Let’s see if I correctly understand the Palin/McCain theory about Obama’s minor association with William Ayers (who admitted once upon a time having maliciously damaged some buildings with explosives back in the turbulent 60s era but is now a respected professor and certainly not in jail or under indictment). The Republican theory, fed as raw meat to engage (enrage?) supporters at rallies, is apparently that:
(a) once a “terrorist,” always a terrorist since no one can ever ever ever possibly change and
(b) anyone whoever has ever had contact with a “terrorist” is probably a terrorist too or at least a supporter of terrorism.
I don’t understand the Palin/McCain obsession with the subject because if the theory is valid, then it would seem to follow that McCain, who all his extremely long political life (except for the past few weeks) loudly supported deregulation of the Wall Street must be LYING to voters when he says he now wants to re-regulate them and throw the bums out. The same for all his other numerous what-could-only-be-called 180 degree “flip-flops” on abortion, fundamentalists, etc., which he only started to espouse since he announced his latest bid to run the US? If Ayers cannot be trusted to ever change on anything, then how are we expected to believe McCain can or has?
As to supporting or consorting with those advocating terrorist ideas, which is the other half of the Palin/McCain charge against Obama, how about McCain’s new buddy, the self-declared “man of God,” Pat Robertson? Robertson, the man who openly called for assassination, yes, assassination of foreign leaders? Robertson has appeared on stage with McCain, yet McCain doesn’t seem to be branding him as terrorist or asserting he can never ever change? I guess the difference is that Robertson is Republican and, by definition, Republicans are supposedly incapable of either terrorism or torture.
Maybe the Palin/McCain ticket was only referring to terrorist acts against Americans, not foreigners. (Say, I wonder if Timothy McVey was a Republican?) But, using the Republican definition, isn’t that precisely what some of the things G. Gordon Liddy was doing and more recently than Ayers was last doing things? Least we forget, Liddy, unlike Ayers, was convicted and did jail time. Liddy is as equally unrepentant as Ayers, but a court formally confirmed Liddy’s guilt. Ayers merely made an “admission against interest” as it is now in the rules of evidence. No prosecutor choose to indict him for his “confession” those. If McCain truly believes his mantra he is claiming, why then has McCain, unlike Obama, never thoroughly repudiated that acquaintanceship with Liddy?
Interestingly, if the Republicans want to assert that the supposedly criminally inclined can never change their (prison) stripes, then Liddy, not Ayers, would actually be a better argument for that theory. After all, Liddy in his radio program and in print seems to still be advocating from time to time various reprehensible acts of murder and mayhem on fellow Americans.
Perhaps Palin and McCain were only referring to doing harm to American property. Well then, how about the Alaskan Secessionist Movement that the “First Dude” was in until his wife got crowned the GOP VP nominee? Loss of Alaska would certainly diminish the assets of the US. We haven’t heard if that group (which Palin welcomed in a speech while serving as Alaska’s Governor) advocated domestic violence to serve their cause, but Republican Lincoln certainly considered advocates of such secessionist causes to be dangerous to the United States. Did Palin perhaps forget her oath of office to defend the Constitution which doesn’t have an escape clause for states? No one (at least no Democrat) is saying the Alaskan’s First group doesn’t have a right to exercise free speech, but it sure sounds like consorting and aiding at least. Why then for consistency isn’t McCain denouncing his partner’s actions? Why isn’t she denouncing the sessessionist group her husband was in? Oh yeah, that’s right. No one can ever change if McCain is right.
Moreover, what is to be made of President Bush’s decision recently (while Palin and McCain were loudly ranting about terrorists never changing) to proclaim that North Korea, a supposed charter member of “Axis of Evil” club, has changed and is not conducting state sponsored terrorism anymore? Remember exactly what recent act it was by North Korea which prompted Bush to hurriedly lift the ban on North Korea? It was North Korea’s decision to reopen it’s potential nuclear bomb making facilities. So apparently, Bush has decided a terrorist country gets declared a non-terrorist country only if does something truly terrifying. Does that mean Bush favors terrorists? Shouldn’t then McCain be advocating Bush be immediately impeached as a traitor?
Well actually, maybe that last thing would be a good idea.