As long as we’re talking about the presidential contenders’ ties to terrorists:
Senator John McCain has been making a lot of baseless accusations lately, but he is the one with the troubling past. McCain and Marylin Shannon — a 2008 McCain delegate and former vice chair of the Oregon Republican Party — both appeared at an August, 1993 fundraiser for the far right Oregon Citizens Alliance. McCain appeared against the advice of Mark Hatfield, a GOP senator from Oregon, who feared that the group’s extremist views would taint McCain.
Shannon, who attended this year’s Republican National Convention as a McCain delegate, spoke immediately before McCain and “praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita” earlier in the month, referring to her as a “fine lady.” When McCain spoke next, he said nothing about Shannon’s vile comments and delivered his speech as prepared.
Just a few months later, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve a crucial anti-domestic terrorism bill, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. McCain opposed the bill.
Between 1977 and 1993 there were “36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 assaults, 2 kidnappings, 327 clinic invasions, 71 chemical attacks, more than 6,000 blockades and related disruptions” against reproductive health clinics. Congress was finally spurred into action by the killing of Dr. David Gunn outside a Florida clinic in March of 1993. In August, Dr. George Tiller was shot and wounded in Wichita.
“When anti-choice extremists were terrorizing American women and their doctors, John McCain had multiple opportunities to make what should have been an easy choice,” said Kathryn Kolbert, President of People For the American Way, and a longtime women’s rights advocate who successfully argued a crucial abortion rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. “But he chose political expediency over law and order. He didn’t say a word when Marylin Shannon sympathized with an attempted killer. He voted against the clinic access bill even as everyday Americans were being assaulted and besieged by domestic terrorists. As someone who faced repeated threats for work on behalf of reproductive rights, I am deeply disturbed by John McCain’s willingness to stand with and side with sympathizers and enablers of domestic terrorism.”
Whatever you think about Obama’s limited contact with Bill Ayers, there hasn’t been any evidence that Ayers ever condoned or promoted terrorism in Obama’s presence. There hasn’t been any evidence that Obama ever met with Ayers during his presidential campaign, or that Obama is still willing to lend Ayers a sympathetic ear.
That isn’t the case for John McCain, who was meeting with militant anti-choice activist and Operation Rescue supporter Paul Schenck as recently as last week.
There isn’t any evidence that Obama’s limited interactions with Ayers were for the purpose of gaining voter support; there’s no evidence that Obama’s board membership with Ayers or any of their subsequent contacts were for the purpose of creating policy or demonstrating sympathy for Ayers’ cause.
But that’s exactly why John McCain is courting hate groups and anti-choice activists: To show that he’s sympathetic to their causes, and that he’ll be their advocate in the White House.
There also isn’t any evidence that Obama has been soft on domestic terrorism, or that he has ever sought protection for people like Ayers. There’s no evidence that Obama ever tried to make life easier for domestic terrorists like Ayers by opposing legislation that would have brought him to justice. McCain, on the other hand, opposed domestic anti-terrorism measures — twice — in order to protect the “rights” of pro-lifers to bomb clinics, stalk clinic employees and kill doctors.
Let’s say that again: John McCain opposed a clinic bombings ban. Even staunchly anti-choice senators supported the ban, because it’s good common sense that anti-choice violence wasn’t stopping at state lines, and state law was inadequate in prosecuting it. John McCain opposed a Federal law prohibiting acts of violence against abortion clinics and doctors. Where’s the news story on that?
Here’s a description of the bill he opposed (from the New York Times):
The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..
The vote was 69 to 30. Twenty-eight senators who voted against Federal financing of abortions six weeks ago supported the measure, seeing it as a law-and-order matter rather than as an abortion issue.
…
“This legislation seeks to silence the entire pro-life movement,” contended Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina. … But Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts insisted that Federal legislation was necessary because “anti-abortion violence and blockades have been occurring across the nation as part of a coordinated, systematic campaign to intimidate abortion providers and patients, and state and local authorities have been unable to control it.”
…
The legislation was spurred by two events last winter, a Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use of a Reconstruction Era statute against Operation Rescue’s efforts to blockade abortion clinics and the killing of Dr. David Gunn, who performed abortions in Pensacola, Fla., and had been pictured in “wanted” posters by abortion foes.
…Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, an abortion rights supporter who helped Mr. Kennedy manage the bill, said: “This year we have witnessed a growing, nationwide campaign of violence directed at reproductive health care clinics. What were once peaceful protests have escalated to acts of force and terror.” Doctors Offices as ‘War Zones’
She said that because of the anti-abortion movement, American women “have seen their doctors’ offices transformed from safety zones into war zones.”
Mr. Kennedy said that over the last 15 years, “more than 1,000 acts of violence against abortion providers have been documented in the United States. Over 100 clinics have been bombed or burned to the ground.”
