Michael Kinsley Does Not Get It: The Real Victims of Obama's Radical Friends
Let's Try It This Way: Terrorists Are Bad. Decent People Should Not Befriend Them.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Bill Ayers | Michael Kinsley | murder | Obamafiles — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Michael Kinsley thinks that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are not really such a big deal except to the extent they inadvertently helped Republicans:
Ayers and Dohrn never posed any real threat to U.S. national security. Their asinine chatter about killing people and their anti-American sloganeering were as ineffective as their bombs. But they did real harm. Their victims were liberals: the millions of people who were part of the mainstream antiwar movement and who later voted against Ronald Reagan...perhaps you can imagine how infuriating it was to the organizers of the big marches on Washington--struggling to keep them peaceful--that there were people of the left effectively in cahoots with the Nixon Administration, determined to undermine all those efforts.
Um, no. Kinsley admits right up front in the article the violent radicalism of the Weather Underground and its (and, specifically, Dohrn's) implication in, among other atrocities, the 1981 Brink's armored car robbery at the Nanuet Mall in my hometown, a robbery that killed Nyack Police Officer Waverly Brown, Nyack Police Sergeant Ed O'Grady and Brink's security guard Pete Paige, who collectively left behind three widows and six fatherless children, the youngest six months of age. I can promise you that I would not associate willingly with the likes of Ayers and Dohrn if they were on fire and I was carrying a bucket of water. Nor would most of the people who remember the Brink's case. Kinsley and Obama, perhaps, were still too angry about Nixon and Reagan to care.
The problem with folks like Ayers and Dohrn was not that they made the political lives of liberals difficult. Their real victims were the people killed by their organization. I vividly remember the Brink's robbery; it was the biggest news story ever in Rockland County. When I worked at the Rockland DA's office for a summer they took us to see the evidence, including the super-thick windshield glass from the armored Brink's truck that had a huge hole blown in it by their shotguns and M-16s.
So, maybe Ayers and Dohrn were not actually going to bring the United States to its knees. They did quite enough harm, thank you. Tim McVeigh never posed any real threat to U.S. national security, either. Nor did Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or the Klu Klux Klan. Would Kinsley be unconcerned about a presidential candidate who counted those associations among his friends? Maybe next he'll just explain it away as a necessary part of politics, like pandering to Marxists.
Kinsley instead suggests that at worst Obama is sorely lacking in....judgment. Read On...
If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues. Northwestern created a "family justice" center for Dohrn to run. Ayers is a "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois. They write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as "activists" who have never abandoned their noble ideals.
Barack Obama: judgment no worse than that of Chicago academics and newspapermen. What an endorsement.
I'll leave you with some people who one would have preferred to associate with, but who don't seem to be the types that run in Barack Obama's circles:
Police Officer Waverly Brown, 45, sipped his coffee while sitting in the diner on Broadway in the village of Nyack, New York on the afternoon of October 20, 1981. Nyack was a small community of 6,000 people situated on the banks of the majestic Hudson River. Officer Brown, known to virtually everyone as "Chipper," was a popular figure in the village, especially to young people, who frequently saw him as a counselor and friend. He was on the job for 13 years and, since the retirement of another African American, Officer Brown was the only black cop on the 22-man force. He served in the United States Air Force after the Korean War and later both his daughters also joined the military. When he finished his 20 years with the police, Chipper planned to retire to Virginia where he owned a house and some land. He was a solid six feet tall, had an easy smile and loved to garden and cook. He finished his coffee, tipped the waitress and walked out to his parked police unit.
At the same time, a short distance away in the Nyack Police Department radio room, Sergeant Ed O'Grady, 33, was talking with the police dispatcher. O'Grady was born and raised in Nyack. He knew everyone and everyone knew him. He served with the Marines in the Vietnam War during the 1960s and when he returned home, he joined the police department. O'Grady retained the discipline and conservatism of the Marines; his uniform and appearance were always exemplary. He was enrolled at St. Thomas Aquinas College and was close to receiving his bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Ed O'Grady and his wife, Diane, had three small children, Edward, 6, Patricia, 2, and Kimberly, six months.
