And even if he meant something nefarious, which I won’t argue against, he did only say the man’s full name.
Esthier on February 27, 2008 at 10:46 AM

That’s completely irrelevant. Conservatives are assumed to be racist until they provide proof that they are NOT racists.

…And there is one – and only one – way for a conservative to disprove his racism: become a liberal.

Having the middle name Hussein doesn’t make Obama any more a Muslim than having the middle name Jefferson made Clinton a strict constructionist.

Quote of the day!

Riehl World View

Why is McCain losing so badly when it comes to fund raising? Well, he doesn’t at all inspire the Republican base. And I think one reason for that is how he has abused them over the years to bolster his image with the media. Using oth…

Why is McCain losing so badly when it comes to fund raising? Well, he doesn’t at all inspire the Republican base. And I think one reason for that is how he has abused them over the years to bolster his…

That is what is great about HA. Different flavors of ‘true’ conservatives. We are the mutt channel. Sorta like the rest of the party.

Looks more like a site filled with varying shades of right-liberals to me. Most of the “true” conservatives were banned during the whole Vlaams Belang/Charles Johnson episode. HA has been steadily downhill ever since.

Reminds me of John O’Sullivan’s First Law:

All organizations that are not explicitly conservative become left-wing over time.

And even if he meant something nefarious, which I won’t argue against, he did only say the man’s full name. And it is a little ridiculous for Obama supporters to flip out when their candidate’s full name is said by other people.

The Coulter thing I get. She’s not even using his full name.

Now why is that a thorn in the paw of conservatives when a compromise was reached that allowed Bush to get some of his nominations onto the bench? In the past, it has not been common practice in the Senate to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees. The advent of this tactic came from the Bush minority Dems. Obviously, this frosted the Republican majority because the Dems had basically changed the rules. Their feeling was that, if the Dems could change the rules to block nominees, the Republicans could change the rules to remove that option. The republic had survived its entire life without the need to filibuster those nominees. McCain managed to leave that option in the play book.

Now… should a Dem win the POTUS spot, the tables will be turned and the Republicans will have the option of filibustering Dem nominees. Will they do it? Would it be hypocritical, or just turn-about as fair play? The problem is that refusing to let the president fill those circuit court slots does damage, and while the Dems figured the damage was worth keeping conservative judges off the bench, the Republicans may not reach the same conclusion. They may, instead, return to the politics of old where a president’s nominations were vetted for qualifications and then voted upon if they were qualified.

In other words, he had no freaking idea what was said, just that it was something bad. He couldn’t get to a microphone fast enough to apologize to Obama AND Clinton (what’s her middle name, anyhow?)

So how did this come to be a debate about Obama’s middle name? Oh, yeah…because that’s the way the media is framing it. If “Hussein” is a cheap shot, the media is scoring cheap points by focusing on it.

Hey, let’s fall for it, shall we?

Of course, we are talking about someone who is not a Muslim, so… what’s your point?

Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. It’s the Law, it’s the Sharia.

This is the sort of comment that is the most embarrassing, because it is quite obviously full of logical FAIL. To believe this, one must believe that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salmon Rushdie are Muslims, and one must also have an absolute lack of logical thinking skills.

Hehe. I like that: “Of course Sharia law allows people to be be born Muslim and then switch religions freely. They’ll just try to kill you for doing it.”

Seriously though, this raises a very valid point. Many people in America do not comprehend – literally – the first thing about Islam. All they get is what’s on TV: Islam is essentially the same as Christianity, except that girls wear scarves.

And treating any mention of the subject as a dirty (and even somehow vaguely racist) secret isn’t helping these people learn one tiny little bit. Hitting folks like this the head 3 times with the same subject isn’t overdoing anything – Hell, they won’t even blink until you get to a hundred. After ten thousand repetitions MAYBE they’ll start to pay attention – but even then you can never count on it.

Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. It’s the Law, it’s the Sharia.

This is the sort of comment that is the most embarrassing, because it is quite obviously full of logical FAIL. To believe this, one must believe that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salmon Rushdie are Muslims, and one must also have an absolute lack of logical thinking skills. The fallacy of the statement is sufficiently obvious that it needs no explanation, and someone like you, Indy Conservative, is incapable of understanding exactly what makes it so stupid if you don’t already realize the gaping logical flaw.

eanax on February 26, 2008 at 10:27 PM

A better analogy would be to contrast Middle name to Religious faith #1 vs. Middle name to Religious faith #2.

