Obama's Egomania is, in the view of at least one commentator, nearly messianic in scope. In my view, though, Obama's Egomania is a significantly smaller problem than his unknown position on Israel and other foreign affairs and his pink-o economic plans. The fact that he palls around with terrorists like Ayers and people like Khalidi and Mazen Asbahi does not particularly endear him to me, to say nothing of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. In fact, I do not see how one can consistently support both Israel and Obama.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
13 years ago
10 comments:
What do you mean when you say "support Israel?" Do you mean buy Israeli bonds? Work for a pro-Israel lobby group? Support pro-Israel legislation? Israeli's even most vague right-to-exist? Eat falafel ever?
These terms can be so vague in certain contexts.
Richard Epstein pals around with Ayers. Don't tell me by extension he is also a liberal wacko.
Zev, What I mean by supporting Israel is supporting Israel's right to exist in more than just speech. I mean taking a tough stance against people who say they will "wipe Israel off the map". I mean expressing one's support for Israel to both pro-Israel and anti-Israel crowds. I am very worried about his Palestinian supporting friends, much more so than I am about Ayers. That said, it did not seem from the Wash Po article that you quoted that Richard Epstein's relationship with Ayers is nearly as involved as Obama's. I also think that Richard Epstein is sufficiently principled that he can express his own will even among people who disagree with him. In any case, I am not voting for him for president either.
Just one more point about Iran. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will bomb Israel and send their cronies to control all of the Middle East. They've said it, and I see no reason not to believe them. It's as simple as that.
Zev, Also, about Richard Epstein and Obama. I could not find any praise Epstein lavished on Ayers' offensive book, A Kind and Just Parent. Why has Obama not done anything to repudiate claims that his is buddy-buddy with Ayers other than repeat the well known fact that Obama was eight years old when Ayers was bombing buildings? And why do educated people believe that Obama's relation to Ayers is somehow unimportant and irrelevant?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml
Yehuda,
The point about Epstein and Ayers is that if Ayers were still such a despicable sociopath Epstein would not associate with him. Since Epstein (at least according to the WaPo) does, I can only assume that Ayers has made his way into the academic Chicago crowd, and that not only liberals associate with him. This is precisely relevant here because Palin's claim is exactly one of guilt by association.
I agree that the fundraiser shows a bit more comradery than Obama lets on, but my interpretation is that a lot of people know and like Ayers in HP, not just the liberals.
Zev, I am not sure how the fact that many Hyde Parkers, some of them even conservative Professors at the University of Chicago, know and like Ayers justifies placing his buddy in the Oval Office. As to guilt by association, even after the policy revelations of the last few weeks, we still know very little about Obama and his policies. Any information we can get about him is important. Also, his first Book, Dreams from My Father, expresses a lot of rage and anger about the status of blacks in America. His sentiments there are, to me, incredibly left wing and quite unappealing. That his friends, who happen to be terrorists, hold similar views does indeed make me inclined to associate him with them.
I continue this because I am confused.
Why is being friends with a terrorist bad?
1. Because it means that you do not have a firm moral compass (i.e. that associating with such an individual in and of itself is wrong).
2. Because it means that you sympathize with his views.
My point about Epstein is that he seems to have a firm moral compass and he does not sympathize with Ayers views.
You might then argue, we have a lot of information regarding Epstein's views. In lieu of sound information which might tell us the same things about Obama we must look to other sources to glean such commitments.
1. I feel that it is more probable that Obama was associated with Ayers through the HP network than to say that it is because they are particularly like-minded. This assessment is a judgement call of how likely you believe one option to be over the other. Considering that many people in the HP community (of different political persuasions) seem to know (and respect) Ayers, I feel that there is reason to adopt former view over the latter.
2. I also do not feel that these kind of non-close associations are significant, that is we can ascertain relevant information from such close inspections. I believe that in lieu of good evidence the association between Ayers and Obama, which is cordial, but not friendly (no one asserts that they do dinner together) is tantamount to reading tea leaves. It's just not good data.
You seem to disagree on these two points.
Zev, I am not sure what you are arguing. If Epstein were running for president, I would expect to hear him condemn Ayers and say that they were only dog walking buddies, or something like that and that he abhors terrorism. I have not heard Obama say that. I have read some of his writing and listened to some of what he says, and he strikes me as being very left wing and very partisan.
As a side note, I do not have any friends who have ever been terrorists. I do not have any friends who are friends with people who have been terrorists. I would expect a president of the US to be the same in that respect.
Post a Comment