Laden, brother of Osama bin Laden. As such president Bush is friends with a terrorist family.

    Sean Hannity has, on more than one occasion, invited known anti-Semites and racists on his show. He may say that he disagrees with their beliefs, but he still “associates” with them.

    John McCain has associated with Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond–all senators who actively sought to subvert the Constitution to maintain segregation.

    George H.W. Bush’s grandfathers–both of them–laundered money for the Nazi’s. Did the Bush family disassociate themselves accordingly?

    You see, this guilt by association thing can cut two ways. And as easily as someone can refer to Barack Obama as a terrorist, so can John McCain or George Bush be equally smeared.

    RonnieB

    October 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  3. I agree, to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist is beyond the pale, and so it is to infer that Bush is Hitler. Welcome to the wonderful world of modern American politics.
    Bush Derangement Syndrome has been transformed into Palin Derangement Syndrome and life goes on.

    Associations are important. Being know by the company one keeps has long be a measure of judgment and character. It only becomes known as ‘guilt by association’ and labeled the ‘politics of personal destruction’ or a ‘distraction’ when the connections are substantive and potentially damaging to Obama.

    Obama is continually trying to down play and cover up his dubious associations. He needs to remain an enigma, a ‘blank slate’ in order to succeed in winning the presidency. I do not know who Obama is. His words and his deeds are in serious conflict, particularly when it comes to the company he keeps. He may a the least, be a political opportunist par excellence, sucking up to and using whomever will help him achieve his personal political ambitions or he may indeed share the leftist or radical views of his associates. Who knows?

    But I do know that it is easier to label McCain/Palin supporters as racist than it is to explain away Frank Davis/Rezko/Wright/Ayers/Khaladi/ACORN/the Daley Chicago Machine/The Chicago ‘New Party’ et al.

    “They’re trying to bamboozle you. It’s the same old okie-doke. Y’all know about okie doke, right? … They try to bamboozle you. Hoodwink ya. Try to hoodwink ya. Alright, I’m having too much fun here. … ”
    – Barack Obama

    D. Yes, associations are important (how much so I guess is up to the individual). We’re not really in disagreement. I’m more upset with the “insinuation by association” (like minded people hanging out MUST like the same thing, right? Wrong). And, you’re right, there’s really nothing to see here……so why are we back here again?

    s

    October 9, 2008 at 5:38 pm

  4. Really, it’s playing to a certain demographic…that in all honestly, didn’t need this to not vote for Obama in the first place.

    I agree, exactly. Makes me wonder what its actual function is or is supposed to be.

    Michelle

    October 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  5. Has anyone at JJP been able to offer a reasonable defense of the Obama/Ayers relationship that does not rely on the default “he was only eight… or Ayers is mainstream in Chicago…”?

    I keep thinking of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s Jedi mind trick, “Move along…there’s nothing to see here…”

    s

    October 9, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  6. From National Review online – Explains the importance of the Obama-Ayers link that goes beyond the terrorism, but rather focuses on the ideology of Ayers.
    What kind of education reform did Ayers & Obama have in mind? [Andy McCarthy]

    You can draw plenty of rational inferences from Stanley’s rich work. But for a clear statement of Ayers’s frightening vision, I submit that his November 2006 speech at the World Education Forum should be required reading.

    As Cornerites know, I’ve been arguing that our emphasis on Ayers’s prior terrorism, while highly relevant, is not the essential point. The real issue is Ayers’s revolutionary leftism (at around the time Ayers and Obama began working on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, by the way, Ayers described himself as “a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist”).

    Obama is clearly lying when he claims ignorance about Ayers’s terrorism, but even if you wanted to pretend otherwise, it is impossible that he was in the dark about Ayers’s revolutionary leftism: Ayers has never made a secret of it and can’t seem to help himself from mentioning it about every 30 seconds. Obama not only knew about Ayers’s views in this regard; he obviously subscribed to them: was a member of the Chicago New Party begun by the Democratic Socialists of America; he worked closely with Ayers on “education reform” for years, he approved of Ayers’s similarly fringe-Left views of the criminal justice system’s treatment of juvenile crime, and, we are learning; and he was tightly aligned with ACORN, which he and Ayers funded and whose practices fit comfortably with the Ayers view of “participatory democracy”).

    In any event, here are excerpts of Ayers’s 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez and other assembled “comrades”:

    President Hugo Chavez, … invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica [sic]! Welcome to the World Education Forum. Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana! …

    [M]y comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice … has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution [i.e., Chavez’s movement] and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane…. [For more information on the Venezuelan socialist Luis Bonilla-Montoya, see here.]

    I began teaching when I was 20 yeas old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I’d been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and DuBois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: “We can’t have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now.”

    I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

    … [I’ve] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space—what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?

    Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and materialism—turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together, voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

    … Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failing of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

    … [W]e, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.

    Viva Mission Sucre!

    Viva Presidente Chavez!

    Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana!

    Hasta La Victroria Siempre!

    10/11 02:55 PM

    Butterflylady

    October 11, 2008 at 9:06 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: