Skip to comments.Don't Call Him Hussein or Liberal
Posted on 02/26/2008 3:28:22 PM PST by indcons
Now, for the past two days, I have been lamenting the fact that the Republican Party is officially -- well, not officially yet, but people behind the scenes at the RNC are leaking this without attribution, they're deeply strategerizing how to criticize Obama without running the risk of being accused of racism and bigotry and all of that, which is another reason why I want to extend Hillary's run here so that Obama gets bloodied up because it's apparent that the Republicans aren't going to bloody him up. In fact, yesterday in the opening monologue, I repeated, reprised the question I so often ask of people to take time to consider: How is it that in less than 250 years a population of less than 300 million has come to so dominant the world? Never before in human history has there been an America, not even close, and we're no different than anybody else in terms of DNA and humanity. We're no different. How has this happened? What's the reason? There are substantive reasons. I got an e-mail from a guy responding to this.
Dear Rush: I agree that freedom is first and foremost the reason America is exceptional. But there's another thing which is born of freedom that makes America exceptional. America is the greatest collection of ass-whooping warriors the earth has ever seen, from a ragtag bunch of drunks, old men, and youth, the Continental army defeated the greatest empire in the world, at the time to earn independence. We repelled the nation a second time in 1812. The story goes on over and over the same way until the 1960s and the rule of liberalism. World War I, World War II, you name it, we are a nation of warriors.
He is exactly right. This is from William Gilando, he's a subscriber to Rush 24/7. But he's exactly right. We are a nation of warriors, for good. We liberate the oppressed, we do not conquer. The reason that his e-mail resonated is that our political party, the Republican Party, has no warriors, in the political sense. None. None are willing to fight the premise of liberalism. None are willing to fight the premise behind the liberal Democrat agenda. Well, there are exceptions to this. John Boehner right now is doing something very good in the House. He is trying to humiliate the Democrats into voting for the FISA Intelligence Act that the Senate passed. So there are spurts of it. But of course we never see Republicans on TV attacking liberals the way we are constantly attacked. We don't have warriors. We have some, they're just not in elected office, at least federally. I think there are some effervescence out there, if you will, in the warriors class in the state legislatures, governors mansions, and this sort of thing, but it is an excellent point, and here is an illustration of what I'm talking about.
McCain is in Cincinnati. Mrs. Bill Clintons is reporting that a McCain supporter repeatedly calls Barack Obama Barack Hussein Obama. This supporter -- it was essentially a talk show host but I'm not sure, was on the mic at a McCain rally and kept referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Now, may I ask a simple question? Is that his name? It is. So why can't it be used? Because McCain apologized for this. McCain went out there, after the event was over and virtually apologized and said that kind of disparaging reference to his opponent is not the way he runs his campaign. He said he accepts full responsibility for it because his campaign set up the event but he didn't know that the talk show host was going to be speaking. So it's Barack Hussein Obama. Now, we don't make a big deal out of it here, but other people do, and it happened at a McCain rally. McCain went out there, (doing McCain impression) "I'm sorry. It's uncalled for. It's uncalled for in American politics. I take full responsibility, although he did it. I didn't even know he's going to be here."
Now, what if McCain's middle name was Adolf instead of Sidney? His name is Sydney. What if Obama, what if the Democrats started talking about John Sidney McCain? Is somebody going to say, "We're not going to tolerate that? That's the kind of disparaging reference to my opponent we're not going to put up with." His middle name is Hussein. "Come on, Rush, you know they're trying to use it in a disparaging way." How? Because of Saddam Hussein, because it's an Arabic name, what? It's his name. As I say, we don't make a big deal out of it here, but this just illustrates the fact, we're not even going to do that. In fact, if somebody does call him Hussein, we're going to apologize for it because it's disparaging. So we're going into this defensively. Some of you may think strategically it's wise to stay away from it because it's only going to gin up sympathy for him because the name is obviously highly charged. But, you know, you can't call Barack Obama a liberal. I have a story in the stack here, he doesn't want to be called a liberal -- no, no, you can't call him a liberal. I'm not kidding. I'm going to find it in the stack here somewhere. He does not want to be called a liberal.
