It is possible to determine how a person will behave in the future based on how they have behaved in the past.

It seems to me this should be something everyone can agree upon, but lately, when it comes to a certain candidate, people would rather shove their heads in the sand than confront the past. Democrats will have you believe we canforsee a John McCain presidency based on the reckless presidency of George W. Bush, an entirely different person. But when it comes to Barack Obama, it is completely absurd to imply his past interactions might in any way predict his future ones. Any mention of unsavory characters or bad judgment and critics are disregarded and met with irrelevant arguments such as, “Obama was 8 years old when William Ayers committed terrorist acts.”

It doesn’t matter how old Obama was when Bill and Bernardine were doing their thing. What matters is the connection to Ayers is one of a string of connections to radical figures and radical thinking. This doesn’t present a problem because Ayers was a terrorist or because Jeremiah Wright hates his country — it is a problem because it proves Obama is comfortable among a level of leftist radicalism the vast majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican, would not tolerate.

Obama is a self-proclaimed disciple of the teachings of Saul Alinsky, a radical socialist who believed in obtaining power through whatever means possible, even if it meant utilizing democratic framework, to gain the means of establishing a socialist regime. Alinsky used community organizing to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and made vague promises of “change” to obtain his goals, which where then perpetuated in Chicago community organizing after his time. Guess who adhered to Alinsky’s socialist principles during his days as a community organizer? It’s no mistake the basis of Alinsky’s method sounds strikingly familiar to the basis of the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

Alinsky’s method of agitation used churches in the Chicago area as sources of supporters and goods, even though he himself was an atheist. This deceitful tactic was adopted by Barack Obama and was how he came to find himself in church — the church of Jeremiah Wright. It had nothing to do with being a Christian. I think we all know enough about Wright to conclude he is a nut who breeds hatred, and that Obama clearly had no problem with Wright’s perspective before he ran for president.

But Obama’s radical leanings continue past Alinksy, Ayers, Wright and Dohrn, in case that’s not enough. In the early ’90s, Obama worked closely alongside ACORN activist Madeline Talbott to pressure banks into giving high-risk loans to low-income households with bad credit. Obama wasn’t just associated with this endeavor — he helped fund it and trained those who did it. We all know what these sub-prime mortgages have meant for our economy and for those currently experiencing foreclosures.

Whenever an example of Obama’s flirtations with radicalism is brought up, fervent supporters immediately excuse it. And to a certain extent, they are right — Obama’s acquaintance with Ayers alone does not reveal much. But when you consider all Obama’s questionable acquaintances of the past, it starts to resemble less of an unfortunate coincidence and more of a reliable pattern. If anyone is taking a leap of faith in November, I’d say it’s the discontented Obama supporter hoping for change — we sure haven’t seen any evidence of it yet.

Katie Nix (nix@wisc.edu) is co-chair of Students for McCain.