Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
McCain’s (massive?) mistake
The hubbub is slow to die after John McCain condemned conservative radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham for opening a Cincinnati rally by taking aim at Barack Obama. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity wasted no time in responding, denouncing McCain’s actions on the airwaves as millions of conservative Republican voters listened.
Analysts are now saying McCain may have made a massive mistake, as he’s already on rocky ground with conservatives–a group he really can’t afford to alienate any more:
“Yes, John McCain needs those people if he has any hope of winning in November,” said Jason Johnson, a political science professor at Hiram College in northeast Ohio.
“It’s going to be hard for them to support him, now that they’ve heard him stab one of their heroes in the back,” he said.
Do you think the incident will hurt McCain’s efforts to appeal to conservatives?
back to top74 Comments to “McCain’s (massive?) mistake”
This shouldn’t hurt McCain. He takes Obama at his word that he is a Christian. Actually, the real question about Obama is not that Hussein is his middle name but whether he holds garden variety secular-liberal anti-American views that would deter him from whole heartedly defending American interests.
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s denouncement shows that he puts decency and fairness above cheap political points — a position that many on the right apparently don’t agree with.
Report comment to moderator
Obama need to grow a ticker skin if he wants to play with the grown ups. Way worse things have been said about republicans and even Hilary. But McCain had no choice but to apologize if he didn’t want to branded a racist
Report comment to moderator
Wait! Am I going to be called a racist for using Obama and skin in the same sentence?
Report comment to moderator
KBells, watch yourself! The very word skin can get you in politically-correct jail.
Report comment to moderator
I think McCain did the right thing by repudiating the commments. While I would like to know just how much Islam has been an influence on Obama and I think that’s fair game, it’s petty to pick on a man’s name. It’s childish. By repudiating something small like this, McCain will be in a better position to question Obama in other ways. He’s running a fine line, and so far he’s done well. I think it’s nice that he’s trying to run a civilized campaign.
KBells is right. Obama will have to grow a thicker skin because if he doesn’t, that’ll backfire on him, too.
Report comment to moderator
The massive mistake is by the Cunninghams, Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hannitys of this world is that think they are the GOP and that this kind of drivel is power.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama wins the nomination I expect the remaining campaign before November will be vigorous and spirited. They’re both fighters. But I hope that any effort by Republicans to trade on fear and prejudice will backfire on them.
Obama can do nothing about his middle name or his family history. What matters is only who he is.
Report comment to moderator
KBells at #3: But McCain had no choice but to apologize if he didn’t want to branded a racist
McCain had no choice but to apologize if he didn’t want to look like a hatemonger playing to baser elements of the voters — or at best, look like he was approving of someone else who was.
It’s not the same thing.
To his credit, McCain is trying to run a campaign based on valid political issues important to the country. Unfortunately some of his smaller-minded supporters are undermining that effort.
Report comment to moderator
This is an appeal to the center. Both McCain and Obama are signaling a move away from the previous forms of partisanship; both hold out for a vision that is possible to vigorously disagree while also upholding higher ideals.
Much as Cunningham served up red meat for the faithful, it is also alienating the center moderates whom McCain needs to win, all the more since Obama will appeal to them along these very lines.
Of course as a Dem, I would encourage conservatives to continue the politics by epithet, it only makes winning that much easier. As a citizen, I welcome McCain’s understanding that we are better than this.
Report comment to moderator
What I like about McCain is that he marches to his own drum, and does, we he thinks is right, consequences be damned.
Cunningham’s remarks about Obama and Clinton made him and members of the audience uncomfortable, so he called Cunningham on it. McCain being McCain. It’s both his strength and weakness.
The sense of entitlement that the right wing media (Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, et. al.) thinks they have on the GOP electorate is breathtaking. They want to turn anti-McCainism into their own cottage industry solely for the sake of protecting their relationship with their listeners. How dare McCain takes his message directly to the voters! He should bow before us ask for us to deliver our listerner base to him in the fall. That’s how it’s supposed to work! Egos. Egads.
I don’t understand the comments above that Obama needs to grow a thicker skin. I don’t think Obama even responded to the Cunningham remarks, other than to have a spokesman simply accept McCain’s apology and move on.
The Obama camp has done well so far in this regard, e.g., President Clinton’s South Carolina comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. Rather than get in a big huff about it (something Hilary frequently does to her detriment) they let the comments get out there and speak for themselves, with little direct response. The “above the fray” approach seems to be working well for him.
Report comment to moderator
Adios has a point. Those she mentions do not represent me, and I would be shocked by McCain if he fell in with their way of doing things.
Report comment to moderator
#11. You have a point. But Obama doesn’t have to respond. He has tons of people looking for racism under every rock and pointing it out with great indignation.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, my word! Bill Cunningham has a snappy wit and was hired by McCain’s campaign to warm up the audience before McCain spoke. What did they think Cunningham was going to do–give a dry speech about economic theory?
It’s politics, people. Part of the fun–and the strategy–of politics is to make your opponent look bad. Of course there should be limits,–I’m not saying that politicians should say just anything–but a joke or two about the other guy should be fair game.
I still don’t understand why saying Obama’s full name is a problem. Would somebody like to explain it to me?
SteveG, noted, “Obama can do nothing about his middle name or his family history. What matters is only who he is.”
Does that mean SteveG admits that his middle name and family history are a problem?
Report comment to moderator
I still don’t understand why saying Obama’s full name is a problem. Would somebody like to explain it to me?
Kyle, surely you know the answer to this. In general, no, it is not a problem to mention a candidate’s full name. But we all know that Obama’s name (especially his middle name) is unique. Obama has never (to my knowledge) gone by “Hussein”, so there is no good reason to bring it up. I’m not aware of anyone talking about McCain’s middle name.
As many have said before, there is much more about Obama that is worth criticizing. Those who are childish enough to continually call him “Hussein” should just start criticizing him for what really bothers them–his heritage.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I saw Cunningham on TV the other night after McCain slapped him down, and he was livid. He was going on about how dare McCain talk to him that way and that he has the power to destroy him politically. And then he dropped the big one – he he said he’s he’s gonna vote for Hillary. He said he would actively campaign for her and work for McCain’s defeat.
And I thought, yep, that shows you how far off the deep end conservatives have gone in this country.
I couldn’t be happier to see conservatives tearing each other apart. The American people are looking at it and thinking “no way I’m gonna give these jerks (to put it kindly) another chance”.
This is all the conservatives have this time around: the politics of personal destruction. I admire McCain for standing up to it.
Report comment to moderator
The world has too many political analysts.
Many voters (myself included) find their “horse race” mentality irritating. McCain repudiated Cunningham’s pettiness, and it was the right thing to do. It was evidence of McCain’s character that he would speak honestly and not pander to a base he badly needs. So for analysts to swoop in and declare an honest and right response “a mistake” on tactical grounds is somewhat galling.
And I’m floored by the stupidity of the childish games that the Cunninghams and Clintons are playing:
Who buys that crap?
No, there’s nothing wrong with his middle name. No one says there is. But there is something wrong with manipulative propaganda attempting to induce in voters a sub-rational association of Barack Obama with terrorists.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #14:
I still don’t understand why saying Obama’s full name is a problem. Would somebody like to explain it to me?
I’ve explained it to you twice and Graceland in #15 is taking another shot.
By now you either understand it and are still playing dumb, or you’re stupid. And I don’t think you’re stupid.
This game grows boring, Kyle.
SteveG, noted, “Obama can do nothing about his middle name or his family history. What matters is only who he is.”
Does that mean SteveG admits that his middle name and family history are a problem?
Not at all. They are not a problem, but they do give small-minded people who have nothing but fear and ignorance working in their favor an opportunity to raise false fears.
But as I said, Obama can do nothing about that. He had no say in the circumstances of his birth or his naming, and he can’t stop bigots from trying to make hay with them.
McCain, to his credit, is not taking that road. Here’s hoping his supporters will follow his example.
Report comment to moderator
Who buys that crap?
Kyle A does.
Report comment to moderator
Then I’ll state it with a simple syllogism or two:
Calling a person by their given name is not wrong.
But (1) using manipulative propaganda is wrong.
(2) Any attempt to subrationally associate Barack Obama with enemies of America is a use of manipulative propaganda.
(3) Some uses of Obama’s middle name are attempts to subrationally associate him with enemies of America.
Therefore, (4) some uses of Obama’s middle name are manipulative proganda.
Therefore (by #1 & #4), some uses of Obama’s middle name are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, suddenly middle names are “off limits” because mentioning them might be name calling? or offensive?
McCain threw Bill Cunningham under the “Straight Talk Express” (tip of the hat to David Limbaugh).
I guess then we can no longer use the following:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Hillary Rodham Clinton
George W. Bush
William Howard Taft
Dwight David Eisenhower
Feel free to add your own.
Report comment to moderator
Hussein is a Muslim name, and we have a right to discuss any Muslim influence on Obama. SteveG seems to think we have nothing to fear from Obama. I don’t know that. The Farrakhan business bothers me. And I still don’t know the truth about the Canadian/Nafta controversy. While I don’t think Obama’s middle name in and off itself is a problem, by making it “off limits” you’re also making how he got that name off limits and that might actually be relevant. We know where Bush got the W in his name, why can’t we know where Hussein comes from?
Hillary Clinton quoted from Obama’s book that he himself wrote he’s a blank slate. (He’s right.) Why can’t we talk about what makes Obama who he is? That you protect this guy is more offensive than what Cunningham did mainly because Cunningham was “nastily” honest, while you’re trying to keep the lid on something which may or may not be of relevance. Why the kabosh on free speech?
Fear-mongering is one thing, and it’s not nice, and the way this fellow and Rush and all those other guys work things up isn’t necessarily “civilized.” By the same token, there shouldn’t be anything that’s off limits in a presidential campaign. There are ways of bringing up topics that are hardhitting, but not offensive.
Why can’t we dissect Obama the way we dissect McCain or Clinton?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s not kid ourselves – we all know exactly why Barack’s middle name is being used by the conservatives.
It’s a blatant appeal to prejudice and fear.
Now we shouldn’t be shocked at such behavior for it has been a standard M.O. for the conservatives for quite some time.
Non-the-less it needs to be stood up to.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR writes:
“Now we shouldn’t be shocked at such behavior for it has been a standard M.O. for the conservatives for quite some time.”
Really? and the left does not engage in the same fear mongering of name calling from the likes of Howard Dean, HRC herself, and other assorted leftists? Same M.O., same “blatant appeal to prejudice and fear.”
What needs to be stood up too is myopia.
Report comment to moderator
While I don’t think Obama’s middle name in and off itself is a problem, by making it “off limits” you’re also making how he got that name off limits and that might actually be relevant.
It’s not off limits. I agree that his background is completely relevant, but talk about his background. Don’t just throw “Hussein” around as if it means something in and of itself.
Like I said before, people who call Obama by his middle name need to be adult enough to talk about what they truly have a problem with…but they never will. They will continue to call him “Hussein” and leave it at that because they are afraid to question his ethnicity directly.
Report comment to moderator
Spengler in the Asia Times has a fascinating article,Obama’s women reveal his secret , in which he argues that Obama was much more influenced by his mother, the anthropoligist Ann Dunham’s anti Americanism than his father’s Islam. The following is an excerpt:
Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
Spengler is a pseudonymous for someone reputed to be a brilliant PhD Australian anthropoligist withe a Judeo-Christian point of view. His core view is that the U.S. and the West are under severe attack from both within by the hard-edged secularists and from without by the Jihadis.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan and Kyle:
If John McCain’s middle name was Stalin and Democrats made a point to call him “John Stalin McCain,” you’d object, and rightly.
JJF in #17 has it exactly right. This eye-batting innocence while asking “What’s wrong with saying his middle name” is a childish game.
But all by means, continue. I will enjoy you making yourself look small and desperate.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG-
“Small and desperate?” Now who’s playing eye batting games?
I merely pointed out that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. In other words it is wrong for one side, no matter which one, to complain while at the same time engaging in the same behavior.
If McCain’s middle name were “Stalin” it would be his middle name, period.
Report comment to moderator
If McCain’s middle name were “Stalin” it would be his middle name, period.
Probably so. Make in Vladimir.
You know perfectly well the reason people use Obama’s middle name, to create a suggestion or a perception of a connection between him and bad Middle Eastern people.
How are the Democrats “engaging in the same behavior?”
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer: “. . .it’s petty to pick on a man’s name.”
Is saying a man’s name the same as picking on a man’s name?
GRACELAND: “But we all know that Obama’s name (especially his middle name) is unique.”
It’s not unique. That’s the problem. It is a very common and very meaningful Muslim name, and that’s why he and his supporters don’t want anyone using it.
GRACELAND: “I’m not aware of anyone talking about McCain’s middle name.”
Okay, here goes. John Sidney McCain. Ooh! Did I do something wrong by using his full name? Should I apologize?
JJF: “No, there’s nothing wrong with his middle name. No one says there is.”
Either that’s true, or it’s not. If there’s nothing wrong with his middle name then there should be nothing wrong with saying it. If there is something wrong with his middle name, then it should be open to discussion.
SteveG: “This game grows boring, Kyle.”
I’m sorry if it bores you. I am playing stupid but with a very good reason. I want people to face this issue head on. If saying a man’s full name gets people in trouble, then I think we should be able to discuss what it is about the name that is a problem.
It has never been a problem to use any other president’s or presidential candidate’s middle name. Is it bad if I call the other leading Democrat Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton? It’s a very pretty name. I’m sure it wouldn’t bother her for somebody to mention that it’s her full name.
SteveG: “He had no say in the circumstances of his birth or his naming, and he can’t stop bigots from trying to make hay with them.”
I just don’t buy it SteveG. If somebody says his full name, it’s not that person’s responsiblity if bigots make hay with it. It’s a fact about him, and what people make of that fact is up to them. Now, if somebody were to call George Bush something like George Adolf Bush, then there would be a problem, since that’s not acutally his name.
SteveG: “If John McCain’s middle name was Stalin and Democrats made a point to call him “John Stalin McCain,” you’d object, and rightly.”
I hope that I wouldn’t, although something inside me might compel me to do so. I think that if McCain had been given the middle name Stalin and he didn’t want to be associated with the dictator, he might change it. Or he might just go ahead and use it openly to show that he wasn’t embarrassed by or ashamed of it.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle – If Barack’s middle name was “Arthur,” would anyone bother to call him “Barack Arthur Obama?” Of course not, because Arthur is just a name, there is no tie-in to anything political. But his middle name is “Hussein,” therefore there is a tie-in to America’s enemies. To call him by his full name is to not-so-subtly hint that he’s beholden to those who would destroy us.
McCain was correct to disavow Cunningham for using a personal attack on the opposition candidate during the introduction, it has no place in the campaign.
Report comment to moderator
I am one of those conservatives who are a liitle leery of McCain.
My opinion of McCain went up considerably withhis action there. The ‘Hussein’ stuff is crap. McCain is fully right to disvow it.
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee,
Ivan and Kyle know exactly what they’re doing by using Barack’s middle name. They’re deliberately playing to people’s fears and prejudice. What they’re doing is a prime example of politics taking precedence over principle. I think McCain understands the principle of decency and respect. I don’t think some of his supporters do though.
Report comment to moderator
No, saying a man’s name is not petty, but that’s not what Cunningham was doing. He was emphasizing the name Hussein to associate it with Islam, and yes, you’re right — to a Muslim the name Hussein has great meaning. There is a better way of discussing this issue AND there is a better way of working up a crowd. What Cunningham did was meant to be incendiary. Peter Leavitt has supplied the type of information I have been looking for with respect to Obama. That’s the way this “problem” should be handled. With facts, talked about openly. Don’t we have a right to know if Obama is “beholden” to those who would destroy us? I think we do, just do it “politely” employing fundamental fairness.
Obama didn’t choose his own name. It may have had meaning for his parents, but it may just be a middle name to him. However, his admiring his minister who admires Farrakhan is a problem for me.
I remember ABC playing a tape of Howard Dean attacking Christians a few days before his famous scream. They only played it once and no one else played it. Before Anlir cites to conservative MO, he should take a long hard look at his own “side.” Howard Dean was pure hatred on that tape, and he was the one running for president! (Cunningham is not the candidate.)
For me, this isn’t so much about Obama’s middle name, but rather why he is being treated with kid gloves. I’ve certainly said mean things about Shrill Hill, but I think she is getting a raw deal here.
Report comment to moderator
And yes, in Kyle’s defense, we would ALL want to know why McCain’s parents gave him the middle name of “Stalin” if that had been the case. Be honest! I certainly would.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #30: I’m sorry if it bores you. I am playing stupid but with a very good reason. I want people to face this issue head on. If saying a man’s full name gets people in trouble, then I think we should be able to discuss what it is about the name that is a problem.
You answered that yourself: It’s not unique. That’s the problem. It is a very common and very meaningful Muslim name, and that’s why he and his supporters don’t want anyone using it.
But Obama is not a Muslim.
Nor is beholden to Muslims.
Using his name when he himself does not routinely use it is a cheap tactic intended to associate him with Muslims.
It is a lie.
It is bearing false witness, if indirectly.
Are you sure that is really something you want to be defending?
The rubber morals of some Christians can be really astonishing sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
Obama can do nothing about his middle name or his family history.
Nonsense. People change their names all the time. But poor, helpless Obama can do nothing about his name?
By the way, as a kid he went by Barry. As an adult, he chose to go by Obama to get “back to his roots”, so why’s he ashamed of Hussein all of a sudden?
And since when is using a man’s full name considered “attacking” him?
Report comment to moderator
First, I am no McCain supporter. I will not vote for him, as I have stated on this blog and on my own blog.
Second, I realize that Obama is not a Muslim and that his name does not mean that he has connections with Islam.
My main point in all this is that the saying of a person’s name should not be spooking Obama or his supporters. The fact that it they are upset by it means something, I think. I want to hear from them what it means. From what they have said, the problem stems from how they think some people will perceive Obama once they know what his full name is. So, he and his supporters need to make sure that they put out information about him and his background that puts people at ease.
Report comment to moderator
The inability of some liberals who have sworn off Christianity to be willing to discuss the name Hussein is also astonishing. I’m getting a feeling that some would like to limit freedom of speech! Why must saying the name “Hussein” be off limits? Are we having a “control” problem here? Or don’t you think the American people can figure out when someone’s being shafted?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle is being obtuse. He knows very good and well that what people are upset about is the pandering to fear and prejudice by invoking Barack’s middle name.
Report comment to moderator
“Using his name when he himself does not routinely use it is a cheap tactic intended to associate him with Muslims.”
It’s his name. Nobody’s making that up.
“It is a lie.
It is bearing false witness, if indirectly.”
Then Wikipedia must be lying. They use his full name to head their article about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and even if he were a full-fledged Muslim with ties to other prominent Muslims, what’s wrong with that from the liberal perspective?????
Are you anti-Muslim now? Or just afraid of people knowing your position?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, Anlir’s right, you ARE being obtuse.
It’s using a true fact (his name) to insinuate a falsehood. It’s lying indirectly by saying something true with the intent that others will infer more than you actually said and come away with a false conclusion … to which you can innocently bat your eyes and say “I never said he was Muslim! I just pointed out 1,500 times that he has an Arabic middle name, in a knowing tone.”
Just like like Bush never actually said Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 — he just implied it repeatedly and let millions of people draw that connection.
I agree that it would be better if Obama would just start using the name and disarm the people trying to do this … and as politically savvy as he is, I’m a little surprised he hasn’t. Nevertheless, the dishonesty of the tactic is obvious.
Report comment to moderator
I am a conservative republican who has not missed an election since Reagan was in office when I was first of voting age. I am not sure that I can pull the lever for McCain in November. For the first time in my life I have no candidate for President of the United States which I in any way believe will provide the proper leadership in office. It grieves me to not vote, but principles are important to me, and I cannot support Mr. McCain without deep regret.I loathe everything that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama stand for, but Senator McCain is a loose cannon on deck who shoots conservatives as often as liberals. I am praying about whether to vote or not for President. I will vote in the other elections in November. What a horrible position we are in as conservatives this year!
Report comment to moderator
“Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk”
Wow. This is going to be a great campaign. I’m already twice as proud as Michelle Obama.
Pretty good metaphor though.
Report comment to moderator
If McCain wins the nomination, conservatives (of whom I am among the most far right) will have to vote for him. It’s truly a tragedy, and a vote for the best of a despicable, sickening lot, but that’s our only option.
Sucks to be us right now.
Report comment to moderator
One of the most discouraging things about America is the attempts by partisan extremists at both ends of the political spectrum to “poison the well” and ruin political discourse in this country.
On WorldMag we mostly see the attempts coming from the right, with an occasional contribution from someone on the left.
Led by the partisan extremists, people are losing the ability to treat their opponents with respect and decency. It make destroying one’s political opponents more important than doing what’s right for America. It makes the ability to get anything done or solve our country’s problems almost impossible.
Basically you’ve got half the country screaming at the other half and refusing to listen to anything they have to say.
If there is one thing I’ve learned from my time on here it’s that conservative Christians are not exempt from the trend.
Barack Obama, in my opinion, represents a chance to move this country beyond such bitter partisanship. He does give people hope that things can be better in America. Our conservative friends are mightily attempting to snuff out that hope. They may well succeed in November. I hope enough of my fellow Americans are ready to strike out a new path.
Report comment to moderator
So, you would prefer that Obama not address this? Just do it and get it over with — or maybe there’s something there?
LawDawg3: We’ve had this discussion on the blog before. I would like to urge you to vote. You write that McCain shoots conservatives as often as he shoots liberals, but that you loathe everything Clinton and Obama stand for. (I do, too!) May I ask you to consider mitigating the damage that a Clinton or Obama presidency would do to the country? I, of course, am concerned with judges, and the next president will in all probability be nominating Supreme Court justices (and judges) who will influence the court for the next 30 years. I implore you not to hand that to a Democrat! I also urge you to consider Obama’s lack of experience. Again, I implore you not to allow the country to fall prey to that! Many of us are unhappy with Mr. McCain’s tendencies, but I do believe that of the three, and that’s what we have to work with, he’s the most experienced, he understands the problem with the jihadists, and I do think with his centrist views (many of which I do not agree with), that he might be the one to finally end this bitter divisiveness in the country. I can only see more of the same with Clinton or Obama at the helm because what they want — government control of everything — will have to be vigorously opposed. I urge you to remember that America is not the earthly kingdom of God, but it is the world’s best hope. I will be praying that you will find it in your heart to join those of us who consider the consequences of not voting — an Obama or Clinton presidency — so frightening that you will join us in mitigating the damage by preventing them from coming to power.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #48
1. Why should Obama address this? His middle name is of no more import than if it were John, or Edward, or Michael.
2. The demand that he address it is coming from the far-right and the Republicans. It’s political pandering of the highest order.
3. Anytime you have the party faithful holding their nose to vote for their party’s candidate, that doesn’t bode well for them winning the election. Other people look at it and think “If their own party can’t stand them, I’m sure not gonna vote for him (or her)”.
4. Fear and negativity are what the Republicans have going for them this time around. Their mantra: “If you vote for the Democrats horrible things will happen to the country”. They’re running from Bush’s record as fast as they can, they don’t like their own party’s candidate, and they sure as heck don’t like the other party’s candidates.
5. Rather than tell Americans what the Republicans would do to make this country better, they’re going on and on about how horrible things will be if the Democrats win. They attempting to scare people into voting for them. That’s a bad sign for the Republicans. You can scare people once or twice, but then they stop believing you.
Report comment to moderator
Obama says we need change and that he can work with the other side of the aisle to get things done.
The fact is that he hasn’t worked with the other side of the aisle at all being the most liberal socialist in congress. But McCain has actually tried to work with the other side of the aisle on many issues and is the leader of the entire Senate at doing so.
Obamma can’t use his supposed willingness to compromise for the right solution when McCain is the master at it.
This incident only shows once again that McCain does know know to play well with others and tries to do the right thing as he sees it even if against his party mouthpieces and hard liners. He realizes that being a moderate is a virtue and a wise course most always – even though he was a right to be the hard liner in congress on Iraq.
There is much to admire about this man and much to want to vote for – regardless of Hannity. Limbaugh, Coulter etc against him on this. They have been for him on the War as they should be but just wrong on this issue as they were on McCain-Feingold. No one is right all the time.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I disagree with you. I think Obama should address it, unless he’s ashamed of his youth and his upbringing. We know a lot about the Kennedys and the Bushes and the Clintons. Why not Obama? What are you afraid of? I think we have a right to discuss everything, and I think we have a right to discuss Obama’s links to Louis Farrakhan without people like you calling us racists or panderers. Again, there seem to be some topics that liberals want to control, they seem to be against freedom of speech and freedom of thought. How unAmerican. How undemocratic.
I disagree with McCain on many issues, but surprise, surprise, I disagreed with George Bush on a lot issues, too. Most notably immigration, something Bush and McCain are closer in agreement on than I am. But yes, I’m party faithful.
