What's in a name?

Ok, I'm sure you've all heard by now about the big flap that took place in the past week or so regarding Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein.

Virtually everyone has had something to say about this. After talk radio host Bill Cunningham used Obama's middle name during an introduction for John McCain, the Senator came out and condemned Cunningham, apologized to Obama, and stated that he would not engage in this kind politics, and accused Cunningham of "disparaging remarks."

McCain and a lot of other people seem to feel that saying, "Barack Hussein Obama," amounts to disparaging remarks. I have heard people say that this is the politics of fear, that it is trying to take the focus off of the issues, and that it was a dirty trick or political cheep shot. On the other side, I hear people saying that there is nothing wrong with it, and that Cunningham said nothing wrong at all, which, of course, he didn't.

At the heart of all of this of course, people seem to be missing the point. Don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of Conservatives get this, but so far, I haven't really heard anyone state it clearly, though I'm sure some have and I've just missed it. The most basic fact of the whole thing is this, Hussein is in fact his middle name. It is no kind of insult to refer to someone by their entire name. If his middle name were Henry or something like that, and people were inserting Hussein instead, then I could see where that would be problematic, however, saying his actual middle name, should in no way be offensive to anyone. In fact, I should think that Obama should be offended by those who are saying that it is inappropriate for people to use his middle name. In effect, those who are having such an adverse reaction to the mention of his middle name are saying that the implication that they are accusing middle name users of making are valid! If they weren't afraid that these alleged implications were valid, why would they give it any thought at all?

The fact is that there is nothing at all new about people calling political figures, especially at this level, by their entire name. For example, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, Richard Milhouse Nixon, John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just to name a few. Sometimes we just see initials, such as George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Warren G. Harding. A lot of it depends on how well each option rolls off the tongue, and face it Barack H. Obama hardly has a ring to it.

Now, all that being said, there are a couple more things I want to address. First, I do think that Conservatives should avoid over use of Obama's middle name, not because there is anything wrong with using it, but simply because the other side uses such things as a smoke screen to stop people from getting a clear image of what it is Obama has in store for the Country, should he be elected. I don't think that we should provide cover for him. The fact is that the name alone is meaningless so far as politics go. It is his name, and so, shouldn't matter, but since his specialty is ducking any meaningful talk about anything, why should we give just one more avenue for his people to take in avoidance of the issues?

And as for John McCain not engaging in that kind of politics, what a crock! When he was in the midst of a hard battle in a crowded Republican Field, well, he couldn't get dirty enough. Name calling, tossing around innuendo, or telling flat out lies about his opponents was considered fair game. However, now that his the likely nominee for the GOP, and is looking at being pitted against a Communist, he's turned into Mr. Nice Guy. This is nothing new for John McCain, you can look at some of my older posts, as well as a goodly number of other sources to see just how badly John McCain has treated other Republicans, while always ready to reach across the isle to give the Democrats (who, in the name of honesty and fairness should really call themselves the "New Communists" or some such thing as that) anything and everything they could possibly want. And don't let his "83% Lifetime Rating" from the American Conservative Union fool you, looking at his record since 2000 his rating drops like a rock to an abismal 65%.

Having taken a hard look at Barack (to Hussein or not to Hussein, that is the question) Obama, and seeing his extreme Communist stances [and I'm not trying to be funny, if you don't believe me, look up the Communist Manifesto online and give it a read, then, if you can actually find it, look up where Obama stands, and you will see a shocking parallel] I readily admit that his being elected President would be a worst case scenario for the USA, even marginally worse than Hillary Clinton, who is marginally less Communist than Obama, and, as I've stated before, would want to keep some strength in the USA so that she could have her own personal power to play with, I'm still not so sure that Obama is that savvy. So, I fear, in fact I am already seeing it happen, that those who understood only too well who John McCain is, and what he really stands for, are starting to come out in support of him. I have held back and remained silent, just to see how far this would progress. Frankly, I'm disturbed that any Conservative Republican would so much as consider voting for this man for President. Don't people get it? The lesser of two evils (in this case a very minor difference at best) is still evil. The fact that McCain is considered an alternative to a Democrat is stunning proof of just how radically all segments of American Politics have shifted to the left.

The fact is that the plans that would be, at least attempted to be, put in place by McCain would ultimately lead us down the same path as the more radical plans proposed by Clinton or Obama. Regardless of whether you are hurtling toward the edge of an abyss in a bullet train, or a freight train, the simple fact of the matter is that you will fall off the edge of the abyss. The big difference though is that the bullet train may be somewhat less dangerous in the long run, for the simple fact that the danger is more obvious, and so action is much more likely to be taken while the train (in this case, the Country) can still be saved. It's like the old analogy of the frog, if you put him right into hot water he'll jump right out, but if you put him in tepid water and slowly bring it to a boil, he'll sit right there and die. If Obama (or Clinton for that matter) is elected, we are in the already boiling water, and maybe we'll see our way clear to jump out, but if McCain is elected, we are in the tepid, but slowly heating water, and may well be doomed.

Also, I'm pretty sick of hearing about how McCain is still relatively Conservative, compared to the democrats. Well, for that matter, Hitler killed very few people, relative to Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao, but he still killed millions. By the same token, McCain is still a Liberal.

To get a picture of just how far left these people are, think about Bill Clinton running for President in the 1990's. Now, think of John McCain as Bill Clinton, because McCain today is strikingly similar to William Jefferson Clinton of that era. Now, think of McCain/Clinton running against Karl Marx for President, because that is where Obama is ideologically. All of these are considerably left of center persons. None of these people can be considered options by Conservatives today.

Now, I know that I'm going to be told that this isn't even worth saying, but bear with me. It is my opinion that we need to find a Conservative to run on a third party. Personally I'm interested to see who the Constitution Party candidate is. Now, think about how low voter turnout in the US normally is. Then, think about all the Conservatives who do vote faithfully, year after year, if each of those got behind a good Conservative third party candidate, and could convince even just two other people, who normally wouldn't vote, to get out and vote for that person, we could have an easy majority, especially when you consider that McCain and the Democrat would be splitting the Liberal vote, as both are Liberals. I understand that it's a very long shot, and would take a lot of work, but isn't maintaining our liberties worth it?