Scheunemann: Obama Was Palling Around With Terrorists
Marc Ambinder reported this morning that there’s an anti-Palin faction developing within the McCain campaign composed, I suppose, of people who think that Mitt Romney’s deep pockets are the way to go for 2012:
This faction has come to believe that Palin, perhaps unwittingly subconsciously or otherwise, has begun to play Sen. McCain off of the base, consistently and deliberately departed from the campaign’s message of the day in ways that damage McCain. (”palling around with terrorists” was a line that escaped HQ’s vetting… Palin’s criticism of the campaign for pulling out of Michigan was greeted by anger internally… Palin’s expressed opinion that Rev. Wright is a legitimate issue — which subtly knocks McCain for not raising it — was perceived as an attempt to preemptively blame McCain’s wobbliness for his loss, which would theoretically enhance Palin’s standing with the base.) The complaints extend all the back to Palin’s vice presidential vetting. Major disclosures, issue positions and associations did not come up, and the campaign was so overwhelmed with new information early on, it largely abandoned an effort to defend them individually. This is the claim, anyway. For the record, senior adviser Mark Salter, accurately identified everywhere as the aide who is closest to McCain, calls this scenario “bullshit.”
By contrast, Randy Scheunemann, chief McCain foreign policy adviser, C-List neocon, and lobbyist for foreign powers, writes in to Ambinder to clarify that he agrees with me and Salter that Palin is likely to be the 2012 nominee:
Just read your post. This is on the record. This is cleared by HQ. It is a fact that Barack Obama was palling around with terrorists. It was a fact before Governor Palin said it in a fully vetted speech and it is fact today. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.
I think the claim that having a passing acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers is well-described as “palling around with [multiple] terrorists” is hard to defend. Of course it would be interesting to compare the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of Ayers’ actions with the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of George W. Bush’s policies. We can even restrict the Bush analysis to the number of people tortured to death in contravention of international law (“[o]ver a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions”) and I’m still pretty sure Ayers comes out ahead.
65 Responses to “Scheunemann: Obama Was Palling Around With Terrorists”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 24th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Randy Scheunemann … writes in to Ambinder to clarify that he agrees with me and Salter that Palin is likely to be the 2012 nominee”
Unlike almost everyone else in Team McCain, Salter is not a Party man. He’s a McCain man.
In other words, Salter is not likely positioning himself for a slot in Palin’s ‘12 campaign.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Thanks to all this publicity, Ayers will now be a household name. By 2016, people will have forgotten the context but remembered the name. Ayers is now perfectly placed to be a Pres. candidate in 2016.
See the GOP is merely engaging in a terrorist plot on behalf of that terrorist Ayers.
( / snark )
October 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
So, no difference between personal action and policy?
October 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Here’s the thing that gets me. Forty or so years ago Ayers did something bad. Since then, he has become a respectable member of the community. (Or a college professor – I realize some people think those are very divergent concepts.) He was certainly respectable enough to serve on a commission backed by a conservative Repbublican.
You would think that these people who so loudly and frequently proclaim their Christianity would recognize the very Christian idea of… redemption.
Of course, when Jesus preached about redemption, it wasn’t an election year. So I guess those parts don’t really count…
October 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Of course it would be interesting to compare the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of Ayers’ actions with the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of George W. Bush’s policies.”
Given that Sarah Palin is palling with Henry Kissinger, maybe we should compare Ayers to Kissinger instead. There simply isn’t anyone still alive who has killed more innocent people than Kissinger. I’ll be generous to Henry and only accuse him of three million deaths. But that should still be enough to convict him at The Hague.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hey, Eric Rudolph only killed two people — would it be OK if Sarah Palin and he worked together?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“Palling around” denotes spending a lot of time with someone as a friend engaging in fun activities. There is no evidence that Obama ever had a personal relationship with Ayers. Randy Scheunemann is a liar.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
blah wins the thread! A pal, according to Merriman Webster, is a close friend. As such, to suggest that Obama and Ayers are “pals” because they met at such and such committee once upon a time is in fact a lie.
Of course Scheunemann knows it is a lie and says it anyways because he is intellectually dishonest. But what do you expect?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You would think that these people who so loudly and frequently proclaim their Christianity would recognize the very Christian idea of… redemption.
The problem with this comparison, of course, is that Ayers is unrepentant.
Of course it would be interesting to compare the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of Ayers’ actions with the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of George W. Bush’s policies.
So now it’s cool to blow up buildings even if no one dies? How about if you compare the number of Ayers’ victims with the victims of Harry Truman? FDR? George Washington?
I think the claim that having a passing acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers is well-described as “palling around with [multiple] terrorists” is hard to defend.
Pluralizing like this is an extremely common rhetorical usage.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
A lie, according to Merrian Webster, is an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
Do you know that Scheunemann knows or believes that Obama did not “pal around” with Ayers?
If not, and if we’re going to be literal, then you are guilty of, not lying, but imprecision.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Pluralizing like this is an extremely common rhetorical usage.”
So, apparently, is bullshitting.
Please don’t even implicitly identify Bush with FDR, Truman, or Washington. None of them started a poorly conceived war of choice at the behest of a think-tank project of world transformation through violence. I don’t condone Ayers’ actions, but Bush and the neo-cons have far, far more blood on their hands, blood spilt as a result of a war that they dreamed up and started on the basis of bald-faced lies.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“Of course it would be interesting to compare the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of Ayers’ actions with the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of George W. Bush’s policies.”
If I’m not mistaken, the number of innocents killed by Ayers remains firmly at zero. The Weathermen accidentally killed three of their own…but then they wouldn’t be considered “innocent” would they?
I’ll never understand the obsession with The Weathermen – they were the Keystone Kops of the Radical Fringe.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“right” you leave out some important facts. Obama isn’t, in fact, palling around with Ayers. Obama never condoned Ayers activities. Ayers won an Citizen of the Year award from the City of Chicago – this well after his association with the Weather Underground.
How does that make your comparisons look? Oh right, if you dealt with facts you couldn’t be attacking here and would have to just STFU.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
No listen you people.
The terrible democrat death squads are coming, to kill us, or at least round us up out of our comfortable beds, and haul us off to camps where we’ll be worked to death to provide wide-screen tvs for parasites while our Gramascin overlords defecate on the constitution and grind freedom up into a fine white powder that will be carried away on the next wind.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Correct – the Weathermen were a joke.
The scum in the Republican party and their neocon and Zionist and Christian freakazoids are not.
“So now it’s cool to blow up buildings even if no one dies?”
Yes – that’s why the “V for Vendatta” movie was made. Get your pop culture straight.
How about tossing somebody’s tea into Boston Harbor? Terrorism, right? Anti-capitalist socialism, right?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Hahaha. GOP trolls. You and your party are one big Epic Fail.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I think the claim that having a passing acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers is well-described as “palling around with [multiple] terrorists” is hard to defend.
Ayers and his wife were both terrorists. Surely his wife was at one of the social occasions that Ayers and Obama co-attended. That’s two. Ergo, QED, ding an sich.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Look who Scheunemann pals around with – Ahmad Chalabi
October 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Surely his wife was at one of the social occasions that Ayers and Obama co-attended.
Which social occasions? Assumming facts not in evidence. . .
October 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Matt,
Do they teach you math at Harvard?
Bill Ayers plus Bernardine Dohrn = 2 terrorists. Plural. 2.
You see 1 terrorist plus one terrorist = 2 terrorists.
Kinda easy.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I wonder how Randy feels about Bible Spice’s stylist getting paid more than him?
October 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Obama isn’t, in fact, palling around with Ayers. Obama never condoned Ayers activities. Ayers won an Citizen of the Year award from the City of Chicago – this well after his association with the Weather Underground.
Look, it’s pretty clear that Bill Ayers was a terrorist in the 1960s. To try to deny this makes you look foolish. He also has not to my knowledge ever publicly regretted or atoned for his actions — not one single statement of contrition.
The pluralization is a rhetorical effect, but if you want to get picky, as other commenters have pointed out, Ayers’ wife is also a terrorist, so there you go.
The only claim Matt has that Palin’s claim is dishonest is based on a very technical reading of the phrase “palling around”. Given that “pal around” is a colloquialism it’s hard to refer back to Merriam-Webster with any precision. Obama has never claimed he and Ayers were on anything but friendly terms while serving on the Annenberg Foundation board, and given that the Ayers’ hosted a political event for Obama, it seems likely that their relationship was friendly. This would be well within the confines of “palling around” to most people.
Matt’s comparison to George Bush and the Iraq War is, of course, completely irrelevant.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Bernadine Dohrn was, and remains, more attractive than Sarah Palin.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
David B.
Sure. If you like skanky used Ho’s rather than something fresh!
October 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
He’s sucking up for a spot on the Palin 2012 team.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
When one is lying, yes.
.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I must say, I’m loving “right”’s desperate 2002-vintage hackiness. Smells like…victory.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Hey, right, remember your stirring defense of this? — “We must fight back against the 9/11 terrorists and their ringleader. Saddam Hussein is a danger to all mankind. We will seek out and hold responsible those responsible for the attacks of 9/11.”
Good times!
October 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Palin as a serious contender in 2012? Were you high when you first wrote this? When she’s cut loose from the campaign in a couple of weeks, Gov. Palin is going to have all the Presidential relevance of Geraldine Ferraro.
I don’t care if she’s actively trying to set herself up for a run or not, she’s not going to be taken seriously by the GOP leadership or the Party money bags. Come January ‘12, Romney, Huckabee, or someone we’re not even paying attention to is going to eat Palin’s lunch if she campaigns for herself in Iowa. Google this post the day after, and tell me if I was wrong.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hey, right, remember your stirring defense of this?
Nope. Link? Also: relevance?
If it’s at all informational to scholars such as rfv, I voted against George Bush twice, and mainly just appreciate it when Matt keeps it honest.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
“Of course it would be interesting to compare the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of Ayers’ actions with the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of George W. Bush’s policies.”
What about the number of innocent people who died violently as a result of John McCain’s actions? What do we think he was doing when his plane was shot down over Hanoi?
October 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I voted against George Bush twice, and mainly just appreciate it when Matt keeps it honest.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! God, it IS 2002!
Next up from right:
“I’ve been a yellow dog Democrat my entire life, indeed went down to Mississippi for Freedom Summer, but even since 9/11 I’ve been outraged by Chappaquiddick.”
You guys really, really need to get some new material.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Link? Also: relevance?
And of course, being intentionally obtuse was also a prime tool of the circa-2002 conservative hack.
Hey, has anyone seen this new show The Sopranos? It’s really good!
October 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
And while I’m still grinding on ‘12 players: Romney is always going to have the problem that a large portion of the GOP base doesn’t consider the LDS a Christian organization.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
To “right”
Isn’t a terrorist someone who terrorizes? The Weather Underground tried to destroy property–and called in bomb threats just to be sure. (Yes they have been accused of other acts for which they did not take credit and for which they were never charged, so lets set those aside as speculation.)
So how “terrorizing” is it to find out that a bomb went off that did not hurt anyone and for which there was a warning?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The highest possible estimate for Ayers is one. One (1) person who was not a member of the weather underground was killed by the weather underground. However, this is unfair to Ayers as membership in an organization does not imply responsibility for every act of every member of the organization. Only if Ayers actively participated in the planting of the pipe bomb that killed one (1) innocent person or in the planning of the act would he be legally responsible.
On the other hand, Obama did attend a campaign related event when running for the Illinois senate (along with the incumbent who was then planning to go on to bigger things) at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn who is also a former weather
manperson*. The occasion probably included a lot of ernest discussion of education policy and stuff, but there is no way of knowing whether any palling around occurred especially since the legal definition of “palling around” is less precise than the legal definition of “conspiracy”.I’d say Randy’s losing it. I plan to enjoy some Scheundenfreude as soon as I can coin a funny term for it.
*The organization changed its name from “The Weathermen” to “The Weather Underground” as the suffix “men” was sexist. Really.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Pipe bomb? If you mean McDonnell’s death, the WU’s responsibility is very far from established. They were suspected and investigated twice. Grand Jury looked into it. No indictments, much less convictions. I think it irresponsible to treat this as fact. Other than accidentally killing some of their own, the WU seem innocent of deaths and of deliberate injuries, though one of their members later independently took part in a bank robbery where deaths occurred (she drove the getaway car).