Horrible things WILL happen if either Clinton or Obama become president. That’s not fear, it’s the truth. What I find absolutely dumbfounding is that Democrats jump on a bandwagon for change and don’t ask what is behind it! Even Hillary Clinton is questioning what Obama means, and you won’t listen to her. Do any liberals ever ask questions? Before I logged on here, I read an article from the LA Times wherein McCain and Phil Gramm went after the Dems on NAFTA. As Phil Gramm said: if the Dems don’t think we can compete with the Canadians, there’s a problem. The only people who are pandering are Obama and Clinton who are telling Americans that they’ll renegotiate NAFTA to help save American jobs. And we still don’t know if Obama and Clinton had their people contact the Canadians to say “gee, we really don’t mean what we’re saying; we’re just trying to win an election, but don’t worry, we don’t mean it.” I would think liberals such as yourself would be deeply offended by such a tactic, but then again, I just accused you all of not questioning and not thinking, so I really shouldn’t be surprised.
Thank you, Llama, for pointing out that McCain HAS worked with both sides of the aisle. I think because of that, he is the one who can bring some common sense to Washington.
Report comment to moderator
This has actually been addressed at top GOP strategy secessions. I’m not going to look for a link now, but several news outlets carried the piece. At a closed door meeting of state party leaders, Karl Rove himself warned Republicans that continuing to refer to him as Barak Hussein Obama would continue to perpetuate the notion that all Republicans are narrow minded and unopen to a diversified party. He advised everyone in the GOP to refer to him by his honorific Sen. Obama.
I am, however, naturally over joyed that Bill Cunningham is proving destructive to GOP interests once again. Gill ‘em hell, Bill!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #51: Anlir, I disagree with you. I think Obama should address it, unless he’s ashamed of his youth and his upbringing. We know a lot about the Kennedys and the Bushes and the Clintons. Why not Obama? What are you afraid of? I think we have a right to discuss everything, and I think we have a right to discuss Obama’s links to Louis Farrakhan without people like you calling us racists or panderers. Again, there seem to be some topics that liberals want to control, they seem to be against freedom of speech and freedom of thought. How unAmerican. How undemocratic.
Oh for pete’s sake.
His “ties” to Farrakhan have been addressed — there are none. His church’s magazine, which Obama doesn’t control, gave Farrakhan an honor that Obama didn’t determine. Farrakhan gave Obama an endorsement that he didn’t seek. What you’re suggesting is guilt by association. There’s no evidence that Obama has any sympathy for or direct connection to Farrakhan.
There’s nothing about his middle name to address. His parents gave it to him for whatever reason, end of story. It’s the far right that’s trying to make an issue of it.
Liberals are against freedom of speech? Get real. Nobody’s saying you can’t say whatever you want to. But when what you’re saying is that something is an issue when it isn’t, expect to be told so.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG writes: “What you’re suggesting is guilt by association.”
To some degree that’s true! I would disassociate myself from a church that honored Farrakhan. And Obama has not done that. If I went to meetings at a church that endorsed David Duke, I think something could be inferred from that, and you would be the first to bring that up.
Yes, liberals can be against free speech. Very much so. See the flap over the fairness doctrine. See hate speech legislation. See this flap right here. Liberals even do it to each other. You guys don’t want to allow Hillary Clinton to put a commercial on about experience (Who’s picking up the phone in the White House?) You guys don’t even want to let her talk about her experience, which is certainly more than Obama’s, though the three things she claims give her experience are pretty thin. Only service on the one committee (Armed services? I can’t remember) fits the bill. (Giving a speech and life in the White House with Bill is not “experience.”) But hey, you guys don’t even want her to talk about that! She’s mean for pointing out that he’s inexperienced. How do you expect her to campaign against him? It’s crazy!
Every election, except for Washington’s (though I’m sure someone can find something) has had its dirty tricks and nastiness and low blows. That’s politics. SteveG claims “Nobody’s saying you can’t say whatever you want to.” But this whole thread is all about that. Don’t mention the name Hussein! Well … Hussein, Hussein, Hussein! Obama didn’t have the standard upbringing other presidents in the past century have had. We have a right to examine that upbringing. It made Obama who he is. For people who are still calling Bush a drunk when his presidency is almost over (and he hasn’t been drinking), I think you all should just face up to the fact that you don’t want your precious B-HO to be treated like a real candidate. Why this hands off attitude?
I’m not advocating being nasty about B-HO’s name. I think McCain was right to repudiate Cunningham. But I am advocating finding out as much about Obama as possible, and the liberals here don’t like that for some reason. We’re supposed to accept that package as it is offered without unwrapping it. For people who claim to have a lock on intelligence, you’d think the liberals would be unwrapping it themselves. That’s not being done.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #54: To some degree that’s true! I would disassociate myself from a church that honored Farrakhan. And Obama has not done that. If I went to meetings at a church that endorsed David Duke, I think something could be inferred from that, and you would be the first to bring that up.
