If we’re judged by those with whom we associate, here’s a question:
Would you rather be associated with a ’60s radical who plotted to bomb the Pentagon and to this day believes, as he said a few years ago, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” or would you rather be associated with — slight pause, please — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)?
...
But wouldn’t Coburn be more comparable to Ayers if he, Coburn, had bombed abortion clinics in the past — and then said that he not only did not regret bombing the clinics but wished that he had done more? And then, after bombing abortion clinics and refusing to express regret, he held a political event in his home for Barack Obama, which Obama attended?
And if all that had happened, would Obama say it wasn’t a problem because Coburn had bombed those clinics a long time ago, when Obama was just 8 years old?
Do you believe that would endear Obama to voters in the Democratic primaries?
As it was, Obama used his Senate colleague Coburn to suggest that the issue was not one of violence, and radicalism, and lawbreaking, but rather a simple disagreement: Sen. Coburn and I disagree on some things, and yet we’re still friendly. Bill Ayers and I disagree on some things, and yet we’re still friendly. So what’s the problem?
That’s not quite good enough.
Tom Maguire pitches in:
As to why the association with Ayers matters, it all goes in the "Getting to Know You" file, along with the "fellow traveler" mom, the socialist dad, the "God DAMN America" minister and the embittered wife. Do we detect a pattern?
Read the rest; the longer the nominating process goes on, the more we learn about Obama. It has been a useful exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment