McCain Finds His Own Radical Friend

Who's more of a threat to America, Liddy or Ayers?

Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology—and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers—in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk show host, Liddy spent more than four years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns—including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break in to the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap antiwar activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history—and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.
In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy—or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Elemenope||

    There are demons in every tent.

    One might hope people could move past that, and actually judge the "candidates", neither of whom even remotely suggest that the tactics employed by their erstwhile associates are appropriate or condoned.

    McCain's fair game for this one, because of his comments on Ayers. But the gotcha games have to stop eventually.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Elemenope,

    Never gonna happen. Its similiar to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides talk of peace but what they really want is victory.

  • ||

    "Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases....."

    Am I the only one that finds humor in that choice of words?

  • Elemenope||

    Never gonna happen. Its similiar to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides talk of peace but what they really want is victory.

    Sorry. I just woke up, and my daily optimism had not yet been crushed. :)

    Am I the only one that finds humor in that choice of words?

    Pretty sure it was intentional.

  • Rhywun||

    How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject?

    He doesn't have to, as long as the media are paying no attention to him whatsoever. "Go Hillary!"

  • Neil||

    As long as Op Chaos is going on McCain will continue his leisurely stroll to victory.

  • Episiarch||

    I doubt Liddy/McCain will gain any traction. I think the media sees Liddy as an old story from another era; Watergate is over, and they aren't interested. Ayers is news (even though his ideas aren't), because after Wright, Obama's associations are news.

    It's not fair, but the media is composed of 90% lazy hacks with their own ideas of what is interesting or newsworthy. Don't expect a sober, fair assessment of anything from them.

  • ||

    Liddy did his time,unlike some Weather radicals.As for as the ATF,I have no use for them or the paramilitary tactics used today.

  • PC||

    Liddy was right about the ATF. Period.

    PROHIBITION IS OVER!!! The ATF can now disband.

  • PC||

    Besides Hagee is more troublesome with his end of the world rhetoric. At least Koresh minded his own damn business.

  • ||

    It's a shame nobody aimed for Liddy's head at Watergate.

  • Taktix®||

    Liddy from his Wikipedia:

    I was talking about a situation in which law enforced agents comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated.

  • jmr||

    This is a media bias direct-hit. Liddy's association with McCain is far more like Obama's association with Wright than with Ayers, and that means this one SHOULD have legs, at least in single standard land. So who knows if it will catch.

    I've always found it amusing that Liddy's wife is the one who owns the convicted felon's firearms and nobody seems to care. I wonder if a felon rapper could get away with a "my bitch owns that s#!t, not me!!" defense and own a gun, too?
    JMR

  • Episiarch||

    I've always found it amusing that Liddy's wife is the one who owns the convicted felon's firearms and nobody seems to care.

    No one cares because it's 100% legal, genius. She's not a felon.

  • Brady Bill Shill||

    I've always found it amusing that Liddy's wife is the one who owns the convicted felon's firearms and nobody seems to care.

    What? He has access to guns?

    Inconceivable! There are laws against it!

  • Mad Max||

    Is Liddy an H&R commenter? His comments on the proper response to no-knock police raids would seem to suggest as much.

  • ||

    Chapman sometimes wears the aluminum hat, but he can't work the decoder ring.

    Here he shows no particular "free minds, free markets' inclination, and an embarrassing degree of bias (towards what?). Liddy, may be an unsavory convicted felon, but to equate him with a pipe-bombing terrorist is absurd.

  • ||

    The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations.

    This all strikes me as perfectly unexceptional. Anyone care to take issue with what he actually said, rather than hearsay about what somebody thought he said?

  • ||

    Liddy's association with McCain is far more like Obama's association with Wright than with Ayers

    McCain's politics are a lot closer to Liddy's than Obama's are to either Wright or Ayers.

    To the extent that these stories are about the candidates' political beliefs - an issue that some of us continue to quaintly consider to be central to the question of who to vote for - this makes McCain look worse.

  • ||

    I wonder if a felon rapper could get away with a "my bitch owns that s#!t, not me!!" defense and own a gun, too?

    As long as all the guns were purchased by and "titled" in the wife, no law is broken.

    Now, if Liddy shoots someone or is caught in possession of a gun, he's got legal problems. But his conviction does not, and should not, strip his wife of any rights.

  • jmr||

    So rappers can get away with it, too? All they have to have is a non-felon wife and they're back to a pistol under the pillow but the authorities will be copacetic? Doesn't sound too legal to me, but maybe I watch too much "COPS."
    JMR

  • Elemenope||

    I take no exception to his comments re: BATF; if someone is trying to kill you, you shoot 'em.

