A new example of Obama’s weird inversions
Bookworm on Apr 17 2008 at 12:01 pm | Filed under: Abortion, Barack Obama, Leftist morality
In the last couple of major posts I’ve done about Obama, I’ve tried to focus on the fact that Obama lives in a weirdly inverse world, where he tries desperately to hide what he really is, which is someone who believes that traditional values are evil. This same bizarre inversion, where Obama takes ordinary values and stands them on their heads, all the while trying to present himself as just a friendly guy, as opposed to the far Leftist weirdo behind the curtain, popped up again in yesterday’s debate.
The trigger for Obama’s exposure of his true self was the fact that George Stephanopoolus asked him about his association with William Ayers. In case that name doesn’t ring a bell, let me give you a little refresher. William Ayers was a home-grown, extremely brutal, American terrorist. Here’s Andrew McCarthy’s pithy rundown of Ayers’ history:
The mainstream media, in their zeal to elect a Democrat, are assiduously airbrushing Ayers: “an aging lefty with a foolish past,” as the Chicago Sun-Times has so delicately put it. In fact, it is the press that is rife with foolish, aging lefties. Ayers, by contrast, is an unapologetic terrorist with a savage past — one who beat the system he so reviles when, after his years of fugitivity, terrorism charges were dropped due to government surveillance violations. He’s “guilty as sin,” by his own concession, but “free as a bird.”
Ayers didn’t just carry a sign outside the Pentagon on May 19, 1972. He bombed it. As his memoir gleefully recalled, “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”
Whether Pentagon bombing day was more or less ideal than other days, when he, Dohrn and their Weathermen comrades bombed the U.S. Capitol, the State Department, and sundry banks, police stations and courthouses, Ayers does not say. But on each occasion, there was surely optimism that the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.
There were lots of bombs. There is no remorse. “I don’t regret setting bombs,” he told the New York Times in 2001, sorry only that he and the others “didn’t do enough.” Like what? We can’t be sure, though National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg recounts Ayers’s sentiments back in the day: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
Ayers and Dohrn have done the actual dirty work of terror, while Jeremiah Wright draws the line at waving pom-poms. But the prism through which they assay the dirty work is precisely the same: America has it coming.
For them, that makes all the difference. It’s not terror, just chickens coming home to roost. “Terrorists destroy randomly,” Ayers rationalizes with nauseating arrogance, “while our actions bore … the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate.” Right.
Stephanopoulos obviously didn’t go into that whole history in his question to Obama, but he did provide enough verbs and nouns for anyone, even someone unfamiliar with Ayers’ history to understand that the man’s goal was to kill Americans. Obama’s answer is telling. Here’s the whole colloquy:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you’ll have to — (applause) — (inaudible).
I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.
The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.
So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow — somehow their ideas could be attributed to me — I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.
Did you follow that carefully? Obama said that it’s okay for him to be friends with people whose views differ from his. So far so good, although one might wish that a future president would choose his friends a bit more carefully. (Of course, with Jimmy Carter providing the role model for liberal presidents, perhaps he can be excused for not knowing better or trying harder.)
But what Obama also said is that, to the extent anyone’s views differ from his, those differing views have no moral weight whatsoever — they’re just, well, different. That’s why he could liken his friendship to a terrorist and attempted murderer to his friendship with someone who tries to stop the abortion of unborn children. Now, you may disagree with the Right to Life movement, but only someone who lives in a moral vacuum could imply that someone who is pro-choice pro-Life, who is trying to save lives, is on precisely the same moral plane as someone who tries to murder people, thereby making it appropriate to call either one your friend.
Obama is a piece of work. I truly hope that the masses of American people, the ones who don’t watch politics with a close eye before October, start to wise up to the fact that this is a man without any moral compass other than his own ego and ambition.
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “A new example of Obama’s weird inversions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Bookworm added an interesting post on A new example of Obamaâ [...]
[...] Bookworm: But what Obama also said is that, to the extent anyone’s views differ from his, those differing views have no moral weight whatsoever — they’re just, well, different. That’s why he could liken his friendship to a terrorist and attempted murderer to his friendship with someone who tries to stop the abortion of unborn children. [...]
