I was bored.
BHO?
Send a BHO to the ‘House!
I was bored.
Obama sounds thin-skinned.
Wonder how Dubya feels about this.
|
ONLY,,,and the operative word here is ONLY,,,if it is so deemed by the liberal elite and the MSM.
After all, democrats and the MSM had no problem at all calling Pres Bush, Goerge Herbert Walker Bush--when the purpose of using his middle names (both of them) was to paint and portray him as an out-of-touch, snooty, rich, elitist Republican who could care less about the average person. That was just fine.
The same with Dan Quayle. Although they knew it irritated him,,,,he was repeated referred to as "James Danforth Quayle" by democrats and the MSM for the same reason above.
Using a middle name is perfectly acceptable if used to stereotype, degrade or demean Republicans.
THOSE ARE THE RULES--and the sooner we accept them, the better. /s
Until November 2007, he was about as unknown as James Earl Carter, Jr., was in November 1975.
Better for Obama to be named Hussein than Gaylord.
William Jefferson Clinton liked his name. Come to think of it, do they have to say their full legal name when taking the oath of office?
there’s another photo of him in Kenyan garb, totally different.
It’s the Islamic connotation they want to get glossed over -—
http://gopublius.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ObamainAfrica.jpg
scroll down for Kenyan garb photo
It became taboo when McCrazy said it was. I don’t recall Obama himself ever saying anything about it.
I agree:
I refer to a previous article published on FR where several politicians and campaign staffers for McCain apologized about this issue.
In the previous article they reported they “are so sorry.”
Yep, they are sorry...such a sorry bunch of weenies. When I hear Barack Hussein Obama's parents apologize for giving him his name it will be the only time I feel someone has a reason to apologize. He knows what his full name is and always has been. He knew this could/would be an issue eventually. He cannot be so dumb to think it would never have come up or be used, since it IS his full name. Does anyone really think that the people in his campaign did not discuss this from the very start, and decided that if it became some type of issue, they would make use of it and put a spin on it, call it Politically Uncorrect, to try and achieve a positive reaction from liberals on the basis of some PC belief?
Barack Hussein Obama went into the campaign knowing all the possible negativity that he might face about his race, his religious affiliations, his admitted former drug use, his record for being the #1 liberal in Washington, even, perhaps, his middle name. He knew it all. He decided to run. If he is half the man he pretends to be he will not use this reference other’s have made to his middle name as an "excuse" to complain and cry "foul," or let others do so on his behalf. For him to jump on the wagon and act like this is some huge issue that is unfair to him negates his claim that he will be the one to unite the country. BHO better treat this as a moot issue, and not go on some sort of crusade against his full name being used as it has been for every other president and most political office holders.
.It is silly for anyone to think that he had not anticipated this happening, and that this result is not exactly what he wanted to happen, so he could gain sympathy, just like the mysteriously released photo, which I agree probably came from his own staffers. Just like he openly admitted to drug use, Obama has always put things out there, and then just acted as though anyone’s criticism of them is not acceptable. He is trying to divide by garnishing support from those who feel oppressed in this country for something, and it is a covert tactic and that is all.
The probability of his middle name being used to draw attention to his religious background/heritage and probably causing some negative reaction (in anyone’s mind) was an ace-in-the-hole that he counted on occurring. The people who have apologized and the media have again proven they are stupid enough to fall into this well thought out, anticipated situation, and BHOjust waited for someone to make it work for him. These “sorry” people are making apologies where none are needed thereby causing the exact reaction and publicity that BHO figured would result, and that he could bank on to give him support from the voters he wants to identify with.
That said, it is certainly discomforting to consider his affiliations – religious, financial, political, etc. as it would be for any candidate (no matter what they are named) with his background who continually boasts he wants to unify this country and Congress when his voting record has shown he has done nothing in office except be continually opposed to any bi-partisan decisions – and who, by his very release of information, photos or use of his full, legal name, expects those things not to be questioned in any manner in fear of BHO claiming those questions and concerns are “unfair” and/or prejudicial.
...as a matter of fact, he should step up to the plate and celebrate the unique qualities that enable him to stand apart from the rest of the presidential contenders!
Thanks, whoever you are, for the .gif file!
Cunningham is still a moron. This is such a dumb and tacky issue. Why lose sleep over it.
How about we just start calling him “Junior” instead? That, I’m sure, will improve his dignified image...LOL
What's in a middle name?
The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wrote that he's "uncomfortable" with my piece yesterday on Obama and Bill Ayers, a reaction he's entitled to. He's a thoughtful guy, and his argument is worth a read. But I think he basically misunderstands some of the facts in what was, at root, a reported piece that brought a new fact to the table, not an argument about what the relationship should mean.
