Barack Obama spent twenty years at the feet of a preacher who thinks that the United States is responsible for the Second World War, and that we invented the AIDS virus to kill African Americans. Obama worked closely with "education expert" Bill Ayers. Ayers is frequently described, even by his critics, as a "former terrorist." This is not accurate. A "former terrorist" is someone who once advocated or committed terrorist acts, but now renounces them. In the late 60's and early 70's, Bill Ayers conspired with other "Weathermen" to plant bombs in the Pentagon and elsewhere, and apparently took part in the action. From the New York Times:
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough… So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
That's not a former terrorist, that's a right now terrorist. He is also, right now, a "distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago," which tells you something about American universities. Barack Obama at first claimed not to know Ayers, and when it became clear that he had worked with him, claimed not to know about his radical views. That tells you something about Obama. Either he is stupid and uncurious, or a liar, or both. Being charitable by inclination, I vote for B.
Does Obama's association with Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995 mean that Obama shares Ayers' terrorist inclinations? Of course not. But it surely raises a question. Imagine if John McCain were discovered to have had a close association with someone who planted bombs in abortion clinics. I'm guessing that the New York Times would invest some ink on that! Why did Obama, who must have had ambitions, think that his association with Ayers didn't matter?
I think it's pretty clear that Obama went along with whatever his crowd was saying for his entire career so far. He didn't speak up in Reverend Wright's church for the same reason that he didn't think twice about working with someone who had planted bombs and advocated killing the rich: no one he knew seemed to be alarmed by such views, so he wasn't either.
I think that Obama is not a radical leftist so much as an empty vessel. And that's the good news. It looks like we are about to put this guy in the White House. Americans are accustomed to the idea that the Constitution reigns people in. The system forces radicals on the left or right to move toward the center. Bill Clinton had radical ideas about healthcare reform, and look what happened. Nothing. Like a modern automobile, the Constitution is designed to be safe, so we don't have to worry too much about which sedan we buy. This is a sign that the voters are more intelligent than most journalists would acknowledge. President Obama may push radical legislation, but if he does, well, a Republican Congressional majority in 2010 will probably be the only tangible result.
But here is the worry. There may come a crisis in which President Obama can't rely on the voices around him to tell him what to do. Then he will need inner reserves of some kind of conviction to guide him. We know that John McCain has such reserves. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama has any such reserves at all. The most charitable reading of his association with Wright and Ayers requires a conclusion that he is empty of any such thing. America has survived a lot of mediocre Presidents. All we have to hope for is the same luck this time round.
Recent Comments