Yuval Levin makes an interesting point in comparing Obama’s and McCain’s colorful associations:
McCain’s response to that scandal should certainly be compared with Obama’s Ayers explanations. McCain has spoken and written about every detail of the Keating mess, has expressed open contrition for allowing himself to be drawn into it even tangentially, and devoted years of his career to combating corruption as a result. He even badly overreacted and pushed for vastly excessive regulation of campaign financing. He has said (in a book in which he details his and others’ actions in the matter) that merely the appearance of impropriety involved makes his involvement with Keating “the worst mistake of my life.”
Had Obama done and said something similar regarding the sort of radicalism Ayers represents, he would now have an answer to offer. Instead, he has worked with Ayers, supported his causes, and denied any significance to the links between them. That, too, makes this a legitimate question about a man who would be president.
I’m not afraid of Bill Ayers and Obama’s association with him—indeed, I’ve got worse associations and other things in my background that would disqualify me from running for president. The difference between me and Barack Obama (apart from my not wanting to be president) is that I have the decency to understand that no matter how brilliant I may be and how great my political gift, my associations and out-of-the-mainstreamness disqualify me from the presidency and place me forever in the camp of the loyal opposition.
Obama’s associates don’t even put him in the camp of the loyal opposition. And that is the problem with electing Barack Obama to the presidency: he is almost unbearably naive. He considers no radical too dangerous.
The next four years could get pretty interesting. I hope all my readers are battening down the hatches.