    "If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. Kill you. That's a dumb planet!"

    On the other hand, as Nixon's very willing hatchetman, fuck him. He's proven himself no ally of the rule of law or of freedom of expression (except, of course, his own).

  • Elemenope||

    Doesn't sound too legal to me, but maybe I watch too much "COPS."

    Do you watch COPS at all? Then you watch too much COPS.

  • ||

    "No one cares because it's 100% legal, genius. She's not a felon."

    I think the point is that if it were a black hip-hop thug, nobody would buy into the idea that the wife is the "owner" of the guns, whereas if you are a conservative, rich white guy, people are quick to defend you.

    But I digress. Isn't the law against possession of a gun rather than ownership?

  • ||

    As long as all the guns were purchased by and "titled" in the wife, no law is broken.

    I wonder how far into that sentence the rapper would get before his Probation Officer violated him?

  • jmr||

    And to me, someone who'd consider a state sponsored hit on an inconvenient journalist is as scary as someone who'd consider setting off a bomb. Anyway, the guy is clearly a felon with access to guns whether or not they're in the name of his wife, and nobody has ever seemed to care. If he'd STFU about it, I might not care either, but he's waving a red flag in front of the bull's nose by bragging about it.
    JMR

  • Episiarch||

    I think the point is that if it were a black hip-hop thug, nobody would buy into the idea that the wife is the "owner" of the guns

    It doesn't matter who buys the idea. If the guns are in the wife's name (and she isn't a felon) then they are legal, whether you are Suge Knight or G. Gordon Liddy.

    And ownership is possession.

  • Episiarch||

    I wonder how far into that sentence the rapper would get before his Probation Officer violated him?

    They would literally have to catch him holding or carrying a gun for him to get in trouble. Really, the "wife ownership" thing is a dodge that anyone can use, regardless of skin color.

  • ||

    Ownership is always possession, but possession is not always ownership.

    You can possess something your wife owns, just by picking it up.

  • ||

    "And ownership is possession."

    Ahhh, got it. So Liddy can be at the firing range with his wife's guns and still not be in "possession" of a gun? Neato!

  • ||

    They would literally have to catch him holding or carrying a gun for him to get in trouble.

    Liddy has been videotaped at the shooting range fairly regularly. He's not exactly been underground about his gun hobby.

    Besides, what does "technically, it's not illegal" have to do with the observation with disparate treatment of people of different races by the police?

  • ||

    "the "wife ownership" thing is a dodge that anyone can use, regardless of skin color."

    Not everyone can use that dodge. What about the gays? It's not like they can say, "that's my wife's pistol."

  • Episiarch||

    Liddy has been videotaped at the shooting range fairly regularly. He's not exactly been underground about his gun hobby.

    That should be illegal. However, having his sentence commuted by Jimmy Carter may have had an effect. Honestly, I don't know why he hasn't gotten in trouble for openly using guns--it's not like there aren't people who hate him.

  • Elemenope||

    Wow, this sure diverted into a fairly retarded tangent quickly.

    Whatever happened to "McCain is quite chummy with Liddy. Discuss."?

  • Episiarch||

    Not everyone can use that dodge. What about the gays? It's not like they can say, "that's my wife's pistol."

    If it's their boyfriend's pistol, and is in the boyfriend's name, then they can this dodge too.

    You have to be tied to possessing the weapon, or to using it. If the sales receipt for the gun is in your boyfriend's name, and they can't prove you used it, you are safe.

  • Charlton Heston||

    I wonder how far into that sentence the rapper would get before his Probation Officer violated him?

    The probation thing is the issue. As a condition of probation, most felons are not allowed to be in a house with guns, even if the guns are owned by their wives or children. Liddy's probation expired years ago.

  • ||

    However, having his sentence commuted by Jimmy Carter may have had an effect.

    Ah, right, I'd forgotten about that.

    Also, the use of the word "violate" by Probation Officers is fairly amusing, in a Beavis and Butthead way.

    "If that guy doesn't show up in five minutes, I'm going to VIOLATE him."

    Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh heh. "violate."

  • Mad Max||

    "I wonder how far into that sentence the rapper would get before his Probation Officer violated him?"

    Why would you assume that a rapper is on probation? Just because he's a black man with the guts to stand up to The Man (TM)?

  • ||

    G. Gordon Liddy never killed anybody, big difference.

  • ||

    Why would you assume that a rapper is on probation?

