This is going to be a problem going forward for the Republican. Whether the candidate is Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton, the natural instinct of the Republican party is to engage in knuckle-dragging attacks. What the McCain campaign understands that the base does not is that this kind of stuff is on the outs in America. The GOP has already had losses with candidates attacking Hispanics under the guise of illegal immigration – it contributed to the loss of Dennis Hastert’s seat to a Democrat. The base wants blood, but the smarts in the party see danger there.
This memo from McCain’s campaign chief is begging and pleading with the Republican party and conservatives to restrain themselves. It asks them not to be the wackjobs we on the left must continually deal with. Its not going to work. The Republican party has used these feelings to have electoral success, its a formula that works time and time again. But America has changed, and they – as usual – haven’t.
This is great news. I’m praying someone pushes Steve King’s buttons for another great sound bite.
Oh, and while you’re at it, see if you can get the ocean to stop being so wet.
Oliver, it’s interesting that the specific issue mentioned in the post is the gratuitous use of Obama’s middle name. How do you think this relates to your insistence a while back of using Michelle Malkin’s maiden name, Magalong, instead of the legal name that she herself uses?
I used that because she specifically attacked Tereza Heinz Kerry for it. I said that, about 8 million times, but people chose not to listen.
“How do you think this relates to your insistence a while back of using Michelle Malkin’s maiden name, Magalong, instead of the legal name that she herself uses?”
What’s wrong with Magalong as a middle name? Seriously, why is it wrong to use that name?
When people use Obama’s middle name, they are clearly trying to associate him with Saddam and other enemies. (Just like the Secret Muslim attacks.)
If you can’t figure that out, you are hopelessly naive.
That’s very interesting, C.S. You’ve used the same excuse the “Barack Hussein Obama” people use: “That’s her name! What’s wrong with using her name?”
Well, you tell me. She doesn’t use that name any more. She goes by Michelle Malkin. But Oliver calls her “Malagang” Why?
To be fair, a quick read through the archives does show some nutjob posters who explicitly linked her name change to her supposed “shame” about her ethnicity, but Oliver did NOT make this explicit link, as far as I know (thanks, Hillary.) But his explanation still doesn’t hold a whole lot of water, in my opinion.
“That’s very interesting, C.S. You’ve used the same excuse the ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ people use: ‘That’s her name! What’s wrong with using her name?’”
Well, fuck me! I guess you are dumber than I thought.
Read my post again. People using the name “Hussein” are trying to link Obama to Saddam. Anyone who tells you differently are lying or fucking stupid.
Do you understand? Is it even possible for you to understand?
C.S.
Thank you for your artful response. I know exactly why people use Obama’s middle name. And those people, when called on it, will say, “But that’s his name. What’s wrong with calling him by his name?” Just as you have done with Malkin.
Now, can you tell me why Oliver used Malkin’s maiden name?
It’s 3:30 am where I am, but I do believe I may have to stay up a bit later to see if you still try to bend this back to me not understanding the Hussein thing. Have at it.
[...] This was the point to Keith Olbermann’s comments last night; he wasn’t attacking her, he was begging her to stop, to take her considerable influence and force the tone of this campaign to become one that focuses on the issues and the qualities that makes these candidates ready to be president. But it is highly disturbing that John McCain seems more forceful in setting a reasonable standard fo…. [...]
“Thank you for your artful response.”
Don’t like the way I respond, then trying acting smarter.
“I know exactly why people use Obama’s middle name. And those people, when called on it, will say, ‘But that’s his name. What’s wrong with calling him by his name?’ Just as you have done with Malkin.”
And this is a logical fallacy. It is called the Undistributed Middle, I think.
Calling Obama “Hussein” is an attempt to link him to Saddam. The problem is not using his middle name, it is the attempt to link him to Saddam. Do you understand?
“Now, can you tell me why Oliver used Malkin’s maiden name?”
What the fuck is wrong with “Malagang?” Answer this simple question, or shut the fuck up.
Michelle Malkin obviously doesn’t like it, but why? There is no ulterior motive to calling him Michelle Malagang, other than it pisses her off. It would be like calling John Wayne, “Marion.”
Got it? Probably not, so I will spell it out for you, again.
1.) Obama has no connection to Saddam.
2.) Using “Hussein” is an attempt to create a connection in the minds of the voters.
So far we both agree, correct?
3.) There is no similar connotation with “Malagang.”
4.) Therefore, the situations are not the same and bringing up one when discussing the other is a fallacy.
There… Are we done? Or do I have to dumb it down even further?
C.S.
Since, as far as I know, there is no other American politician who has a middle name of Hussein and is running for President, I must concede that we are unlikely to face a situation exactly like that which we now face with Obama.
But what I did, see, was called “drawing a parallel.” There occasionally exist situations in which people will deliberately call a person by a name other than the name chosen by that person, to make a point of some sort. Mind you, the object of this tactic is not to “make a connection to a recently overthrown and executed mideast dictator named Saddam Hussein.” The object is to make some point–any point–by using a different name that has some significance. In the case of Obama, the significance is that his middle name is the same as a recently overthrown and executed mideast dictator named Saddam Hussein. In the case of Malkin, the significance, according to many posters on this very website, was that her maiden name had an ethnic sound to it that she was, they theorized, trying to hide from her reading public.