It's in the Boston Globe. He bristles at it when people call him a liberal. Well, let me find it. I can do many things at once. Sit tight. Let's see. Is this it? "Just Don't Call Barack Obama Liberal, Okey Doke?" That's the headline. It's by Peter Canellos. "In his radio and TV ads that are blanketing Texas, Barack Obama claims a chief executive can make more money 'in 10 minutes' than an ordinary worker makes in a year. Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, enact a national health plan, offer a $4,000-a-year tuition reimbursement in exchange for national service, and have the government intervene to prevent home foreclosures. But he doesn't want anyone to call him a liberal. For despite Obama's vow to build a working majority for change - to win a clear mandate for his progressive agenda, rather than engage in Clinton-like 'triangulation' - he's not yet willing to own the l-word. ... Now that John McCain has all but secured the GOP nod, he's been trying to cast Obama as a liberal. The National Journal recently obliged by publishing a survey declaring Obama the most liberal senator. The survey itself was highly subjective - based on a limited number of recent votes - but it nonetheless pegged Obama as a liberal.
"On Friday, Obama responded - by denying it. 'Oh, he's liberal, he's liberal,' Obama said, mimicking his critics. 'Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. That is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home. ... There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare. We are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country, but we've got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our healthcare system.' Obama has invented a phrase for actions that smack of politics-as-usual: okey-doke. Of the liberal charge, Obama thundered: 'Don't let them run that "okey doke" on you.'"
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. Republican National Committee, "Okay, we can't call him a liberal because he's going to tear into us, we don't want him tearing into us." Well, I don't know how you're going to characterize his policies if you don't call him a liberal. And, by the way, what's so bad about being a liberal? How come none of these liberals want to be called liberals?
See, Obama's no different than any of the rest of them, folks. No different at all. Nothing new here. The only thing new is the Democrats have now made it official that their guiding principle is "America sucks." But they have to mask who they are, they have to disguise themselves, camouflage themselves, whatever, you call them a liberal, and it's a personal attack. So Obama's now said liberal off limits, can't do it. What will Republicans do? Your guess is as good as mine, but I hope they don't shy away from that. This Hussein business, that could backfire. It's so charged. It's almost one of those things could arouse sympathy for Obama, but regardless, I can't believe that somebody's name is off limits. I just don't believe it.
RUSH: Now, I have a question about this business that we can't use "Barack Hussein Obama," or if somebody in McCain's camp does, McCain is going to apologize for it. They're going to get rid of this disparaging term. If Obama is given a free pass because of his father's heritage -- you know, one generation -- then a question. Are all white Americans going to continue to be held responsible for their alleged racist forbearers, multiple generations removed? Of course! (laughter) Why ask? It's a stupid question. Of course they are. But you could say, "Okay, Obama. You don't want the name Hussein used. We'll give you a pass, if black America gives all of us a pass." Isn't that what the primary reason that a lot of white Americans want Barack Obama is because Barack Obama offers absolution for sins that they aren't even responsible for? It's the whole "Magic Negro" concept, that white people vote for him not knowing what he stands for and don't care what he stands for because it makes them feel like they're getting rid of their racial sins -- discrimination, racism -- they never even committed. So this is classic example, by the way. Somebody called here and asked if Obama is actually elected president, is it going to end racism in America? It's going to get even better. It's going to expand. The race business will become more heated than ever before. You wait, folks. I know what I'm talking about, here.
Will somebody finally ask him if he would tolerate Sharia in the USA?
How about BrHO?
Is that OK?
Ok, how about an abject Marxist with troubling ties to fundamental Islam?
Soooo, everybody from now on refer to him as “the Ultra-Liberal, B.Hussein Obama.”
Just watch. McLame won’t go after him. He’s just a goofball running around with a POW medal saying, vote for me - I went to Viet Nam. Another Bob “Let’s make a deal” Dole. It’s all part of this corrupt/bought & paid for “Two-Party Cartel.
How about calling him what he is.
A very inexperienced, untested, junior Senator, who is even further to the left politically than Hillary.
No matter how hard McPain tries to kiss MSM butt, the MSM will soon trash him and call him a racist.
When the game gets tough and not to their liking, many want to quit and run home to mommy. Whahhh...
Can I call him Ray.....or can I call him Jay....
Believe it, it happened today, I guess that we are just going to let hillary bloody him up a bit. McCain is not going to do it.
I have always found it odd that the only time you hear someone’s middle name is when the news reports that they have been arrested. Or they are being sworn in to public office, like... the presidency.
But his ties and views of Islam are also very troubling to me, particularly at a time when we are fighting a war against the Jihadists.
The far-left/Marxist part is enough to motivate me to oppose him with all I have.
But not RayJay.
Baraq Husayn ibn Mahomet.
There. Come and get me, netcop.