And that’s a fair point, I think. But it seems that Obama has found good things in the church and has not been involved in anything to do with Farrakhan. So I can see where that might be a stumbling block for some, but unless his own positions and proposals reflect Farrakhan’s influence — and so far as I can tell they don’t — it doesn’t trouble me.
Yes, liberals can be against free speech. Very much so. See the flap over the fairness doctrine. See hate speech legislation. See this flap right here.
All those are arguable. The Fairness Doctrine in particular was intended to provide a balanced political dialogue. If you couple the ability to present only one side, and media ownership through conglomerations, you can (and indeed, have) create a situation where one side has much greater access to the airwaves than the other.
I’m not a fan of Hate Speech codes myself. I prefer to let bad ideas be fought with better ideas.
Liberals even do it to each other. You guys don’t want to allow Hillary Clinton to put a commercial on about experience (Who’s picking up the phone in the White House?) You guys don’t even want to let her talk about her experience, which is certainly more than Obama’s, though the three things she claims give her experience are pretty thin.
Whoa. Who has said she can’t air that ad or talk about her experience? Expressing an opinion isn’t the same as trying to shut down the other person’s ability to speak.
Every election, except for Washington’s (though I’m sure someone can find something) has had its dirty tricks and nastiness and low blows. That’s politics. SteveG claims “Nobody’s saying you can’t say whatever you want to.” But this whole thread is all about that. Don’t mention the name Hussein! Well … Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!
See? Obviously you can say it. Nobody’s oppressing your free speech to do so. But people who think that playing up is middle name is a cheap shot designed to appeal to the baser instincts of some have a right to say that too.
I think you’re conflating actual suppression of free speech — and Hate Speech codes are the only real example of that here — with dissenting speech from others. Saying that I think it’s a cheap trick to refer to Obama by all three names is in no way stopping anybody from doing it.
Obama didn’t have the standard upbringing other presidents in the past century have had. We have a right to examine that upbringing. It made Obama who he is.
Sure. Who has said otherwise?
But that’s more than just pointing out that his middle name is Hussein. It requires examining his background and analyzing his character today.
For people who are still calling Bush a drunk when his presidency is almost over (and he hasn’t been drinking), I think you all should just face up to the fact that you don’t want your precious B-HO to be treated like a real candidate. Why this hands off attitude?
How is it any different than Bush’s supporters objecting to his past alcoholism being brought up? People who are loyal to a candidate will naturally object to unfair criticism (and sometimes to fair criticism) of their candidate.
That’s not censorship, it’s just meeting opinion with opinion.
I’m not advocating being nasty about B-HO’s name. I think McCain was right to repudiate Cunningham. But I am advocating finding out as much about Obama as possible, and the liberals here don’t like that for some reason.
I don’t think that’s true. I haven’t encountered anybody who has objected to real assessment of his background.
It’s the sleazy innuendo (”his middle name is Hussein, we know what that means,” or the slanderous story Fox was trying to peddle a few months back that he was schooled in a Madrassa) that we object to.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, just because it doesn’t trouble you, doesn’t mean it can’t be examined. Something rubs off in church, for good or for ill. Obama has said he reveres his minister. His minister reveres Farrakhan. If A = B, and B = C, A = C. I find it very odd that there are no big name blacks other than Oprah surrounding this guy. Why is that? I can see why no Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but other than Oprah and a few actors, where are the prominent blacks? Even Oprah has backed off. There’s something off here. It’s all very controlled.
You’re just wrong on the Fairness Doctrine and still bent out of shape that the conservatives listen to talk radio. Examine why Air America (wasn’t that what it was called?) didn’t make a go of it. Be honest.
Haven’t you heard the commmentary about Hillary’s ad? The way it is portrayed? Come on….the news reporters are not being fair to her.
It may be that the way to get the issue of Obama’s upbringing out in the open is to say his name, but every time someone says it, the automatic response is “racism.” Only Peter Leavitt offered some factual information about Obama. The liberals here have not. Nor has the MSM examined his upbringing. I distinctly remember news reports and “specials” examining the lives of previous presidents. Haven’t seen any on Obama. (I guess that’s because if they did that, they might have to do one on McCain, and golly gee whiz, let’s not let that record get out!) Haven’t seen one on Hillary either. Do you hear anything about her being a follower of that socialist Arlinsky (not sure of the name there, but you know who I mean). Why don’t we hear about her thesis being locked up? Why won’t she release it? Why don’t you want it releasedif you’re all so proud of her?
If you can talk about Bush’s alcoholism, and talk about it all you want, you should be able to examine Obama. That’s not being done. The point is you’re still beating up someone who is essentially a dead horse (certainly a lame duck!), but you get your knickers in a twist over someone saying “Hussein!” You seek to silence your critics with the word “racist” every time the name comes up in an effort to keep them from going further and examining this guy’s history. That’s not honest!
Why don’t you guys ask questions about your own candidates? Afraid of what you’ll find? Liberals always accuse conservatives of not thinking, but you guys just walk down the primrose path like Stepford wives.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer’s demand that Barack Obama speak about his middle name is a blatant attempt to stoke the fears and prejudice of people. It’s political mudslinging of the worst order. She can claim perfect innocence, but we all know what she (and her fellow conservatives) are trying to do by exploiting this matter.
