-
McCain Repudiates Radio Talk Show Hosts’s Repetition of “Barack Hussein Obamaâ€
The L.A. Times reports:
In a possible foreshadowing of a potentially bruising general election campaign, a speaker who introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with “world leaders who want to kill us†and invoked Obama’s middle name — three times calling him “Barack Hussein Obama.â€
Local conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham described Obama as “a hack Chicago Daley-style politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you — all you’re going to have in your pocket is change,†he said.
McCain quickly distanced himself from the remarks, which he did not hear, saying that using Obama’s middle name in repetition like that was inappropriate. “I absolutely repudiate such comments and again, I will take responsibility,†he said, calling the use of Obama’s middle name inappropriate. “It will never happen again. It will never happen again.â€
More at the Swamp. The talk show host is now saying he’ll support Hillary. On the one hand, there’s the war, the Supreme Court, and fiscal responsibility. On the other, Bill Cunningham’s ego. Yup, the choice is clear.
The lede in the L.A. Times story demonstrates the typical Big Media thirst for drama, and the facts be damned. If anything, McCain’s swift and decisive repudiation of the remarks indicates a desire to conduct the campaign with respect.
My take: yes, I realize it’s Obama’s real name. But it’s cheap pandering to go around emphasizing it. It makes McCain look bad. And his repudiation was the right thing to do.
It’s too bad, because the brouhaha undercuts a nice line: “When he gets done with you — all you’re going to have in your pocket is change.†My friend Abe W. delivered that line the other day, and I was planning to do a post recommending McCain use it. I still think he should.
A commenter named Demetri responded, quoting Rush Limbaugh:
Okay, so his name is off limits, can’t use Hussein. You can’t call him a liberal. What other fact about Obama are we not going to be allowed to talk about? That’s right, can’t talk about his ears, either, because when Maureen Dowd made some comment about his ears, he went straight into the crowd and said, “I’m very sensitive about my ears.†She said, “We’re trying to toughen you up.†Well, it hasn’t worked. Can’t use the name Hussein, can’t call him a liberal, and this is the kind of thing — look, it’s brilliant on Obama’s part. He’s setting the rules, and everybody’s going to abide by them.â€
What other fact about Senator Obama are we not going to be allowed to talk about? His color.
Oh, mind you, the media will be allowed to write continual peans of praise for the “first black presidential nominee of a major party,†but if Senator McCain or anyone else remotely connected with his candidacy or conservative principles mentions his race, or even criticizes his positions on Affirmative Action, it will be an appeal to racism. Raise questions about our overly-generous welfare system? Another appeal to racism, of course! Heck, if you criticized Senator Obama’s ideas about helping people caught up with the rising payments on adjustable rate mortgages, you could be accused of an appeal based on race!
Our friends on the left, of course, will be perfectly free to say, “It’s important to vote for Mr Obama, because we need a black president,†or even “I’m voting for Senator Obama because he’s black,†but don’t anyone dare say, “I’m voting for Senator McCain because he’s white.â€
Mr Limbaugh was right: “(I)t’s brilliant on Obama’s part. He’s setting the rules, and everybody’s going to abide by them.” Issue after issue is going to be taken off the table, because somehow, some way, it will be taken as an appeal to racism.
Dana, McNuggets lost the GOP footsoldiers long ago. He doesn’t know when to stop alienating his workforce. You think the Country Clubbers and the “moderates” will actually WORK to get McCain elected? I have a sad secret for you. Those people are all lip and no work. McCain goes down in flames like Dole did.
Well, maybe he does, but I think that it’s too early to say. Assuming that you’re the same PCD who said on Patterico’s Pontifications that he would vote for neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama, what will you do come election day — assuming that you’ve actually decided.
I saw a clip of his “performance”, and the simple fact is, it WAS embarassing and McCain was right to distance himself from it. It was silly and childish, and if he thought that this was a clever way to beat up on Obama, well, then he’s an idiot. If we want to win, we have to act like adults, and put aside the Beavis & Butt Head level rhetoric.
PS Rush should stop whining. The way to beat Obama is to stick to issues. Iraq, for instance. The differences couldn’t be clearer – McCain supported the Surge, and is pulling for victory. Obama, by all appearances, has put his lot in with the defeat and surrender crowd. Point out that his calls for “bipartisanship” are not backed up with his record, where nearly every time he sided with the liberals in the Senate.
I think some Republicans are confused because Obama isn’t personally loathsome the way the Clintons are. He’s harder to attack on personality and scandal than they are. We have to beat him on issues, experience, and vision.
Dana,
I am the same person, and same person on Liberty Pundit.
As to what I’ll put on my November ballot,…, I’m still thinking. I have half a notion to write in Ronald Reagan.
Rush Limbaugh should stop whining. No one is telling him what he can and can’t say. He can take up his entire two hours, or whatever his daily bloc of radio time is, chanting “HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN” endlessly, if that’s what he wants.
But just as he has the right to do so, other people have the right to regard him as childish.
Bitter, you are trying to tell Limbaugh what to say. I quote you, “Rush Limbaugh should stop whining.” Take your own advice.
Obama’s background is fair game, and, in my opinion, his mother is nuts. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of that isn’t ingraned in Obama’s psyche.
PCD: Someone who is considering writing in a dead man in the next election should, IMHO, refrain from passing judgment on other people’s mental health.
I think I’ll just use his first and last initals and leave out Hussein — BO
Behind Senator Obama’s facade of charm and grace lurks a frighteningly uninformed man. When Tim Russert asked him if, after he had withdrawn troops from Iraq, an al Qaeda build-up were to occur, he would redeploy US troops to Iraq. Obama responded, “…if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
Has Senator Obama been so busy on the campaign trail that he is unaware that al Qaeda is in Iraq already and is, no doubt, championing Obama’s plan to pull US troops out of Iraq ASAP? Senator Obama’s apparent cluelessness is playing right into al Qaeda’s hands. Perhaps one of Obama’s followers will forward this fact sheet on al Qaeda in Iraq to the busy candidate. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-9.html
Bitter,
Why not write in a Great Dead Man? Democrats vote for dead people and will even write in for their deceased candidates. RR is a better President than either of the candidates running.
[...] It pleases us therefore to note that Dana Pico has come around to the side of general decency on this one. My take: yes, I realize it’s Obama’s real name. But it’s cheap pandering to go around emphasizing it. It makes McCain look bad. And his repudiation was the right thing to do. [...]