A few miles away, on Route 59, a busy highway that runs east and west through Rockland County, an armored car was approaching the sprawling Nanuet Mall. Inside the truck, Brink's security guard Pete Paige, 49, was looking forward to the last pickup of the day. He was a hard-working, quiet sort of man and a veteran of the United States Navy. Pete was the guard that day. It was his role on that shift to guard the carrier of the money. Pete and his wife, Josephine, had three children, Susan, 19, Michael, 16, and Peter, age 9. He worked as an armed guard for the Brink's Corporation since 1956 and had never been involved in a robbery.
This would be his first, and his last.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Verb Tension — Comments (52) »
Michael Kinsley Does Not Get It: The Real Victims of Obama's Radical Friends 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that Barack chose the home of these two known terrorists to launch his political career from. Just that fact alone takes him out of the mainstream for me and proves he has extremely poor judgement, at the very least.
It's the incremental number of nails that buries BO. Each fact and incident adds credence and reveals the truth behind the hoopla.
I'm not saying that Barack condones killing innocent people. But you are known by the company you keep. It's a shame so many people are taken in by the popularity contest instead of being concerned enough to find out who this guy is.
MSM blew it, now they're stuck with this turkey.
Rather than to keep picking at each associate in isolation, you need to step back and view who Obama has been associating with over the past 20-30 years.
And when you look at this, you'll see that there is a huge preponderance of associates, whether in his church or his key political tutors and supporters, who genuinely reside in the Marxist, 60's anti-America universe.
This is the issue, none of us live in a vacuum, we develop our world view from the people we spend time with - and when you see a coherent train of belief among his associates and see that his words have largely followed in accord with that system, then you have to say "if the shoe fits, wear it".
I more concious of this because this I lived through that era of American history and know the spiel.
That's the problem, Obama keeps saying that he lives in a different neighborhood that is hermetically free from his past, but his words keep exposing his heart - whether it be his Memorial Day speech that slighted the military as public service or his foreign policy instincts.
There are three things that connect Obama to Ayers.
1. They were both members of the board for an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, 1999 - 2002.
2. Obama attended a party at Ayers house one evening.
3. Ayers donated $200 to his Senate campaign.
...of what the "party at Ayers house one evening" actually was, or it will be your last post. Your choice.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Seems the party was for outgoing state senator, Alice Palmer to announce her support for Obama to run for her position. This was in 1995.
Accurate was that the party was thrown for Obama. But you get half points for effort.
Alas, full points were necessary to keep posting here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Damn!!! I shoulda went with tupperware party!!!
You know I thought you'd have a better sense of humor than this. Deleting accounts just cause you can't stand the heat, can't rise to the occasion with debate skills and discourse.
No wonder redstate is the lowest ranking blog on the net.
I've seen no such ranking for RedState.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...the "you all suck and nobody likes you" argument sufficiently to make further comment largely unnecessary.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
(and with a tagline like that, I can rest assured that I'm going to be accused of defending the Weather Underground..), but:
Didn't the Weathermen collapse sometime around 1976? And wasn't the collapse in large part because Ayers and Dohrn weren't willing to be violent enough (amazing considering they made bombs)? Didn't the Brinks robbery take place in 1981, five years after the dissolution of the Weather Underground? Finally, wasn't the Brinks robbery headed up by the BLA, with an assist from former especially crazy Weather Underground members (none of which were Ayer or Dohrn)?
Once again, not defending the Weather Underground. Despite Ayers assertion that they always made sure that their bombs wouldn't hurt anyone, setting off bombs in public places is not an acceptable means of political discourse. It's reprehensible, and I in no way consider it a minor sin.
It seems, however, that it would be a much more effective strategy to blame Ayers and Dohrn for what they actually did, rather than for what some of their especially insane, zealous proteges did five years after the Weather Underground dissolved and Ayers and Dohrn had turned themselves in to the authorities.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Ayers assertion that they always made sure that their bombs wouldn't hurt anyone
Ayers is lying.
I was living in New York City when one of their bombs exploded accidentally in Greenwich Village, killing three of their own comrades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion
That bomb had been filled with roofing nails and other shrapnel, which would go flying off everywhere when the bomb exploded. It was definitely an anti-personnel bomb, designed to tear human flesh into spaghetti.