October 24th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The whole 1980s were spent with mainly Republicans and a strong number of Cold War Democrats cavorting with death squad slaughterers and genocidalists, and we’re supposed to act shocked when one politician served on an upper-class-backed non-profit alongside a no-longer violent former aspiring bomber?
October 24th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I read on another site that Ayers wanted to kill 25 million people. Here’s the link if interested: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78929
October 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I’ve had neighbors express the need to kill more than 25 million Americans.
October 25th, 2008 at 2:55 am
What was said above, and to amplify it:
“By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.”
-John McCain, 09/27/08
Kissinger is a war criminal. Ask the people of Cambodia (that are lucky to still be alive) of the terror and death that Kissinger helped bring down on their country… a nation that the US wasn’t even at war with. The number of deaths Kissinger played a major role in vs. the number that Ayers was involved in?
Of course Kissinger is a sacred cow.
I also like the point above about McCain’s bombing runs prior in Nam. No terror on the ground there…
John
October 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Why does everyone keep saying that Ayers was a terrorist in the 1960s, when most of the Weather Underground bombings took place in the 1970s?
October 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
The highest possible estimate for Ayers is one. One (1) person who was not a member of the weather underground was killed by the weather underground. However, this is unfair to Ayers as membership in an organization does not imply responsibility for every act of every member of the organization. Only if Ayers actively participated in the planting of the pipe bomb that killed one (1) innocent person or in the planning of the act would he be legally responsible.
Ayers and Dorhn were leaders of the Weather Underground . . . Dorhn was at the very top. They both advocated violence and mass murder, and only after they accidentally killed three of their own did they change their philosophy to call for the targeting of buildings and not people. We don’t know the identity of the individuals who placed bombs on behalf of the Underground because Ayers and Dorhn and other former members have mutually agreed not to identify the names of the particular people who placed the bombs–and they’ve done this because they are worried about the fact that there is no statute of limitations for murder. But for the illegal actions of the FBI, Ayers and Dohrn would have been in prison for most of their lives. Let’s not pretend that Ayers and Dohrn were innocent. They are two of the most guilty members of the Underground.
I think it’s fine to argue that Barack Obama is not a radical, and that he shouldn’t have had to resign from boards he believed in simply because another board member was despicable. I think it’s fine to argue that the real problem isn’t Obama’s acceptance of Ayers, but Chicago’s embrace of him. I think it’s fine to argue that Barack Obama is a man who has always exhibited the finest of character, and that there is no rational reason to think he is in any way sympathetic to the means employed by the Weather Underground. HOWEVER, I think it appalling and ridiculous to defend Obama by defending Ayers. When Obama supports defend Ayers, they make it seems like Obama supporters are terrorist supports, and this only hurts Obama. Obama himself has denounced the actions undertaken by Ayers, so why are you defending him Ayers?
October 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Jeff,
Ayers was wrong, but at least he was on the right side of the big issues of the day, while Nixon and Kissinger were on the wrong side. His crimes pale in contrast to the butchery that we wreaked on Vietnam. The weathermen killed three people, instead of three million.
Ayers good work since then far outweighs his (unjustifiable) youthful extremism in the pursuit of justice.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
By the way, I don’t condone Ayers’ bombings, just to be clear, and think that the situation in the US in 1970 was not one that legitimated violent revolt. I just don’t think you can condemn him without also condemning Kissinger and company.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Jeff, facts matter. It is not legitimate to call Ayers a murderer if he did not kill anyone, and I have not seen anyone produce evidence that he personally or the WU as an organization did. The pipe bomb that killed Brian V. McDonnell and disfigured Robert Fogarty has never been linked to them; the government suspected them and also suspected the Panthers, but it had no case against either.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The big deal in the palling around with terrorists gag is that Sarah Palin doesn’t think abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Ultimate IOKIYAR.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:52 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 am
levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:13 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Great site, Good info viagra