Okay… in the world of “logic” this is called a “disproof by example”. Actually, this is more like “pwnage by example”, but whatever.

Robert Hussein, Christian convert marked for death.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Muslim-sounding” name, undisputed and outspoken athiest.
My neighbor Isaac, Jewish name, Christian.
Dan Barker, Christian name, atheist.
Michael Newdow, Christian name, atheist.
James Randi, Christian name, atheist.
David Suzuki, Judeo-Christian name, atheist.
Jonathan Edwards, Christian name, atheist.
Isaac Asimov, Judeo-Christian name, atheist.
Dave Barry, Judeo-Christian name, atheist.
Sam Harris, Judeo-Christian name, atheist.
Christopher Hitchens, popular Christian roots, atheist.
Michel Houellebecq, Christian name, atheist.
Joseph McCabe, Judeo-Christian name, atheist
David Mills, Judeo-Christian name, atheist.
Mark Twain, Christian name, atheist.
atheist.
Noel Gallagher, Christian name, atheist.

And on and on… the athiests were just the ones I felt like typing from the wikipedia page on notable athiests.

It should also be noted that the name “Hussein” is not inherently Islamic in the first place, which makes this whole, ahem, “conversation” even more obnoxious.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=5986

Really, you want to be a part of that?

McCain passed his test. And as Allahpundit suggests, his campaign should probably try harder to avoid these tests in the future.

Cap’n Ed

Ditto. I don’t know who this toupeed douchebag Cunningham is, but he just lost the luxury of anonymity outside of the meaningless town of Cincinnata. Now we have a name, and an image — a fool in a bad suit, and a worse toupe.

Good to have you here, Ed; you seem a perfectly appropriate replacement for the cerebral and steady BPresto. Also nice to have someone do the Sister Souljah dance with McCain — Allah is ever ready with criticism of the extremists on the right, but it just doesn’t have the same meaning, knowing that his endorsement of Obama is just a matter of time.

We can better than that.”
apparently not

We can better than that.

For example, if a political party selected a Presidential nominee during WW2; if he had previously been a Fascist, but then claimed to renounce it, and if he advocated an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all overseas forces; then how, exactly, it be “assinine” to point out that the name of the man that political party picked – from among a hundred million eligible candidates – just happened to be B. Hitler Shmussolini?””
Since none of this means ANYTHING, who cares if he is Muslim (which he is not), we are playing RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS! Geez don’t you people see that this kind of crap just reinforces the image that the media protrays us as.

McCain is once again the nice guy to liberals and nasty to conservatives. He did not even know what the comments was about and as usual “the holy art thou” wants to be maverick and repudiate a talk show host known for his satire. Good Luck.
mariloubaker on February 26, 2008 at 10:44 PM

It looks like McCain was already scraping the bottom of the barrel for conservative crowd-rilers BEFORE he knifed this guy in the back.

So who’s going offer to do it next time, Olympia Snowe?

McCain’s repudiation of this tactic gives him the credibility to claim that debating Obama’s record won’t be a stealth attack on his heritage.

That don’t really matter to the press now does it?

Any attack of any kind on Obama will result in articles bemoaning the shoddy treatment of Obama because he is black.

Maybe Mav and Lindsey saw the tidal wave coming during the 06′ elections and acted accordingly. Again, the old bastard didn’t just fall of the turnip truck.

Chosen One, the fact you are not aware of the gang of 14 demonstrates your relatively recent arrival in politics. There was nothing noble about Mccain’s actions. Democrats were refusing to approve pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Republican leadership (back when there was such a thing) pulled the trigger and said they would vote for cloture until they had the number (simple majority) to seat the nominees. Mccain and the other RINO traitors made a deal with the libs to not vote on cloture. The group met with Bush to discuss Alito but did not come to a conclusion on whether to allow a yes/no vote. Political pressure on the group brought about a yes/no vote on Alito Ask yourself this: With Republicans in the minority, do you think that Democrats would do the same thing?

jeffNWV on February 26, 2008 at 10:17 PM

We still have our SCOTUS judges w/out using the “nuclear option”.

This isn’t a bad thing now that WE ARE IN THE MINORITY [and will be for some time it seems].