February 27, 2008

The Presidential Candidate Name Game

Filed under: News from Other Sites, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 4:50 pm

The middle-name controversy concerning the presidential candidate I often refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama) has reached a fever pitch.

Goodness, a talk show host used Obama’s actual middle name a few times when he warmed up an audience for the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

The GOP’s presumptive nominee was not pleased with the talk show host, nor was Bill “If This Doesn’t Prove I’m a Lefty Blogger Nothing Does” Sloat at The Bellwether Daily, who likened the offending talk show host to small, disgusting insects that crawl the earth. Classy.

Nix, as would be expected, ratted out hypocrisy and inconsistency, of which there was no shortage.

Captain Ed opined that using Obama’s middle name more than, I don’t know, once every year or so (is Inauguration Day okay, Ed?) is “asinine emphasis.” So, apparently, did Karl Rove.

Now far be it from little old me to defy the conventional “wisdom” of others, including some alleged conservatives, and open myself up to accusations of blatant inconsistency.

So from now until Presidential Election Day 2008, I will engage in equal opportunity overemphasis. The major remaining presidential candidates will often be referred to here as follows:

The names just noted may be subject to further extension if circumstances warrant.

So now everyone can be equally annoyed or humored, regardless of which candidate I happen to be referring to at the time.

7 Comments

  1. Hi Tom –

    I have no problem with saying or writing Barack Hussein Obama. There was more in the “red meat” remarks than the use of “Hussein” that I found rather sorely lacking of class. I suppose some would say that the use of Hussein implies Obama is a Muslim. Really? Did the use of “George” when addressing the revolutionary who led American troops against the British, and then became our first president, imply he was a royalist. After all, the king in England was a fellow named George — George III. Cunningham’s is disgraceful because he is coarse, uncouth, and shallow. He is interested in ratings not Republicanism.

    Comment by Bill Sloat — February 27, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

  2. Bill, you have a funny way of showing that you don’t have a problem with BHO, given that you put it into all 9 of your Cunningham bullets at the end of your post as things Cunningham will cover.

    You didn’t need to go to “guttersnipe” and “cockroach” to make your points.

    Cunningham is, unfortunately, looking more and more correct with each passing day about his characterization of Obama as a Chicago machine politician.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 27, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

  3. “Cunningham is, unfortunately, looking more and more correct with each passing day…”

    One day has passed. What did you learn today?

    Comment by Tony B. — February 27, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

  4. Actually, Obama would probably prefer people waste their time discussing his middle name than revealing his various shaky connections. Between corrupt Chicago pols and leftover 1960’s hippy-terrorists he has problems much worse than his name. McCain can foolishly believe this campaign will be an extension of the collegial relationships in the senate, but that will result in a loss. He can take the high road while they defeat him on the low road. McCain could have easily made this a positive by saying “I don’t care about his middle name - I do care that he has serious ethical issues from his dealings in local Chicago politics - I do care that he is naive in his foreign policy positions - I do care that he . . . . . The introduction was entertaining but not what this campaign will be about. We have serious differences on issues and when the American people are aware of these differences they will elect me over my opponent.”

    Comment by largebill — February 27, 2008 @ 10:28 pm

  5. #3 –
    - Feb. 25 here.
    - Feb. 26 here.
    - Feb. 27 here.

    Dates are when read by me. Observation to Sloat: Valid.

    UPDATE: Feb. 28 here.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 3:41 am

  6. The post you read on Feb. 25 is interesting, but please take a look at this rebuttal from the “left-wing blogger” therein cited.
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5739

    Regarding your Feb. 26-28 reading, I must admit I like a good guilt-by-association smear as much as the next guy, but these appear to be quite thin. I took the liberty of cherry picking some quotes:

    “That means Mr Obama’s name could figure in Mr Rezko’s trial, although he is not accused of any wrongdoing.”

    “Note: Rezko also raised money for George Bush and a few other Republicans.”

    “There is no evidence that in any of his dealings with Rezko that Obama broke any law.”

    “That depends on what the definition of is is.” (Just checking to see if you’re still with me!)

    Comment by Tony B. — February 28, 2008 @ 9:19 am

  7. #6, I saw it.

    The scope of my comment was to answer your question, and nothing more. I have answered your question, and will do no more.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.