He said the problem was getting worse, citing a recent survey by the Feminist Majority Foundation, which showed that half of 281 abortion clinics that responded to a survey it conducted this summer reported violence against them in the first seven months of the year.
After the bill was passed, Mr. Kennedy told reporters, “This is a resounding victory for law and order, a clear message to those who have been terrorizing doctors and women and nurses all across the country.”
The senators who opposed the bill did so because it would “silence” pro-lifers — apparently disallowing them from assaulting patients, bombing clinics and shooting, harassing, and stalking doctors amounts to “silencing.” Anti-choicers were still permitted to protest, pray, sing, sidewalk-counsel, and do pretty much the whole range of assembly and activism. They were just being told that they had to stop short of violence. John McCain apparently didn’t think they should have to.
And here’s the Times op/ed on the issue:
Federal help may soon be on the way for women who seek abortions at clinics threatened by Operation Rescue and other anti-choice fanatics. The Senate is committed to take up immediately the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and to vote tomorrow after only limited debate. A similar bill will reach the House floor on Thursday.
Congress is moving swiftly to fill a void created in January when the Supreme Court refused to read existing civil rights laws broadly enough to protect women from marauding extremists. Attorney General Janet Reno has given hearty support and President Clinton is happy to sign the bill.
The law is needed because violent factions of the right-to-life movement don’t stop at state lines with their nationwide campaigns of blockades, scare tactics and physical violence, even the murder of a clinic doctor in Florida.
The bill would set criminal penalties for the use of force or threat of force, or physical obstruction aimed at preventing women from obtaining a clinic’s service. Penalties would range from up to a year in prison for a first offense to life imprisonment for clinic violence that causes death. The bill also provides for civil lawsuits and, perhaps most effectively, for Federal court injunctions to regulate demonstrations and keep them peaceful.
Opponents of abortion — and the bill — argue that they are being singled out for Federal persecution because of their ideas. That’s nonsense. Those who deeply believe that abortion is murder are free to believe and speak and peaceably protest.
If protesters cross the line between dissenting speech and illegal action — if they trespass, block entrances and chain themselves to doorways — then they must pay the criminal or civil penalty, just as civil rights demonstrators have always done if they invaded the rights of others. Operation Rescue and other radical groups invite this Federal response by the very act of overwhelming state and local peace forces.
Some of the bill’s opponents are preparing amendments designed to weaken or complicate it; lawmakers should resist them. By holding to the basic bill, Congress can rise to its duty of safeguarding the constitutional rights of women who choose to have abortions and the safety of those who provide them.
Anti-choice terrorism is unfortunately not relegated to the fringes of society. It’s mainstreamed in anti-choice groups, and right into the GOP.
So let’s keep in mind who and what even mainstream “pro-life” groups are advocating. Let’s keep in mind who their allies are. And if we’re going to talk about domestic terrorism and the candidates’ ties to terrorists, let’s not leave some of the largest perpetrators of domestic terrorism out of the picture just because they have the ear of the Republican party or because they call themselves “pro-life.”
Thanks to Josh for the links.
Thank you for posting this. It’s time the mainstream media admitted (and those who don’t know learned) that the US suffered a sustained domestic terrorism campaign from the late 1970s to early 1990s. The target was family planning clinics and their staff and patients. McCain’s connections to these killers should be trumpeted from the rooftops.
McCain did NOT vote against the Violence Against Women Act. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat4398.html for a refutation.
Thanks for this, Jill.
As an Oregonian, I’d also like to add that the Oregon Citizens’ Alliance is mostly known in our state for being a militant anti-queer organization–behind nearly every “anti-gay” measure on our ballots for the last twenty years–with a history of lawsuits, corruption, dirty tactics, and violence. And when the Republican Party wouldn’t take one of their candidates for office, they ran him with the ultra-right Constitution Party.
No one is talking about VAWA in this post, Steven. Next.
It’s not politically correct to say so, but John Mccain bombed heavily populated urban areas in Vietnam. He was involved in actual terrorism. Ayers, meanwhile, never killed anyone. If Americans were capable of objectivity, that would mean something. Unfortunately, pointing that out is considered beyond the pale. More importantly, however, is his association with Bush, who by any sane standards qualifies as an international terrorist. Most americans, including american liberals, would never understand that point, though .
Why am I not surprised the old guard liberal feminist would compare Obama’s associates to McCain’s, in an apples to oranges comparison. There is absolute no comparson and you know better than that. Feminists use ‘choice’ as a lame excuse for ‘abortion on demand. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Hi, LisaChandler:
I agree that the pre-emptive doctrine is a form of terrorism. I disagree that most americans wouldn’t understand the argument that Bush is an international terrorist. I think they might disagree, but that’s really different from “not understanding.” I think claiming that most people wouldn’t understand your position is taking the easy way out. Even extremely complicated ideas can be made to be understandable if the person presented them is committed enough to trying to get the idea across.
On the other hand, Steven, he was really vocal about saying he’d never have voted for it because it would cause problems for businesses. Businesses not having problems is, apparently, more important than women having equal rights.
And next time, if there is one, please cite a reliable source.
(Sorry to feed the troll, Jill.)
I am a bit wary of such overly broad usage of the term “terrorism” as it is reminiscent of overly broad statements I heard from many of the same progressive undergrads whose ignorance/deliberate omission of historical context/factors meant that they often lambasted the American air campaign in such a way to portray Imperial Japan as a put upon innocent country…..ignoring/omitting the fact that Japan’s colonialist adventurism from 1931 onwards was a huge factor……especially the militarists’ initiation of what they thought would be a “short easy” colonialist war in China which eventually snowballed into the Second Sino-Japanese War/WWII.
Although I’m glad Obama isn’t going near any stuff like this, especially when he’s showing McCain how it’s done without doing so, it warms my heart that Olbermann is making this stuff public. He’s the epitome of the “radical muckraking bastard” (thank you, Nixon), and I love him for it.
“‘abortion on demand”
where does this come from? seriously? can i turn on my TV and order an abortion right after the latest episode of “Trueblood”???
fucking morons.
while i appreciate the work being done to give extra attention to McCain’s support of and connections to anti-choice terrorists, the way Ayers is referenced in the quote is ill-informed and perpetuating the validity of the debate through continued demonization.
First, to claim that Ayers has not “condoned or promoted terrorism in Obama’s presence” suggests that Ayers is some version of the radical, yet non-violent radical, that he was almost 40 years ago. This is by all rational accounts not an issue. Ayers is a very mainstream (sorry, Bill), though very vigilant, crusader for social justice – his 60s-era radicalism is clearly of the past.
Second, and ideologically – not factually – problematic, is your unfortunate claim that Obama ought not seek Ayers’ council. If you are familiar with Ayers’ writings and beliefs you would certainly want Obama to listen to Ayers regarding education policy. Ayers is for giving dignity to students who are in the most difficult situations. Ayers is supportive of teachers everywhere for the difficult job they do and the very mixed support they receive throughout society. Ayers is against the NCLB testing regime that suggests more tests and “accountability” will solve the racist, classist, and sexist issues students face daily in the schools. related, there is unfortunate talk that Obama might have a sympathetic ear for the highly problematic, and effectively conservative, Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, who is gung-ho for understanding schooling as a business practice, ushering in privatizing and typical “solutions” of the “marketplace”.
perhaps most importantly for many readers of this excellent blog, Ayers is a conscientious feminist. as a current PhD student that works with him, and a long-time reader (and infrequent commenter) on this blog, i feel very disheartened that he should be treated in such a way as to diminish him as a cipher in Obama’s quest for the presidency. Ayers’ classroom is one of the best learning environments i have experienced in my too-long tenure as a student. Ayers’ openness to and caring for people and their needs has kept him exceptionally busy over the five years that i have known him, and in that time he has shown time and again that his (home’s) door is always open and he will always make time for anyone who asks – he is without a doubt the most giving person i have known as a teacher.
please rethink your use of Ayers as “that terrorist Obama doesn’t know” – he, and we, deserve so much more. also, please consider visiting this blog of support for Ayers, signed by students, peers, and others who not only want to challenge the current McCain tactics of demonizing Ayers and Obama, but want to highlight the conservative move to villify progressive voices in the academy, as well as society-at-large
thanks
Jill, excellent post (as always), great research.
They’re just doing this to distract from the fact that our country’s economy is melting down. Pointing fingers only gets you so far.
Also, choice means making decisions and planning. Which I would argue extends beyond reproductive rights. It means recognizing when you have enough resources to commit to something like: buying a home, going on a trip, having a baby. Frankly if everyone exercised a little more long term planning, we’d all be in better shape right now. Just like an over-leveraged market, not being intentional about your choices leads to the disaster of mismanagement our country is experiencing now.
i recognize that you’re focusing on anti-abortion terrorists, but let’s not forget that palin’s husband used to pal around with an alaskan terrorist:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature
carry on though, just wanted to throw that in there
OK, these Republican campaign stops are beginning to look more and more like KKK rallies.
“Kill him!”? “Sit down, boy!”?
This isn’t just unethical, it’s beginning to look evil and terrifying.
My column isn’t usually devoted to U.S. politics, but I couldn’t help but comment on the McCain/Palin inciting hatred and death threats, all with a glossy finish of faux feminism on top, no less.
If anyone shouted “kill him” when Obama spoke on McCain, Obama would be in Gitmo already.
Of course, as your post makes obvious, the same standards simply don’t apply to McCain or, for that matter, Palin.