First, he writes that calling them friends, even casual friends, "overstates" the relationship. Neither he nor I know for sure the answer to this question, because the two men who could answer it most clearly, Ayers and Obama, so far refuse to talk about their relationship. But I didn't call them friends based on some conjecture. "I know they are friends," Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Hyde Park physician who knows both, told me, adding that he thought, but wasn't sure, their relationship was connected to the Woods Fund, a charity on whose boards both sat at a time.
According to this article below, the pair served on the same board for at least three years (Obama was a DIRECTOR for 3 years).
JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website.
According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.
Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
ON THE MORNING OF THE ATTACKS on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, along with a million other readers of the New York Times including many who would never be able to read the paper again, I opened its pages to be confronted by a color photo showing a middle-aged couple holding hands and affecting a defiant look at the camera. The article was headlined in an irony that could not have been more poignant, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives." The couple pictured were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former leaders of the 1960s’ Weather Underground, America’s first terrorist cult. One of their bombing targets, as it happened, was the Pentagon.
"I don’t regret setting bombs," Ayers was quoted in the opening line of the Times profile; "I feel we didn’t do enough." In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in a high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt – her signature uniform – Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast."
Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted:
"Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
Embarrassed today by this memory, but unable to expunge it from the record and unwilling to repudiate her terrorist deeds, Dorhn resorts to the lie direct. "It was a joke," she told the sympathetic Times reporter, Dinitia Smith; she was actually protesting America’s crimes. "We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer." In 1980, I taped interviews with thirty members of the Weather Underground who were present at the Flint War Council, including most of its leadership. Not one of them thought Dohrn was anything but deadly serious. Outrageous nihilism was the Weatherman political style. As soon as her tribute to Manson was completed, Dohrn was followed to the Flint platform by another Weather leader who ranted, "We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America. We will loot and burn and destroy. We are the incubation of your mothers’ nightmares."
It has long been a fashion among media sophisticates to ridicule the late J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI men who sought to protect Americans from the threats posed by people like Ayers and Dohrn in their "days of rage." But Hoover’s description of Bernardine Dohrn as "La Pasionara of the lunatic left" is far more accurate than anything that can be found in the Times profile.
Instead of a critique of this malignant couple and their destructive resume, the Times’ portrait provides a soft-focus promotion for Ayers’ newly published Fugitive Days, a memoir notable for its dishonesty and its celebration of his malevolent exploits. Ayers’ text wallows in familiar Marxist incitements and the homicidal delusions of Sixties radicalism, including a loving reprint of an editorial from the old socialist magazine Alarm! Written by Albert Parsons, one of the Haymarket anarchists, whom the Weathermen idolized:
"Dynamite! Of all the good stuff, that is the stuff! Stuff several pounds of this sublime stuff into an inch pip...plug up both ends, insert a cap with a fuse attached, place this in the immediate vicinity of a lot of rich loafers who live by the sweat of other people’s brows, and light the fuse. A most cheerful and gratifying result will follow. In giving dynamite to the downtrodden millions of the globe, science has done its best work."
In Fugitive Days, Ayers has written – and the Times promoted – a text that the bombers of the World Trade Center could have packed in their flight bags alongside the Koran, as they embarked on their sinister mission.
"Memory is a motherf*cker," Ayers warns his readers, in the illiterate style that made him an icon of the New Left. It is as close as he gets to acknowledging that his account leaves World Trade Center size holes in the story of his criminal past. Among them is its second half, how Weatherman imploded in the year other Americans were celebrating the bicentennial of their nation. It imploded because the devotion of the terrorists to the bibles of the cause – Lenin, Stalin, Mao – eventually led them into a series of brainwashing rituals and purges that decimated their ranks. None of this is remembered in Ayers’ book. Nor is the passage of their closest comrades into the ranks of the May 19th Communist Movement, which murdered three officers – including the first black policeman on the Nyack force, during an infamous robbery of a Brinks armored car in 1981. Caveat emptor. The point of the omissions is to hide from others (and from Ayers himself) the real-world consequences of the anti-American ideologies, which took root in the Sixties and now flourish on college campuses across the country.
Today William Ayers is not merely an author favored by the New York Times, but a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. His Lady Macbeth is not merely a lawyer, but a member of the American Bar Association’s governing elite, as well as the director of Northwestern University’s Children and Family Justice Center. These facts reflect a reality about the culture of facile defamation of America and ready appeasement of her mortal enemies, that confronts us as we struggle to deal with the terrorist attack.
