Earlier today, when posting about opinion polls in Afghanistan and Somalia, I was forced to mention the current presidential campaign.
Since I had to bring it up, I decided to have a little fun at the expense of the candidates, particularly the Democrats. I’m not a party-line voter, but — to paraphrase South Park’s Matt Stone — I hate Republicans, but I really f***ing hate Democrats. I’d sooner vote for a rabid tree shrew for national office than pull the lever for a Democrat.
We have a sometime commenter here who goes by the nickname “The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon”, or — to those who knew him in his LGF days — “Nodrog”.
Nodrog is unhappy when I let my loathing of the Democrats show, and he takes me to task for it. In my recent post he mentioned my use of “the Barack HUSSEIN Obama angle, new, but also pathetically trite.”
He also said this:
As for the “madrassa” angle, I would refer you to the source for such internet-based smears. The Muslim school Obama attended for part of the time he was a child was not a Madrassa. According to the free dictionary online, a madrassa is defined as A building or group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque. Websters online dictionary has a more broad definition, a Muslim school, college, or university that is often part of a mosque. So, of course Baron, you will now crow that you are technically correct to say that Barack Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia. But, given the popular understanding of a madrassa as an al qaeda nest, the characterization of Obama’s Indonesian school as such is nothing more than another cheap smear.
Nodrog isn’t the only person on the Left who objects to formulations such as these, and his comment made me wonder what all the fuss might be about. Here's my response to him.
Nodrog —- - - - - - - - -
While it may or may not be “technically correct” to refer to the school that Barack Obama attended in Indonesia as a “madrassa”, mentioning it is not a “cheap smear”. Considering that the young BHO — according to the testimony of his sister — did what all the other children at his school did, that is, he memorized and chanted the Koran in Arabic, it’s not a trivial piece of information. It deserves to be mentioned, since it’s unlikely to get much coverage in the MSM.
I freely acknowledge that referring to the next President of the United States as “Barack Hussein Obama” is a dig, and that I enjoy doing it.
So tell me: what is it about my doing so that bothers you?
I presume it wouldn’t disturb you if I referred to “John Fitzgerald Kennedy”, or “Lyndon Baines Johnson”, or “James Earl Carter Jr.”, or “William Jefferson Clinton”, or “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton”. So what’s wrong with “Barack Hussein Obama”?
There’s nothing wrong with his having a Muslim background, right?
So why be concerned about my referring to it?
Is it because the average American, if allowed to become aware of it, would become suspicious of BHO, and thus less likely to vote for him?
If so, why would the average American, despite all the years of incessant televised propaganda that tries to convince him that Islam is a religion of peace, be suspicious of someone with a Muslim background?
Do you think that somehow, against all odds, the truth has gotten through to Joe Sixpack and Suzie Bighair, and that they realize there’s something fishy about most devotees of the Prophet?
Are you perhaps afraid that the truth will in fact sink your candidate?
If so, let truth reign!