Since Oliver made a point of using this name many times, he was accused of doing so in order to…no, not to compare Malkin to a recently overthrown and executed mideast dictator named Saddam Hussein, but to suggest that she was hiding from her ethnic background. See how that parallel works? In both cases, a person’s actual but not commonly used name was used to suggest something unsavory about that person. Since Oliver rightly condemns the use of such a tactic against Obama (as do I,) I was curious about how he now felt about his use of a similar tactic against Malkin. See? There is nothing wrong with Obama’s middle name. There is nothing wrong with Malkin’s maiden name. Yet both were used by detractors to attack these two individuals. And–now this is the important part–only one of these individuals had a name that could be used to suggest a linkage to a recently overthrown and executed mideast dictator named Saddam Hussein. That would be Obama. The other has a name that merely suggests ethnicity. That would be Malkin.
“See how that parallel works?”
I can see it is powerfully retarded… Just like anyone who accepts your argument.
You have found one connection between the two situation and are therefore treating them as the same. They are not the same, therefore they shouldn’t be treated as the same.
I don’t know what else to say to you.
C.S.,
Malkin was accused by posters on this site of trying to hide her ethnic background by not using her maiden name. This accusation was made in a thread that focused on Oliver’s referral to Malkin as “Maglalang,” or sometimes, “Malagang.” I’m curious: do you agree with this accusation regarding Malkin? And why do you think Oliver referred to her as “Malagang.” He referred to her multiple times by a name that she herself does not use. Forget about Obama for a moment, if you can, and just answer the question: why do you suppose Oliver did that?
“Forget about Obama for a moment, if you can, and just answer the question: why do you suppose Oliver did that?”
Do you know how to read? Or do you just not bother to read what I write?
C.S.
I’ve read everything you wrote, and in none of it was there an answer to the question. Why do you suppose Oliver called Malkin by a name other than the one she herself uses? Can you answer that question?
Precision name calling.
How is it that that the aggrieved Malkin apologists have no sense of the nuanced riposte. If you continue to it dish out with the juvenile middle name ploy, what do you think the response will be. Any idiocy used in the defense of perceived righteousness is idiocy non-the-less.
Lantern Bearer
Please be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible.
Scratch: And why do you think Oliver referred to her as “Malagang.” He referred to her multiple times by a name that she herself does not use. Forget about Obama for a moment, if you can, and just answer the question: why do you suppose Oliver did that?
CSS: Do you know how to read? Or do you just not bother to read what I write?
Scratch: I’ve read everything you wrote, and in none of it was there an answer to the question. Why do you suppose Oliver called Malkin by a name other than the one she herself uses? Can you answer that question?
Wow. I find the exchange here very interesting. Over on other threads CSS has jumped all over folks for not answering his questions (the “Why can’t you explain “per 100,000”?” is only a recent example) yet here he chooses not to do exactly that. Resorting instead to his favored response of hurling insults.
I can’t help but wonder if CSS bothers to read and understand what others write.
I found Scratch’s drawing a parallel perfectly reasonable and his explanation of it quite clear. When person A insists on referring to person B by a name that B doesn’t actively use themselves, they are doing it for a reason. It is not (as CSS would claim re: Malkin) just because it is B’s name.
I can’t believe you guys are still talking about this.
“I’ve read everything you wrote, and in none of it was there an answer to the question.”
Really? I’m sure I have.
“There is no ulterior motive to calling him Michelle Malagang, other than it pisses her off.”
There you go, I did answer your question.
It pisses her off.
“Wow. I find the exchange here very interesting. Over on other threads CSS has jumped all over folks for not answering his questions (the “Why can’t you explain “per 100,000”?” is only a recent example) yet here he chooses not to do exactly that. Resorting instead to his favored response of hurling insults.”
Wow. That’s exactly right, except I answer his question previously, unlike Jay. So I guess you are wrong, again. No surprise there.
Lantern Bearer…
Many thanks for working the phrase “nuanced riposte” into this thread! You are either a gentleman or a lady…hard to say which by the name.
By the way, I am not a Malkin apologist…I don’t pay much attention to her, though our politics are probably similar. I have always considered it important to call a person by the name they choose for themselves. Except for P. Diddy, who will always be Puff Daddy to me. I mean, come on. “Diddy?”
C.S…
Interesting that your “answer” was different than the one given by Oliver, to whom the question was actually asked, within minutes of my original post. Thanks for the conversation nonetheless.
“Interesting that your “answer” was different than the one given by Oliver, to whom the question was actually asked, within minutes of my original post. Thanks for the conversation nonetheless.”
Mine was blunter. The accusation against Oliver was that he was doing it for racist reasons.
But the point remains, I answered the question. You and Sean chose to pretend I didn’t. That makes you guys stupid or dishonest. I don’t care which it is.
Enough already! I can’t believe I had the patience to read all the way to the “end” of this one. ‘Night folks, I’ve had all this fun I can stand.