    Because the hypothetic we're talking about is I wonder if a felon rapper could get away with a "my bitch owns that s#!t, not me!!" defense and own a gun, too?"? from jmr's 9:30 post.

    No one is assuming anything, except you.

  • ||

    Er, hypothetical.

  • ||

    G. Gordon Liddy is an evil person. He was evil when he worked for nixon, he is an evil person today (though with less ability to personally do evil). That John McCain would say

    "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

    is inexcusable. Anybody who would praise a deservedly convicted, unrepentant felon has some real morality issues as far as I'm concerned.

    Do any of the McCain fanboys here have a comparable quote from Obama regarding Bill Ayers?

    Don't all speak up at once.

  • jmr||

    McCain is quite chummy with Liddy. Not much else about it to discuss, except maybe it's an even chummier relationship than Obama/Ayers.
    JMR

  • Abdul||

    Do any of the McCain fanboys here have a comparable quote from Obama regarding Bill Ayers?

    I'll take a (head)shot at it. The issue with Obama is that he's not running as a 60's radical. Conservatives think that he is some kind of closeted radical. Ayers has radical ideas and actions, and therefore the assocation with Obama may reveal his secret tendencies.

    While Liddy has used radical actions in the past (burglary), his ideas are no more radical than any other conservative. Indeed, McCain may be associating with Liddy on purpose to pump up his right-wing bona fides, which have been notoriously weak.

  • Neil||

    Wow, the far left is really grasping at straws. Its a non-story folks, and you're not going to see much of it. This is OLD news.

  • ||

    Abdul,

    1. That's not a quote.

    2. So it's like Hagee again? McCain associated with Liddy and Hagee for no other reason than their political ideas, and quite possibly shares them, whereas Obama associated with Wright and Ayers because of reasons wholly unrelated to their politics, which he has denounced. I don't see how that makes McCain look better.

  • BakedPenguin||

    What about the gays? It's not like they can say, "that's my wife's pistol."



    In Massachusetts & Hawaii they can. I wonder if this is something the Pink Pistols will be up in arms about. Oh wait, I guess not.

  • ||

    The difference is Ayres was, unrepentantly, trying to destroy America while Liddy, although misguided, was trying to strengthen it.

  • ||

    The difference is Liddy was, unrepentantly, breaking the Constitution while Ayres, although misguided, was trying to protect it.

  • ||

    Abdul,

    What joe said.
    Damn, that comment will gnaw at my very soul.

  • ||

    Actually, scape, the difference is that Obama denounced Ayers, and McCain congratulated Liddy.

  • ||

    Wow, Obama has a racist crazy man as a pastor, so go out and find a pastor in McCain's life. Obama is friends with a BOMBER? Quick, go find someone in McCains past. The true question is Obama and his choices of his life, not how to mitigate Obama's choices. The true questions have yet to be answered by Obama but we see on a daily basis, the apologists who come out to say, "see, he's not bad because others do it too". Both republican and democrat camps still keep proving to me that most people, on the average, are stupid. Obama followers remind me of the Jonestown incident.

  • Mad Max||

    joe,

    The only reason a rapper would be on probation would be because he is a Strong Black Man (TM) who Tells It Like It Is, and The Man (TM) just can't deal with it.

  • ||

    Jonestown... wow, that's original.

    I think that both Liddy and Ayers are crooks who should be ashamed, rather than proud, of their treasonous pasts, and anyone associating with them should take that into account. However, I feel like the McCain-Liddy connection is more salient than the Obama-Ayers connection, both because it's a closer relationship and because the former pair's views overlap more than the latter's. McCain-Liddy is closer to Obama-Wright than to Obama-Ayers, but it's still more important based on these reasons and reasons other commenters have pointed out. Anyway, unless you honestly believe the far-fetched notion that these associations - people these candidates know - say more about them than all of their past actions, voting records, and public statements & platforms, they shouldn't affect your opinion of Obama and McCain much.

    So, all of this is still less important than the actual questions of experience and policy and leadership style and differing visions for the country's future that differentiate Obama from McCain - I think both of them have shown their basically decent character and trustworthiness, and most voters want to hear real substantive discussion about these topics. I, for one, am tired of having my intelligence insulted by the media and by both major parties, and I strongly suspect that most other voters feel the same way. We're adults here; if we're gonna do this democracy thing, let's take it more seriously.