Let’s keep the focus on where it belongs: the conservative’s attempts to fan the flames of fear and prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
It says something about where the conservative movement has gone when William F. Buckley’s passing is overshadowed by the obnoxious comments of a conservative radio shock jock.
Conservatism would be more attractive to me if it jettisoned the stupidity of Limbaugh and Cunningham and returned to the lively wit of Buckley, Nisbet, and Scruton.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: “Why should Obama address this? His middle name is of no more import than if it were John, or Edward, or Michael.”
Then why does it matter that Bill Cunningham said it. I guess we’ve come full circle; here I am asking again.
Either his name matters or it doesn’t. Either it’s a problem or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t a problem Kyle.
People trying to insinuate that it is a problem, is the problem.
If you don’t get it by now, you’re not going to.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle doesn’t want to get it. People who are blind partisans are interested in tearing down their political opponents by any means necessary. Our conservative friends have gone negative. It’s all they have left to try and stave off a Democratic victory in November. They’re running scared. They may yet pull it off by appealing to people’s worst fears and prejudice. But there is growing evidence that the American people are tired of it.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi writes: “Conservatism would be more attractive to me if it jettisoned the stupidity of Limbaugh and Cunningham and returned to the lively wit of Buckley, Nisbet, and Scruton.”
Can’t argue with that.
Anlir, I don’t care if Obama says his name or not. What I care about is that his background will be explored just as the background of every other candidate has been explored. That has NOT happened.
Yes, let’s keep the focus clear: we don’t know anything about Obama, and we should. Evidently merely asking for information sends the liberals into a tizzy. Merely asking for information gets a non-liberal the label of racist. That’s sick and wrong, but typical of liberals who have this need never to think and never to question.
Report comment to moderator
Are we allowed to talk about Tony Rezko or is that off limits, too?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #37: Nonsense. People change their names all the time. But poor, helpless Obama can do nothing about his name?
And if he did, or if he had in the past, people like Cunningham and Kyle A would be going around saying “His middle name used to be Hussein but he changed it to Herbert. Why did he change it? What’s he trying to hide?”
Once his mom and dad gave him the name, there was nothing he could do. Changing it legally would not erase it from memory — or the public record.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer’s contention that we don’t know anything about Obama is hogwash. There are 2 books out by Obama himself that cover his life in great detail, from childhood on up. His life as an Illinois representative is in the public domain for all to see, as is his short senate record. He’s also released his tax returns.
One gets the feeling that NJLawyer is upset because she and her fellow conservatives haven’t been able to find enough dirt to destroy Barack Obama. And make no mistake – that is their goal.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, here you go:
Foes use Obama’s Muslim ties to fuel rumors about him
wikipedia bio
Info on his political career including specifics of what he’s done while in the Senate
Links to several articles via The Pew Forum
Obama addresses rumors
An article about Wright and Farrakhan
Google is your friend.
Report comment to moderator
Do Muslims respect Barack enough to not assassinate him as a former Muslim turned Christian??
Has anyone heard or read Barack’s testimony?
Solid??
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: From one of the links I offered in #66 (the one labeled “Obama addresses rumors:”
The Democratic candidate says repeatedly that he’s a Christian who took the oath of office on a family Bible. Yet on the Internet and on talk radio – and in a campaign introduction for John McCain this week – he is often depicted, falsely, as a Muslim with shadowy ties and his middle name, Hussein, is emphasized as a reminder of Iraq’s former leader.
“If anyone is still puzzled about the facts, in fact I have never been a Muslim,” he told the Jewish leaders in Cleveland.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, when I say that we don’t know things about Obama, I’m saying that the media is not making these things generally known. I know more about Britney Spears, more than I’d ever want to know, just by watching tv. I don’t have to google her! That’s not happening with Obama. People shouldn’t have to google for one side and not the other. The media is protecting Obama, and that’s unfair to Hillary and in the long run, unfair to all of us if he becomes the nominee.
I told you guys the other day that I don’t get upset when I post, and truth be told, I don’t get upset about politics. I don’t know how this turns out come November, but I don’t know how you’ll get “change” out of Obama. It can be shown — and will be shown if he is the nominee — that when it came to votes on judges or laws that Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle. He is far left and votes that way. He doesn’t compromise. (McCain — to his credit — works with the other side.) Whatever happens in November, God is in control, and we will get the government we deserve.
Report comment to moderator
I noticed that you guys aren’t talking about Tony Rezko and how Obama is involved with Chicago politics. Too dirty for you to mention?
Report comment to moderator
Obama and Rezko
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I put my response in another thread today. We should know as much about this from tv as we do about Britney Spears. I’ve seen Charlie Gibson on ABC do a stories on this girl on the 1/2 hour news. Considering we know that Entertainment Tonight, etc., will follow her every move, I think the major news outlets could run a real story on Obama and those who have influenced him, given him money, etc. Who’s more important — Britney or a candidate for the presidency? That’s all I’m sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
For my money, the less I know about Britney Spears, the better. Point taken.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Barack Obama:
“I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night,” he declared at an earlier appearance in the rural southern Ohio town of Nelsonville.
Article
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!