Another difference is that Tom Coburn, as a U.S. Senator, was talking about working within the law – within the official structure of the justice system. I hope his idea never comes to pass, but he wasn’t talking about private citizens going out and murdering doctors who perform abortions or women who have them done. Coburn’s proposal would be debated and would be subject to being voted down. This is completely different from what Ayers did. The whole moral equivalence thing is very revealing, but what you hear from liberals all the time. They just hate to apply the concept of right and wrong, and they most certainly hate to be challenged on it.
Of course when someone’s actions or positions are indefensible, and they are on the spot being asked to defend them, they have to come up with something, don’t they?
You have to understand the real estate of Obama’s world. He’s an Ivy League grad who lectured on Constitutional law; who mother was an anthropologist who married third world males, who lacked staying power as either husbands or fathers; and Obama immersed himself in the politics of south Chicago, a Democrat bastion. What’s the real estate? The class room, the faculty lounge, the upper class liberal-left enclave of Hyde Park in south Chicago adjacent to the University of Chicago; the radical, Afrocentric churches. His inversions are not inversions there; they are a fact of the landscape. In Obama’s circles, Ayers is a citizen in good standing in the leftist shire; and Obama is considered broad minded and fair for reaching out to such an odious hick as Tom Coburn in the manner he does.
Good point, JudyRose!
Bookworm – I too hope that the American people wake up and start to realize the sham that this guy is. Right now, most of the media is focused on the whole Clinton vs. Obama thing, which is understandable. But recently, I have started to notice more attention being paid to what he actually says and omits to say – certainly from conservative sources but also a little from the MSM. Unfortunately for Obama, the whole Reverend Wright fiasco seems to have precipated that.
He has no one to blame but himself.
Deana
Thomas Sowell once again nails it when it comes to Obama. (I love how that man thinks and writes.) Here’s the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_living_lie.html
Book says,
“Now, you may disagree with the Right to Life movement, but only someone who lives in a moral vacuum could imply that someone who is pro-choice, who is trying to save lives, is on precisely the same moral plane as someone who tries to murder people, thereby making it appropriate to call either one your friend.”
I agree that Obama’s statements reveal a complete moral relativism, and that such complete moral relativism is repugnant to any conservative. But consider: his audience right now – for Pennsylvania – is completely Democrat. A hallmark of current Democrat philosophy is… 100% moral relativism.
Book, can I assume that when you used “pro-choice”, above, you actually meant its opposite political position, “pro-life”?
Whenever I encounter debate points, I always try to identify weaknesses. Book’s arguments are usually so solid that I can’t find any. But in this case, I am wondering about the merits of this particular case of moral relativism.
Tom Coburn “is pro-choice (pro-life?), and is trying to save lives”. But I think that Obama’s comment was about Coburn’s statement that “perhaps doctors who perform abortion deserve the death penalty”. The death penalty! For a person who is performing a legal act! Do you get that? I perform a legal act… and I deserve the death penalty! This… from a US Senator!
Then Book says that Ayers was “trying to murder people”. It’s my understanding that they went out of their way to avoid killing people; I’m not sure whether the terrorist acts of these particular two people did cause deaths or not. Certainly they were never convicted.
So this argument is phrased as moral relativism between “someone who is pro-life, and is trying to save lives” vs “someone who tries to murder people”.
Couldn’t you cast this relativism argument as: Coburn wants to deliberately murder a doctor who is performing a legal act, whereas Ayers set off bombs in situations where he tried to avoid taking lives? If you were to accept that phrasing, which of Coburn and Ayers is worse? I’d go with Coburn being worse. Note that I DO NOT accept that phrasing, but you can bet the majority of Democrats do. Or they are at least sympathetic to it. You can bet that reminding Democrats that Coburn suggested death for abortion doctors was a very sympathetic reminder for Democrats.
I’ve got no use for Ayers nor for his wife. Everyone can change, but they’ve not changed to the point where I could accept their conversion away from a truly evil philosophy.
I’m aware that I am quibbling over subtleties in the details of this question on moral relativism when I do agree with Book 100% over the repugnance of moral relativism itself, and the fact that Obama seeks moral relativism in every way. In particular the moral relativism disgusts me that surrounds the issue of Israelis vs Palestinians, or that surrounds the acts of the USA vs the acts of countries opposed to us. (Actually the fact that the USA and Israel are held to a HIGHER standard than the others are held to particularly fuels my outrage…)
I support a legal movement declaring abortion illegal – however, Coburn was not doing that. His passion on the horrifying occurrence of a million abortions per year led him to declare that doctors performing a completely legal operation deserves the death penalty. Ayers’ passion that the USA was engaged in an evil policy led him to explode bombs that did indeed threaten peoples’ lives. Do we *really* want to aver Senator Coburn’s position in this particular argument has clear moral superiority? I don’t.