  • Mad Max||

    Liddy is no longer on probation, isn't he? I mean, he's still a conicted felon, but no longer under probation. Just goes to show that The Man (TM) is trying to keep the African-American musician down, so that everyone will be forced to listen to honky music like Glen Miller and The Grateful Dead for all eternity.

  • Mad Max||

    (Proper spelling can wait until after the Revolution)

  • ||

    Whatever, Max. I think your break from handing out mimeographed copies of your newsletter at the subway station is over.

  • Abdul||

    So it's like Hagee again? McCain associated with Liddy and Hagee for no other reason than their political ideas, and quite possibly shares them, whereas Obama associated with Wright and Ayers because of reasons wholly unrelated to their politics, which he has denounced. I don't see how that makes McCain look better.

    I think it was Matt Yglesias who first hypothesized that Obama associated with Wright because he needed radical black bona fides to win in Chicago. So Obama can be hit by his associations either way you look at it.

    One problem Obama faces is that his career is too short for us to know much about his character. People can't easily tar McCain by his associations because we know McCain's record--it stretches back to when he went to naval academy with John Paul Jones. You may hate McCain's record, but you know that the Maverick doesn't have a hidden Hagee or Liddy inside of him that's dying to get out. Since Obama's a bit of a blank slate, he's more open to this style of attack.

  • ||

    That's right joe, he denounced Ayres and Wright, and it only took him 20 years to make those decisions. If Liddy becomes a burden for McCain I'm sure he'll show the same character and make a grand denouncement.

  • ||

    Just checking in to find the Obama quotes praising Ayers "principles and philosophies". Or something near as fawning.

  • ||

    Actually, scape, he met Ayers far less than 20 years ago. And, unlike McCain and Hagee/Liddy, Obama never lauded Wright's or Ayers' political philosophies.

    But, hey, nice repetition of the talking point.

    Next, do "child abuse."

  • Tim of Angle||

    Sure, there's a lot of moral equivalence between a burglar and a bomber. Thanks for the thought, Stretch, but you'd be better off in basketball. Let me know when Liddy starts stepping on American flags.

  • ||

    "Just checking in to find the Obama quotes praising Ayers "principles and philosophies". Or something near as fawning."

    How about the fact that he considers them (Ayers and Dorhn):

    "respectable fixtures of the mainstream in Chicago"?

    Unrepentent bombers are the mainstream in Chicago??? Really???

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/27/obamas_mainstream_friends/

  • Mike M.||

    Is Weigel really implying here in this piece that breaking and entering a building with the intent of illicitly gathering political information is the equivalent of planting bombs in an attempt to kill people in order to try and foment violent revolution?

  • ||

    "Sure, there's a lot of moral equivalence between a burglar and a bomber."

    The common thread is that they are FELONIES. Are you saying that John McCain can cavort with FELONS, so long as they didn't bomb anything?

  • ||

    How about the fact that he considers them (Ayers and Dorhn):

    "respectable fixtures of the mainstream in Chicago"?

    Unrepentent bombers are the mainstream in Chicago??? Really???


    From a Washimgton Post (damned left wing media there) article

    Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board.



    He agreed with that assessment. While I concur that Ayers shouldn't be respected in Chicago, he obviously is. Recognizing the facts on the ground is not to be confused with an endorsement of Ayers views. Compare that with the praise McCain gave to the lunatic Liddy.

    "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."


    Nice try though, I honestly didn't expect anything even that good.

  • Les||

    Is Weigel really implying here in this piece that breaking and entering a building with the intent of illicitly gathering political information is the equivalent of planting bombs in an attempt to kill people in order to try and foment violent revolution?

    No, Steve Chapman, who wrote the article, is implying that ex-convicts who planned on killing people and advocate killing people should be shunned as much as those who actually try to kill people.

  • ||

    The answer, clearly, is to nominate candidates who don't actually know anyone at all.

  • ||

    Obama's backpedaling from Ayers and Wright, especially if he never lauded their political philosophies, only highlights his weakest spot which his lack of a clear philosophy. If your campaign is hope and change, you can't afford any perceived terrorist or racist skeletons in the closet without losing supporters. McCain's "straight talk express" is not going to lose any of its base because of ties to Liddy or Hagee and a renouncement from him about long time political relations would be seen as a sign of weakness.

    Obama's renouncement - even though it's upheld as a sign of character - exposes his weakness and if he survives Hillary's beat down on this issue, McCain will be in on the tag team action and continue it through November.

  • ||

    If the Weathermen were defending the Constitution of the United States, then so was the CPUSA. Ayers was an unrepentant, proud traitor to his country up until the day it became obviously unpopular even amongst his fellow travelers. Liddy has always embraced the essence and exceptionalism of American nationhood and constitutional government, and did his damnedest to defend it against all foes--foreign *and* domestic.

