Further Thoughts On Ayers

I wrote a couple of days ago that I believed Barack Obama when he said that he found Bill Ayers' acts "detestable."

After I published that post, the line stuck in my craw and I've been thinking about it since. I turned it over and over in my head, and tonight I turned it over some more. I finally asked myself a hypothetical:

Self, let's say you're looking to get into Canadian politics. You're looking for people to hook up with, people that can help your career. You meet a man named Joe Smith, and you work with him on community projects. Before or during this time, you find out that he once founded a terrorist group.

His targets included the Canadian parliament and the Ottawa police headquarters. Nobody was killed in the attacks, but men and women ran screaming for their lives. They were terrorized, and targeted for death. You find out that Joe fully admits the terrorist activity, and does not regret it. So, self, would you still use this man to help you with your political career? Would you accept a job offer from the man, and hand out money for him to various political causes? Further, would you use his house as a place for a political meeting? And after that, would you take the stage with the man at a university in order to discuss education policy? Would you describe your relationship as "friendly?" Would you, in short, support this man?

Then I changed the framing:

What if a friend of mine was looking to get into politics, and he told me about his political supporter, Joe Smith. If I found out Joe Smith's history, what would I say to my friend?

I know exactly what I'd tell him: "Are you out of your bloody mind? Get away from that guy. Don't walk. Run."

These thoughts occurred to me as I watched CNN. Tonight's coverage really got to me. David Gergen, a former presidential adviser, called Bill Ayers a "former" terrorist, and said the public wouldn't care about the man's history with Obama because the economy was more important. Anderson Cooper asked one of his correspondents if it really mattered, because Ayers and Obama had raised money for education. Another correspondent said that McCain was just mudslinging about ancient history, and that it would backfire and end his chances for the White House. Over on Fox, Alan Colmes' first question in defense of Obama was a sarcastic and leading, "Did anyone die in the attacks? Was anyone killed?"

Good grief. Defend Obama if you wish, but don't turn it into a defense of the terrorist guy just because he didn't pile up a body count.

And it hit me: is this what we've become? So damn partisan that a man who targeted his fellow citizens can be called a "former" terrorist, and if he later raises money for a school curriculum of his choosing (The Peace School) it lets him off the hook? I'm afraid we've reached the point where a politician can chuck a kid off a skyscraper and his supporters will defend him for teaching the kid to fly.

For me, there is no grey area on this. If any politician, of any party, worked or otherwise hung out with a man who tried to blow up his fellow citizens, I would tell that politician that he's an ass.

In the end, I suppose I believe Obama when he says that he found Ayers' acts "detestable." The point for me now is that he didn't find them detestable enough to walk away from the man as soon as he realized what the man had done. That bothers me.