Personally, I never realized the juvenile justice system was not part of the criminal justice system. Maybe if I had, this wouldn't seem like grasping at strawmen...

Andy McCarthy has never argued honestly in his life. He's also grasped onto the ZOMG, Obama's a ferriner!!!1! nonsense being pushed by a 911 troother.

BTW, here's how that turned out.

Of course, Wizbang is full of Obama derangement. Note that in four separate posts by two authors on the WBEZ interview where the word "redistribution" is uttered, not once are San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez or Brown v. Board or education funding mentioned (you know, the topic Obama was discussing at the time). If you can't even acknowledge the subject being discussed and must rely on desperately edited audio to make your argument, you don't have one.

Not to mention the fact that Obama makes a conservative argument vis a vis the courts, in that he argues that the civil rights movement relied too heavily on the courts, and that legislation is the correct path toward enforcing equality standards (in this case, equality in education funding). This is a decidedly conventional and moderate position.

Are conservatives saying they disagree, and thus believe the courts are the primary path? Are conservatives now endorsing what they call judicial activism? No, of course not. They're lying about what Obama was saying and tearing down a straw man.

Deranged, indeed.

McCarthy had already posted on the Corner and addressed the fact that Ayers book talks of juvenile justice. Read this post (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM4MjE1MWZhZTdkOWNiZGI3YzhiYjE1M2RlNzA4NWM=)- bullet 4 - for the argument he is making that Ayers does not believe in appropriate punishment no matter the extenuating circumstances. You can agree or disagree with McCarthy's thesis, but those who read the Corner already knew his stance on Ayers' book.

Here is McCarthy's previous post (in case you can't bring up the link above):

4. Regarding crime, Obama does not just know Ayers's work; he has enthusiastically endorsed it. Ayers's 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent, a scathing indictment of the Chicago criminal justice system, makes the stereotypical soft-on-crime liberal look like a hanging judge. It's all about "root causes" (no individual responsibility for the criminal whose crimes are the fault of society), it opposes appropriate punishment for violent offenses committed by juveniles (no matter how extensive their records, how atrocious the offense, and how close to adulthood the offender), and it blasts prisons as an evil to be phased out. These represent the sort of mindset and policy prescriptions that lead to entrenched crime -- a fear that so powerfully moves the public that Clinton was moved to public toughness on crime having seen what a winning issue it was for Reagan in the Eighties. (Note: Illinois, and Chicago in particular, have very high crime rates -- violent crime is more than twice the national average).

Obama's assessment of Ayers's book? "A searing and timely account." And when she was an associate dean at the University of Chicago, Michelle Obama thought highly enough of Ayers book that she brought Ayers and Obama together for a panel on juvenile crime, observing in the advertising flier that, as a state senator, Obama was "working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system" -- a page right out of Ayers's book.

Another Jempty nit-pick. He had something on Steyn last week I think.

It detracts from your argument--does your argument clear him of left-wing radical thinking in the adult sphere? Is there much difference???

Petty.