Because I find absolutely outrageous the concept of murdering a doctor who is performing a legal act, and because that is what Coburn was stating at that time, I guess I find this particular argument on moral relativism somewhat shaky.
>>“perhaps doctors who perform abortion deserve the death penalty”. The death penalty! For a person who is performing a legal act! Do you get that? I perform a legal act… and I deserve the death penalty! This… from a US Senator!>>
Yes, but he was making that statement from the aspect of working to make abortion _illegal_, in which case, it would be a case of premeditated murder, and the death penalty then would be apppropriate – at least in some states.
>>I support a legal movement declaring abortion illegal>>
I’m against abortion. On moral grounds – I consider it to be murder. I really wish it had never entered the legal frame of reference, though – for that very reason. If you’re going to declare it illegal, who are you going to punish? How are you going to punish them? Are you going to throw mothers and doctors into jail? _every_ woman who has an abortion? every doctor who does one?
>> however, Coburn was not doing that.>>
I think you’re mistaken, but maybe you’re right. Have you any references for me to read up on? I’d appreciate it if you do. I rather think, though, that what he was saying was that abortion is murder, and as such those who perform it should get the death penalty. Obviously, they can’t get the death penalty if they don’t go through a legal system. Someone could threaten to kill an abortionist, but that’s not the same thing. Are you saying he threatened to kill abortionists?
>>And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.>>
Ok. I understand that he was unaware of acts that Ayre committed 40 years ago. At some point, however, he _did_ become aware of them. What did he do at that point?
_That’s_ what counts. There’s also that article about his taking his flag pin off in protest – that wearing a pin was being substituted for what he saw as “true” patriotism. So…he protested. What did he do about Rev.Wright’s statements of “hate Whitey”? What did he do about Ayre’s terrorism? Nothing. _No_ protest. So…his selective act of protest becomes doubly interesting. And his chosen acts of silence equally so.
American Thinker has an article today about the fact that we are becoming increasingly aware that Mr. Obama is trained as a lawyer, and is as at home “parsing” words as former President Clinton is – if I may use that word – something his fans seem not to have been aware of prior to this. If they even care.
If you’re going to declare it illegal, who are you going to punish?
Planned Parenthood using tax money to advertise for abortions.
It’s a much more efficient way of making the law known than simply by picking individual cases to stack up the prosecution victories of a prosecutor.
Hi Suek,
Concerning Senator Coburn: “I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life.”
It’s possible that the quote is taken out of context. I can’t find a full paragraph quote. Every quote I can find states only that sentence.
I hope it is taken out of context. Senator Coburn is one of my favorite Senators. He’s thoughtful and takes principled stands – especially in the area of fiscal responsibility. I’m surprised that he could make a statement such as this; so I think he *must* have meant it in the context of, “I want abortions declared illegal, and furthermore, once illegal, I then want the death penalty for abortionists.”
While my personal opinion is that the death penalty for abortionists goes too far, it would be consistent – and therefore consistent of my overall very positive view of Senator Coburn, that he would always act within the framework of the law.
When I examine it that way, then the good doctor does achieve a much higher moral standard than the former terrorist Ayers. There would be simply no comparison. But the key would be to make abortions illegal first.
The details of punishing cases of abortion – if abortion became illegal – would involve a debate that I think would fill pages and pages from many commenters here. That belongs in a different thread.
I thought Coburn was making a statement that he preferred the death penalty for someone acting legally. This would make him no different than an abortion clinic bomber (who typically do seek to murder). And it’s my impression that terrorist Ayers never sought to murder with his bombs. Ayers has said that he set the bombs to call attention to, and protest, that the USA was responsible for the deaths of thousands. (So in his twisted way he was trying to save lives too… A deplorable rationalization that I utterly reject.)
So I found the comparison dubious. But if Coburn’s statement is in this new context, that he would seek the death penalty for abortionists because then their actions would have been declared illegal, then his moral position is far superior to that of Ayers.