Ayers and Keating

The Obama camp is attempting to proclaim a sort of moral equivalency between Barack's association with William Ayers and John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Although this tactic will probably work to blunt the Ayers attack, the two situations are clearly quite distinguishable.

The issue with Ayers is Obama's decision to be associated with him in the first place. By the time Obama first met Ayers, the latter was already a notorious ex-fugitive with a well-known terrorist past. To this day, he has never repudiated that past. I've heard him described in the mainstream media as a "former radical." It would be more accurate to call him a "retired terrorist." This is not the case of someone who realized the errors of his ways and atoned. This is someone who was wanted by the feds and eventually got tired of living his life on the lam. Since extricating himself from legal jeopardy, he may have forsaken his violent criminal behavior, but he hasn't apologized to his victims or otherwise shown remorse for his crimes.

Obama's defense in regard to Ayers has two main components. First, he has downplayed the nature and extent of the relationship. Second, he points to the fact that, around Chicago, it's not regarded as socially unacceptable to be associated with Ayers.

As for the first part of Obama's defense, it seems rather beside the point. Obama may not have been close friends with Ayers, but so what? Ayers was someone Obama openly associated himself with on a number of high-visibility projects, including Obama's own campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The fact that he allowed Ayers to host a campaign event in his honor and served with Ayers on various boards and panels implies a degree of respect and approval for what Ayers represents. It doesn't matter if it was one campaign event or twenty, or if it was a dozen boards and panels or a hundred. It's the fact that Obama was willing to attach his own good name to Ayers that is so telling.

As for the second part of Obama's defense -- the notion that Ayers is considered a respectable public figure in Chicago political circles -- this sounds more like a confession than a defense. If Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago it is precisely because people like Barack Obama , who should know better, are willing to offer him mainstream legitimacy. At best, it sounds like Obama deferred to the judgment of others in his assessment of Ayers rather than forming an independent judgment.

No matter how you slice it, Obama's voluntary, public embrace of Ayers reflects poorly on his own character. Either Obama doesn't find any repulsive about Ayers and his wife and partner-in-crime Bernadette Dohrn, or he does, but has been too craven to say so.

Now let's look at John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Keating owned an S&L. He had no criminal or violent past as far as know. What he did have was a bank, Lincoln Savings, that was in precarious financial shape due in part to investments that were both bad and, at least in part, illegal. The regulator for Lincoln Savings, FHLBB, was investigating Lincoln with an eye toward a possible federal takeover. In the meantime, Keating sought the assistance of five U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in an effort to head off that move. For his part, McCain attended a meeting with FHLBB board members and wrote a letter, but didn't pressure the board to take any action one way or the other in regard to Keating. Rather, he wanted the FHLBB to make a decision one way or the other as soon as possible so as to avoid further delay in resolving the matter.

The "Keating 5" scandal was fully investigated at the time -- this was about twenty years ago -- and McCain was exonerated from any charges of improper conduct. That's not end of the story however.

The Keating 5 scandal represents an important chapter in John McCain's political biography, not because of what he did at the time, but because of how it affected the future course of his public service. Despite his being cleared of any formal charges in the matter, observers have cited the episode as a being instrumental in focusing McCain on issues of public corruption and the corrosive influence of campaign donations on the political process. He clearly felt that campaign donations had influenced the senators to take actions on behalf of a constituent that they would not otherwise have taken, with a resulting undermining of the public's confidence in their government officials. McCain resolved to make "cleaning up Washington" a part of his political agenda ever since.

Whatever one thinks about McCain and the Keating 5, the situation bears no resemblance to Obama's association with William Ayers. If anything, McCain's response to the scandal demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to make amends. Nothing similar can be said about Obama and Ayers. Obama has characterized his involvement with Ayers in a misleading fashion in order to avoid be tainted by it in this election. He has never expressed regret for helping to legitimize Ayers in public circles. Both the Ayers connection and the Keating 5 are revealing episodes in the careers of these candidates. However, what the Ayers matter reveals about Obama is far more disturbing than what the Keating matter reveals about McCain.