That's why I referred to it as an assertion. How they managed to set so many bombs without hurting anyone is beyond me, and the fact that he got off on a technicality is infuriating.
That's precisely why I think that focusing on the stuff that they were directly involved in would be more effective. He never killed anyone, but that's only thanks to the grace of God. Even if one buys his claim that they were careful not to hurt anyone, setting bombs in public places is atrocious. The fact that he and Dohrn manage to remain respectable in Chicago (whatever that means) due to his daddy shows what a crap-hole the city really is (except for the Bears and pizza).
*"He never killed anyone"*
Maybe not, but SHE did. I'm not sure how she got out of jail.
*"The fact that he and Dohrn manage to remain respectable in Chicago (whatever that means) due to his daddy shows what a crap-hole the city really is...."*
You got that right. And "higher" education.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
I was just reading up on them and couldn't find a reference to her killing anyone at least not being arrested for or found guilty of murder. Who did she kill?
I see you're no longer around, but if you're still wistfully reading our stuff, I have to amend my comment. I thought she was convicted in the Brinks robbery (linked above by the words "collectively left behind three widows and six fatherless children.") Instead, she and Ayers have raised the child (Chesa) of two of the cop/Brinks guard killers, David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin. Ayers and Dohrn are described as "comrades" of Gilbert and Boudin on page 15 of the link.
Meanwhile, that Democrat stalwart Bill Clinton, in his last minute pardons, helped more than Marc Rich. He also helped two people associated with the robbery.
in December 2000, President Clinton decided she had served enough time in jail. Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans were among the long list of questionable pardons and commuted sentences, which Clinton granted in his final days in office. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, in the Southern District of N.Y., initiated a criminal investigation of those pardons, which continues as of this writing. ibid p 13
I suspect that Dohrn was simply not caught. She wouldn't talk. According to Politico, through Moonbattery:
Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members' robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
Always happy to set the record straight. I only suspect her of being involved in murder.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
While legally Ayers and Dohrn may not be prosecutable for the actions of their erstwhile fellow criminal, in terms of culpability and censure, these guys are tarred with the later acts that had a provenance in the Weather Underground. Especially since Ayers and Dohrn to my knowledge - not only did they not condemn these acts, their response was more that they regretted not being a part of it.
As far as political strategy for McCain and Republicans in the 2008 election, that's a different question. However, an assessment that the American public may not find this an important factor in their voting decisions does not mean that these guys are off the hook.
repeatedly as stating that no, he did not regret the bombings. On the contrary he regretted that they did not bomb enough.
This quote was *after* the 9/11 attacks took place.
Such a statement is way, way, way beyond insensitive and stupid.
At the same time, he always claims that he never killed anyone or wanted to.
At best (i.e. if you take his claim at face value), he's the equivalent of someone who gets behind the wheel blowing a 2.0, recklessly endangering the public.
At worst he's lying, and the only reason no one ever died is because God was looking out for the folks that Ayers endangered.
Scum either way.
defending himself by saying, "She never died".
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
he made those remarks a day or two before 9/11; they ran in the NYT the morning of the 11th.
But you know, one shouldn't need 9/11 to remind one that terrorist bombings are bad.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Back in the 1960s, when the radicals of the Left started committing riots, vandalism, and then actual terrorism, the reaction from mainstream liberals was never to condemn those acts as bad in themselves--but to simply tut-tut that if these acts continued, they might invite a "backlash from the right," which was always what liberals really feared most.
Even novels written back then by liberals, like those written by Drew Pearson and Fletcher Knebel, always had that theme: The main thing wrong with violence by the Left is that it might provoke a reaction by the Right. You got the distinct impression that they wouldn't mind the violence itself, if they didn't think the Right would capitalize on it.
describe are revelatory of "ends justify the means" attitude.
i.e.: Gosh, if we hurt people and get what we want, that is good. If we hurt people and get what we want but then the righties join forces and defeat us anyway, then that is bad.
Right. Like they never threw out and condemned the protesters who took over the school president's office, or arrested and fined them commensurate with the damage they caused. And they always excused the bad behavior with, "free speech" rights. Right.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
I'm usually nowhere near that harsh, but everything I know about him just makes my skin crawl. He's always struck me as the worst kind of intellectually bankrupt shill.