  • Les||

    Liddy has always embraced the essence and exceptionalism of American nationhood and constitutional government, and did his damnedest to defend it against all foes--foreign *and* domestic.

    Yes, advocating the kidnapping of dissidents and plotting to kill a journalist is a fine testament to one's love of the constitution.

  • ||

    It takes a pretty wild imagination to conflate aiding and abetting the enemy and espionage with dissidence and jouranlism.

  • Les||

    It takes a pretty wild imagination to conflate aiding and abetting the enemy and espionage with dissidence and jouranlism.

    It takes a government loyalist's imagination to conflate political protest during wartime with "aiding and abetting the enemy."

  • ||

    And it takes an enemy to conflate bombing and murder--realized, not conspired--as political protest.

  • ||

    And in case any of you have missed any of the last sixty years of American politics, the question isn't whether or not Ayers or Liddy have a criminal record, the question whose heroes from the Vietnam period will Americans more readily tolerate: Berkeley's or talk radio's? Talk radio simply has the home field advantage on that front in the culture war.

  • ||

    It takes a pretty wild imagination to conflate aiding and abetting the enemy and espionage with dissidence and jouranlism.

    Well, no one has ever accused G. Gordon Liddy and his lot of lacking imagination.

  • Mad Max||

    joe,

    The one time I'm not being serious, and you take me seriously.

  • Mad Max||

    Acceptable rebuttals to the forgoing include,

    The phoning-it-in, obvious approach:

    "OK, Max, I won't take you seriously ever again."

    The Society for Creative Anacronisms approach:

    "Osculate my hindmost parts, varlet!"

    The Accusing-Me-Of-Being-A-Republican approach:

    "So how many more Karl Rove talking points are you going to recycle before you call it quits?"

    The 14-year-old approach:

    "LOL u suk"

    Wait, that's Neil, not joe. Sorry about that.

  • Les||

    And it takes an enemy to conflate bombing and murder--realized, not conspired--as political protest.

    I'm against bombing and murder. Liddy didn't propose to kidnap bombers and murderers. He proposed to kidnap protesters. He proposed fire-bombing the Brookings Institution.

    If the Nixon administration had said, "yes," would you still defend the man?

  • ||

    Wow! Liddy contributed a whopping $1000 to McCain this year! Incredible! My only question is: Why didn't he contribute $2300, the legal maximum for the primary? Seems like he's a bit of a skinflint to me. And just LOOK at THIS! G. Gordon Liddy BROKE INTO AN OFFICE for Nixon. Wow! What a crook! And he went to jail, too. Unlike Ayers. He did no jail time. All he did was set off a few bombs, burn a few houses (like the judge in the black panther trial), and blow a few people up, mostly his own buddies. Obviously nickel and dime stuff compared to BREAKING INTO AN OFFICE! Yup--GOOD comparison!!

  • ||

    Max,

    I was quoting that Presley fella.

  • ||

    "I'm against bombing and murder."

    Of course not, but as was pointed out on the Corner today your kind feels this is sufficient preamble before lauding your favorite 60s radicals.

    "Liddy didn't propose to kidnap bombers and murderers. He proposed to kidnap protesters."

    Who'd made common cause with the bombers and murderers. Only in certain corners of the coasts does that argument even remotely pass the laugh test. The well-being of antiwar agitators isn't historically of great interest to most Americans.

    "He proposed fire-bombing the Brookings Institution."

    Well, since you're apparently citing Wiki word for word now you apparently know the reason why Brookings was a potential target.

    "If the Nixon administration had said, "yes," would you still defend the man?"

    I regret Nixon didn't say yes, or that he didn't simply invoke the Insurgency Act and have uniforms raze the building, and I think he misjudged the political climate by acting so surreptitiously when directly would've sufficed. The "aggrieved" could always head to court on a case by case basis.

  • ||

    "Well, no one has ever accused G. Gordon Liddy and his lot of lacking imagination."

    And G. Gordon Liddy and his lot don't equate aiding and abetting the enemy with dissidence and journalism. I thought that was made very clear by his (correct) descriptions of his targets as saboteurs and traitors.

  • ||

    Presley,
    I'm against our current, destined for failure, misadventure in Mesopotamia. I've called for an immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from the fuck story that is present day Iraq. I've written about it as well. Am I an aider and abetter?

