dagblog - Comments for "Wooden Cities"

Considering these issues

acanuck — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:15:18 +0000

In reply to So, I don't like "guilt by

Considering these issues arose during the heat of campaigning, Nebton, Obama was just about pitch-perfect. His initial attempt in the "race" speech to cut Rev. Wright some slack was masterful -- as good a political save as Nixon's "Checkers" speech. The Wright issue was totally defused -- or would have been if Wright had stuck to the unspoken deal and kept a low profile. When Wright opted to go loudly public once more, Obama had no choice but to denounce him. But in both instances, he came off as a man of judgment and compassion. In mid-campaign, that's all that counts.

With Bill Ayers, the issue was far simpler. Obama's links to him were very tangential, and the public never bought into the smear. Obama did the only thing he could do, which was to denounce the radical militancy of the Vietnam era.

I must say that Ayers himself behaved better than Wright, taking a bullet for the cause through his self-imposed silence. I do believe in rehabilitation and redemption, but on top of that it's worth noting that Ayers was never convicted of any crime. He has never expressed remorse because he continues to believe that trying to stop the abominable Vietnam War justified his group's campaign of symbolic terror. I marched peacefully against that war (never even getting arrested) and didn't approve of the Weathermen's actions. Still I understand theirs was a moral decision. Not necessarily right, but taken on principle.

You know, I despise Ayers,

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:19:52 +0000

In reply to So, I don't like "guilt by

You know, I despise Ayers, both for his crimes as a Weatherman and for his unrepentant pride in those crimes. But I couldn't be the least bit interested in Obama denouncing, renouncing, rejecting or repudiating them.

Ayers's crimes are very clearly in the past. Obama was never in danger of inciting more violence from the Weather Underground. So tut-tutting over Ayers's past was merely symbolic. I am not interested in symbolic speech or historically-correct speech. I'm interested in speech that prompts or tends to prompt action.

I object, to the extent I think about, to Ayers's original reintegration into progressive political circles in Chicago. I think that until he publicly renounced his own crimes, at the very least, he should have been turned away as a pariah. But that decision was made without me, long ago. And it was also made well before Barack Obama turned up in Chicago. (I also despised Strom Thurmond, but I didn't expect all of his fellow Republican Senators to ostracize him throughout the 1990s.) Obama entered a Chicago where Ayers was peaceably doing good works, and where he was already a fixture on charitable boards. Should Obama not have served on the board of the Woods Foundation because he objected to the presence of Ayers? I don't think so.

That's a long answer. Here's the short one: I'm interested in how speech affects civil peace in the present, and in the imminent future. I'm not interested in historical grievances.

Now you're confusing me. Is

Nebton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:03:19 +0000

In reply to Well, I'm glad. The more

Now you're confusing me. Is it a metaphor or an analogy? Did someone, like, say like? :P

Irregardless (I just love using that non-word), I agree completely with what you're saying about the rodeo clown anaphor.

As a I recall, a future

DF — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:55:00 +0000

In reply to So, I don't like "guilt by

As a I recall, a future Secretary of State gave him a rather public dressing down on the proper way to both reject AND denounce such behavior.

Well, I'm glad. The more

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:53:31 +0000

In reply to Joe Scarborough, it would

Well, I'm glad. The more conservatives do t defuse the craziness, the better.

It's fascinating how uncomfortable Mika and the others look as Scarborough keeps talking.

Beck's "rodeo clown" metaphor is also wild ... since rodeo clowns intervene to defuse violence themselves, to distract the angry bull while riders get away. Beck is a rodeo clown who deliberately antagonizes the bull and lets it out of the chute ... worst rodeo clown ever.

So, I don't like "guilt by

Nebton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:47:37 +0000

In reply to Joe Scarborough, it would

So, I don't like "guilt by association", but I do think that the good Doc and Scarborough both make a point that if someone from "your side" does/says something truly unconscionable, then you need to call them out on it.

Now, here's the devil's advocate: how well did Obama do (or should he have done) at distancing himself from the actions of Ayers (which admittedly happened a long time ago), or the words of Rev. Wright?

Just to be clear, that's a two part question, possibly out of order, so I'll ask it again and switch the order: (1) Should Obama have distanced himself from the actions of Ayers and the objectionable words of Wright (or were their objectionable words of Wright), and if so, (2) How well did he do at it?

Joe Scarborough, it would

DF — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:45:43 +0000

In reply to Wooden Cities

Joe Scarborough, it would seem, agrees with you:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ah, nebton, don't worry. It's

Doctor Cleveland — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:43 +0000

In reply to I realize I might have come

Ah, nebton, don't worry. It's no big deal.

But comparing me with Dave Matthews ... them's fightin' words.

I realize I might have come

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:05:27 +0000

In reply to Wooden Cities

I realize I might have come off as being a tad bit antagonistic (I get really drawn by the need to play devil's advocate), so as a peace offering, I offer you this piece. Here's a salient quote:

Everyone's outraged all the time. Why are you outraged? There's war -- there's always been war, as long as most of us have been alive. There have always been people being abused, there's always been horrible things in the world. Why are we outraged? We should just be quiet and figure it out, and work it out together. ... There's no solution in Washington as long as people are shouting like that.

No, you've got it. In fact,

Doctor Cleveland — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:15:55 +0000

In reply to Good post, good doctor. It

No, you've got it. In fact, my position makes no sense unless publuic figures can be judged for how responsibly they deal with those questions.

Demonizing one's political opponents isn't murder one, but it's like manslaughter. Not premeditation of a death, but risking someone else's life through reckless disregard.

Although I'd also add that the "nutjob excuse" is ineffective in practical politics. It's more important, for every reason, to keep your own lunatic fringe calm than it is to try disowning them after the fact.