I'm frankly surprised he's been able to stay in the limelight as long as he has. Even Olberman is less offensive.
The only person I can think of that is strictly worse is Bill Maher and Michael Moore, but at least they are occasionally funny.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Michael Kinsley suffers from being a musical midget who blows only one note very well, but often. He's great about telling us "Democrats are Good. Republicans are Bad." That's the extent of his talent.
I read something he wrote a few weeks ago (maybe I heard him on PBS). I agreed with his opinion (don't remember the topic, though). That was the only time I've ever agreed with him, and probably the only time I will.
He deserves to be boiled in oil for the statements you've boldfaced in the first paragraph. As if that were the point. Since we no longer do the old "submerge in oil and add heat until bubbling" thing (normally a waste of petroleum, but worth it in this case), your article, which nails him with facts is the next best thing.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
and went on to be in a John Waters movie. She didn't kill anybody and she had a brainwashing defense. Still, she did her time.
My first thought when I learned of Ayers was, how did he get out of prison (and then enter into public service), when he had clear, premeditated intent for his offenses and essentially told everyone he was unreformed?
He never got into prison; the prosecution overreached and did something illegal, IIRC (sorry, before my time, and I don't recall the details), and thereby blew the case. And he can't be tried again for the same crimes, of course. He can admit to anything he likes and not get tried again.
So that, no doubt, gave him a sense of vindication.
Prosecutors blow it more often than not, sad to say, and it's no fun when that's the price of keeping the double-jeopardy protection for the rest of us. At least it's serving its purpose if Ayers is smart enough to avoid incurring new charges against himself.
His father, Thomas G Ayers, was the CEO and Chairman of Consolidated Edison of Chicago, and a very successful, influential businessman. Some of the Weathermen, less well-connected than Ayers, did time including his wife Bernadine Dohrn.
Obama has surrounded himself with some very, shall we say, "shady" characters. Lack of judgement may be a defense for a teenager who starts to run with a bad crowd - but for a presidential candidate???
Maybe Obama's high level of tolerance for people like Wright, Dohrn, and Ayers is not "poor judgment" or youthful exuberance and inclusiveness, etc. but rather a mild degree of sociopathy which is the absence of conscience or morality. Democrats love people like this. Such people can be very well spoken, even soft spoken, outwardly pious, superficially empathic with all groups, and still have no particular conscience or morality - in other words a very charismatic politician.
I think it's more of a young kid searching for identity and meaning in a rootless life. I think he wanted to think of himself as "black," and was looking to connect with his black roots.
That's why he fell in with Reverend Wright, who then probably networked him into the rest of radical Chicagoland.
It's analogous to why young Muslim men fall in with these radical imams and preachers. They're supplying them with meaning and purpose in their lives, which they have failed to find any other way.
Our schools give our kids skills and knowledge to be able to work at a job. But they don't answer the philosophical and spiritual yearnings that young people have. After puberty, young people start to ask questions: Why am I here on earth? What is the meaning of my life? What is my purpose in life?
If we don't find them positive answers--if we just ignore this--then they are liable to seek answers from someone else. Someone like Reverend Wright, or Farrakhan, or even Osama bin Laden.
After twenty years of continuing to drink from this well, don't you think it's a bit past the "past indiscretion" point and more like "this is who I am". At what point does one become accountable for one's chosen path? Or are the rules different if you're a Democrat?
Falling into the wrong crowd is only excusable if, when you find that they are the wrong crowd, you fall out with them.
Obama didn't do that until it looked unpopular to stay with them.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
His bombs never killed anyone. I thought he had done something terrible, like smoking in public.
Though the defense coming as it does from Kinsley is interesting in that he really popularized the use of "hypocrisy" to describe Republicans. On Crossfire he seemed to use it every night. Now if only he can explain away the rest of Obama and forget hypocrisy.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
...to appear to be the 'not very conservative' guy because I am intrigued by Obama; but what was his relationship to Ayers and Dohrn? It seems pretty light from what I've heard so far. I sit on a couple of boards with some complete idiots but they certainly don't define me.
Seriously though, I want to know what I'm missing. I didn't really get the relationship from the article. Can anybody help me out here?