    Think before you post for once. You already appear as a fool, this is an opportunity to start rehabilitating your image into something other than a right wing imbecile.

  • zoltan||

    Cannady's a Nixon-lover? Why are you guys still conversing with this no-brainer? Someone who wants to throw 'traitor' around and thinks stealing private information is the American way? My favorite kind of political thinker.

  • Les||

    Of course not, but as was pointed out on the Corner today your kind feels this is sufficient preamble before lauding your favorite 60s radicals.

    Ah, The Corner. Where terrorists for the left are always worse than terrorists for the right. For what it's worth, I don't have any "favorite 60's radicals." I just despise the kind of hypocrisy one finds regularly at The Corner.

    Who'd made common cause with the bombers and murderers. Only in certain corners of the coasts does that argument even remotely pass the laugh test. The well-being of antiwar agitators isn't historically of great interest to most Americans.

    So, in your mind, if you peacefully protested the war, you were no different that those who violently protested the war. I'm not surprised.

    I regret Nixon didn't say yes, or that he didn't simply invoke the Insurgency Act and have uniforms raze the building, and I think he misjudged the political climate by acting so surreptitiously when directly would've sufficed.

    I'm sorry I didn't read this paragraph first, then I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to the right-wing equivalent of a Che worshiper.

    Why not go back to The Corner, where the collective, mindless fealty to your political party will prevent any "conservatives" there from questioning your essentially un-American, thuggish philosophies?

    Adios, Amoeba!

  • lunchstealer||

    Does anyone else hear Crowe T. Robot saying "I haven't seen a WASP this big since the Nixon years"?

  • lunchstealer||

    "Liddy didn't propose to kidnap bombers and murderers. He proposed to kidnap protesters."

    Who'd made common cause with the bombers and murderers. Only in certain corners of the coasts does that argument even remotely pass the laugh test.


    So your logic is that because the protestors had some of the same goals as some bombers and murderers, they were themselves bombers and murderers.

    A lot of Klan members supported Nixon. You support Nixon. So you must be a Klan member.

    Christ, what a fucktard.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    I do not agree with Liddy on everything - far from it - but I DO agree with his original advice regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    Isn't it rather odd that Liddy, who was once in federal law enforcement and infringed upon civil liberties while in that position, now advises his listeners to kill federal law enforcement officials who infringe on civil liberties?

  • joe||

    And G. Gordon Liddy and his lot don't equate aiding and abetting the enemy with dissidence and journalism. I thought that was made very clear by his (correct) descriptions of his targets as saboteurs and traitors.

    Oh, I see. He didn't confuse journalists with traitors, because what these particular journalists wrote, G. Gordon Liddy didn't like.

    Get a load of this guy.

  • ||

    I'm sure Neil will be LOL-ing at this all the way to November!

    Or maybe not.

  • ||


    Presley H. Cannady, Jr. | May 5, 2008, 5:40pm | #

    And G. Gordon Liddy and his lot don't equate aiding and abetting the enemy with dissidence and journalism. I thought that was made very clear by his (correct) descriptions of his targets as saboteurs and traitors.



    By "his targets", I presume you mean the Democratic National Committee (Watergate) and Daniel Elsberg (The Pentagon Papers).

    I further presume that you think a willful attempt by government authorities to subvert the constitution and civil liberties is less dangerous to the republic than a few crackpot radicals.

  • Urbane||

    Pat Buchanan once said that America is a more far-right than far-left country, i.e., the Liddys of this country are much greater in number than the William Ayers.

  • ||

    Ayers actually set off bombs. That is a big deal no matter how you spin it. Waht did Lidy actually do. A little breaking and entering. A felony yes but not really a huge deal. While he did this for Nixon he was actually not the one causing the Constitutional crisis. The constitution says nothing about breaking and entering. To equate Liddy with violationg the constitution doesn't work.

  • ||

    I have always thought that fascism posed a far
    greater threat to the West than socialism, and
    it remains to be seen just what the long term
    effect of 9/11-OIF will be on the under-30s.
    If you start hearing "knife in the back" talk
    near the end of McCain's first term, you might
    want to clean up that bomb shelter.

  • ||

    "Presley,
    I'm against our current, destined for failure, misadventure in Mesopotamia. I've called for an immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from the fuck story that is present day Iraq. I've written about it as well. "

    And Myles Cooper was against the Revolution. He wrote about it extensively. What's your point?

    "Am I an aider and abetter?"

    You're a smart boy. Add two and two together.

  • ||

    "Cannady's a Nixon-lover?"

    Nixon was the worst Republican President in history, the fact he stood a cut above most of his political contemporaries notwithstanding.

    "Why are you guys still conversing with this no-brainer? Someone who wants to throw 'traitor' around and thinks stealing private information is the American way?"

    Has been since Nathan Hale was hung.

    "My favorite kind of political thinker."

    So you share Henry Stimson's view of intelligence collection?

  • ||

    "Ah, The Corner. Where terrorists for the left are always worse than terrorists for the right."

    Terrorists liberals frequently assigned to modern conservative camp, a movement barely over six decades old, are almost entirely from the 19th century. The world is still reeling from the mess left behind by an overwhelmingly leftist global insurgency, one that still rages on in all corners of the globe.

    "For what it's worth, I don't have any 'favorite 60's radicals.' I just despise the kind of hypocrisy one finds regularly at The Corner."

    You know, I'd pay real money to see if anyone who throws the word 'hypocrisy' around could actually cite a single offending incident.

    "So, in your mind, if you peacefully protested the war, you were no different that those who violently protested the war. I'm not surprised."

    Insofar as you're a legitimate target for the national security apparatus? No difference at all.

    "I'm sorry I didn't read this paragraph first, then I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to the right-wing equivalent of a Che worshiper."

    "Why not go back to The Corner, where the collective, mindless fealty to your political party will prevent any "conservatives" there from questioning your essentially un-American, thuggish philosophies?"

    Because I much rather spend my time in your neck of the woods, where mindless fealty to an overly inflated sense of cleverness has found a nesting ground outside of its natural habitat: a third-rate university English department.

  • ||

    "By 'his targets', I presume you mean the Democratic National Committee (Watergate) and Daniel Elsberg (The Pentagon Papers)."

    Amongst others.

    "I further presume that you think a willful attempt by government authorities to subvert the constitution and civil liberties is less dangerous to the republic than a few crackpot radicals."

    Yes, I have no problem with parking tickets as a matter of principle, no matter how much I hate paying them.

  • ||

    "So your logic is that because the protestors had some of the same goals as some bombers and murderers, they were themselves bombers and murderers."

    I think I've made it clear that the cohort I'm speaking of is that which narrowly made "common cause" with WUO. After all, I'm not advocating a crackdown on foreign leftists operating in Western Europe, am I?

    "A lot of Klan members supported Nixon. You support Nixon. So you must be a Klan member."

    A good number supported McCarthy and McGovern. So you must be, too.

  • ||

    "Oh, I see. He didn't confuse journalists with traitors, because what these particular journalists wrote, G. Gordon Liddy didn't like."

    You're tripping over your own use of the word "confused." You'd be better off saying "properly identified journalists as [traitors]."

  • lunchstealer||

    A good number supported McCarthy and McGovern. So you must be, too.

    Yes, if your logic were in any way valid, that would be true. But your logic is complete bullshit. So protesters are not ipso facto murderers, journalists who say things Liddy dislikes cannot ipso facto be properly identified as confused with traitors, and I am not ipso facto a Klansman. I can't say with any authority whether you are or not, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are a different brand of stupid than the Klan.

  • ||

    I just don't find this comparison that convincing. Ayers freakin bombed innocent people in the 1960's and has not apologized for it- in fact, he has said he wouldn't take any of it bac if I am not mistaken!!!!

    There are a lot of politicians from the cold war era who have a lot of skeletons to say the least. Criminal partisanship vs. "let's start the peoples revolution via bombs and violence" do not belong in the same league in my opinion.

  • Les||

    Criminal partisanship vs. "let's start the peoples revolution via bombs and violence" do not belong in the same league in my opinion.

    Liddy's position was "let's stop dissent and anti-establishment journalism with bombs and violence."

    I think Ayers and Liddy are equally scummy. They should both be condemned.

  • ||

    "Yes, if your logic were in any way valid, that would be true. But your logic is complete bullshit."

    Don't foist your misadventures in reasoning on me.

    "So protesters are not ipso facto murderers..."

    I never said they were. At most, I argue that the vast majority are legitimate targets.

    "...journalists who say things Liddy dislikes cannot ipso facto be properly identified as confused with traitors..."

    Abandoning your standard, it'd be entirely reasonable to consider treacherous jouranlists "who say things Liddy finds treasonous." I'm pretty sure Liddy isn't a big fan of celebrity gossip, but he does know how to pick out the bastards selling out their country.

    "...and I am not ipso facto a Klansman."

    I'm not so sure.

  • ||

    "I think Ayers and Liddy are equally scummy. They should both be condemned."

    Except you don't. You much rather hate Liddy than Ayers.

  • Les||

    You much rather hate Liddy than Ayers.

    This is a typical tactic of "knee-jerk" ideologists. They will tell you what you think (regardless of an utter lack of evidence to support their purported telepathy). They will take an attack upon one person/organization as a defense of another (e.g.: "You hate Hillary? You must be a Republican!" or "You hate Bush? You must be a Democrat!"). You can find this simplistic, childish behavior in equal measure in places like The Corner and various college leftist organizations.

  • ||

    Ayers is a socialist. Liddy is a libertarian. Totalitarian versus an anarchist. I'd rather have Libby.

  • Les||

    I, too, would prefer an anarchist. If Liddy was an anarchist, he was an amoral one, which is the worst kind to be. Based on his actions when he was working for Nixon, I suspect he's more of an opportunist.

  • Les||

    Let me add that an amoral, opportunist anarchist is better than any kind of totalitarian. Still, a pox on both their houses.

  • lunchstealer||

    Oh yeah, I mean, I've taken some mischievous glee from Liddy's show (mostly back in the early '90s, when I still had some vestigial conservative authoritarianism in my system). I think that GGL's transgressions as an FBI agent are precisely the kind of corrupt government transgressions that make libertarianism so necessary to the conscience of conservatism. Waspy H Wasperson III's attempts above to justify extrajudicial actions against journalists and protesters based upon having views that he doesn't like exemplify the kind of third-world tinpot dictatorial mentality that makes Liddy so thoroughly NOT a libertarian.

  • ||

    Liddy served time, where as Ayers was rewarded with a cushy academic gig; my alma-mater has Ayers on their curriculum...when they make "WILL" required-reading, then I'll see Liddy as an equal threat.

  • Panzramic||

    Let's not give moral equivalence to Bill Ayers/Jeremiah Wright and G. Gordon Liddy.

    Granted, Liddy is a convicted criminal and McCain should not be associating with him.

    But Obama had a 20 year relationship with this man. He was a huge part of this guy's life (unless he is being dishonest about his involvement)

    Ayers is a rabid frothing at the mouth leftist who wishes that he and his silver-spooned college buddies killed more of "the man" during their bygone halcyon days as peace creeps.

    Liddy is a theif. Ayers, a de facto and unrepentant murderer. Both are political liabilities.

    Let's just not give them moral equivalency.

    That's what Obama did with Rev. Wright and his "racist" grandmother.

    It doesn't pass the smell test.

  • ||

    So,
    just how many bombs did Liddy build and set off?

  • ||

    --The over-obvious contrasts between Liddy and Ayers is apparently so enormous, the author of this article doesn't even see it; the election year 'elephant' in the room, so to speak....

    That DIFFERENCE--('differences') is that G. Gordon never ACTUALLY attempted to hurt anybody,as did Ayers. Talk is talk-radio is a medium for talk. The weatherunderground was a medium for actual violence, which they repeatedly planned and carried out.

    The other contrast, which the author himself notes when he mentions Mr. Liddy's jail time: Mr. Liddy paid his debt to society for whatever crimes he was found guilty of-Mr. Ayers did not and is now developing young minds as a University professor--why doesn't the author quote HIM (Ayers) in the contex of one of his lectures to students.???? I think any vitriol coming out of the mouth of this professed 'revolutionary' would just continue to embarass the cause of the leftist media (and schools)

  • ||

    Who's more of a threat to America, Liddy or Ayers?

    Ayers, hands-down. Ayers is a communist, the natural enemy of the libertarian.

    Liddy, on the other hand, while no boy scout, did pen a book "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country" lamenting the lost liberties of his youth (among other things)

    McCain's far from an ideal candidate for a libertarian to support, at best, his potential victory would probably represent a truce in the battle for liberty. What I can't figure out is why the writers at reason would otherwise consider an Obama presidency anything but abhorrent. He's a democrat from Chicago for god's sake. Aside from his votes (not position, which is a different matter) on the war, he's about as far from a Ron Paul as can be imagined. An Obama presidency with control of congress would be a disaster for all kinds of rights; they'd be creating entitlements and dependencies at breakneck pace, passing anything unions could dream up without regard to individual rights, and basically doing all kinds of top-down regulation. They're not even talking about scaling back the drug war!

  • panzramic||

    Dittos, Supermike.

    A Libertarian voting or sympathizing with Obama is like a Jew casting a vote for Hitler (take away the ovens and add higher taxes).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement