A Peach Pundit Proclamation on Presidential Personalities

As we all know, our society is positively permeated full of people who are overly sensitive and possibly too politically correct. This year, that political correctness has extended into the presidential campaign resulting in the term “bigot” being hurled at anyone who has the audacity to refer to a particular presidential candidate by his full and legal name. That is why, from this point forward, I believe that in order to prevent Peach Pundistas from being tagged as “bigots” by those overly sensitive individuals, we should all use the full and legal names of the remaining candidates for President of the United States of America.

For those of you who are not familiar with the candidates’ full and legal names, here they are in alphabetical order:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton;
Johnny Reid Edwards;
Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III;
Michael Dale Huckabee;
John Sidney McCain III;
Barack Hussein Obama; and
Willard Mitt Romney

That is all.

63 comments

  1. Rogue109 says:

    As we all know, our society is positively permeated full of people who are overly sensitive and have trouble making topical postings on blogs. This year, that problem has been made even worse by two posters on the blog, Peach Pundit. That is why, from this point forward, I believe that in order to prevent Peach Pundistas from becoming dumber by reading such pointless posts, we should all use the full and legal names of those individuals who rarely (if ever) are able to make a topical or even interesting posting on Peach Pundit and suggest that they limit their postings to, frankly, more interesting topics.

    For those of you who are not familiar with them, here they are in alphabetical order:

    SpaceyG
    Andre Walker

    That is all.

  2. rugby fan says:

    If Huckabee’s middle name is “Dale” he should be going by that to beef up his southern credentials, rather than saying he eats fried squirrel.

  3. Loren says:

    Y’know, nothing testifies to Edwards’ blue-collar roots better than the fact that his legal first name is “Johnny.”

  4. Tea Party says:

    Loren LOL

    Hi, I’m Dale and I eat squa-earl,
    Go, Johnny, go,

    Take me now, please Lord, I am ready…

  5. Paul Shuford says:

    Why, pray tell, was Ron Paul excluded and Rudy Giuliani included, as Paul has done far better than Giuliani in the primaries?

  6. StevePerkins says:

    I take it that Andre is a Hillary or Edwards guy? Could there be ANY possible point to this post other than spreading the word that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein”? Even that purpose is pretty stupid, since:

    (1) Most Democrats already know that.

    (2) Most Democrats who didn’t know that wouldn’t care, since they never particularly demonized Saddam Hussein in the first place.

    (3) How many Democrats even READ Peach Pundit? Three or four? Granted, that’s probably about half the GA state party these days, but it’s still a low number.

  7. Jace Walden says:

    I agree that calling Barack by his full name doesn’t necessarily make you a bigot, but for the most part, the type of folks who keep throwing it out there are bigots.

  8. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Why the uproar over Obama’s middle name? Afterall, no one seemed to mind that King Hussein’s (of Jordan) last name was/is…..well….Hussein…..sigh

  9. SouthFultonGuy says:

    StevePerkins,

    You hit the nail squarely on the head. Andre is a devout Hillite. He likely bust a gut over the “robo” calling out of John Lewis for supporting her:

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/01/23/robocalls0123.html

    Andre was ashamed to post this foolishness on his own BLOG likely because folks over there are sick of his tiresome campaigning for her Highness.

    Y’all go visit him over there as he BLOGs himself into irrelevance with the latest post about a small town official endorsing Hillary Rodham…

    http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com

    ——————————————————-
    To the Andreites spare me your knee jerk requisite name calling replies for my making fun of His Royal Highness. LOL

  10. Andre Walker says:

    South Fulton Guy,

    You just reminded me of something that I’ve been meaning to do for a while now.

    I want to express my sincerest thanks for your frequent patronage to my site.

    Do you know why?

    Well, because of you, and the (on average) 408 people that visit my site on a daily basis, the ad revenue on my site has increased dramatically. You know, when I first launched my site in 2005, it took me 2 years to reach the $100 plateau in Google ad-based revenue. Now I’m getting $100 checks every other month, so South Fulton Guy, I wanted to personally thank you for helping to put money in my pocket.

  11. Andre Walker says:

    DecaturGuy,

    I was waiting for you to chime in, and you should know that I wrote this blog entry for you because when it comes to me, you just can’t help yourself no matter how many times you swear never to read what I write ever again.

    But since you just hurled the word “bigot” out there, I thought that we should examine what the word means.

    Today, I’m going to provide you with two definitions of the word “bigot”. Here’s definition number one:

    “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” [Source: “bigot.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 23 Jan. 2008. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot]

    And here’s definition number two:

    “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. “ [Source: “bigot.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Jan. 2008. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot.]

    So, DecaturGuy, I have a question for you. Which one of those two definitions of the word “bigot” accurately describes me.

    Am I “utterly intolerant any differing creed, belief, or opinion”?

    If that were the case, then I would utterly intolerant of Republicans and Libertarians because they are of a differing political party than that of which I belong to; and hold a differing opinion on the way government should function than I do.

    If that were the case, then I would be utterly intolerant of Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, and Agnostics because they hold a different system of religious beliefs; a different creed than I do.

    Let’s examine the second definition, shall we?

    A bigot is someone who “is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    What is it about that definition of the word “bigot” accurately describes me?

    Am I intolerant of those who differ with my religion?

    I don’t think I’ve done anything that demonstrates that I am.

    Am I intolerant of those who are of a different race than me?

    I don’t think I’ve done anything that demonstrates that I am.

    Am I intolerant of those who have a different brand of politics than I do?

    I don’t think so. The fact is that I’ve reached out to Republicans, Libertarians, and members of the Green Party (all three have links on my web site) despite the fact that I’m a Democrat.

    So tell me something, DecaturGuy, what exactly about me fits either one of the definitions of the word “bigot”?

    I submit to you that neither one does.

  12. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Geez, Erick – doesn’t this post make you want to reconsider some people’s front page rights?

  13. Decaturguy says:

    That is just too stupid Andre to warrant a response. I don’t need to consult the dictionary to know that repeating Obama’s middle name repeatedly has no particular purpose but bigotry. Case closed. You are a stupid, stupid, stupid person.

  14. Andre Walker says:

    DecaturGuy,

    Considering your improper use of the words “bigot” and “bigotry”, I can certainly understand your reluctance to answer any of the nine questions that I have posed to you.

    And while I still don’t claim to make any sense out of your constant personal attacks against me, I’ve come to accept them as part of your usual debate repertoire.

    Maybe you can answer this question for me.

    Using the two definitions of the word “bigot” that I’ve provided, can you explain to me how using Barack Hussein Obama’s full and legal name qualifies me as being a “bigot” and constitutes an act of “bigotry”?

    I also have a follow-up question for you.

    If using Barack Hussein Obama’s full and legal name qualifies an individual as a “bigot”, using the two definitions posted above; and if using Barack Hussein Obama’s full and legal name constitutes an act of “bigotry”, then would the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, John Roberts, be considered a “bigot” practicing acts of “bigotry” when he stands on the steps of the United States Capitol and says to Sen. Obama, “Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…” on January 20, 2009.

  15. SouthFultonGuy says:

    Even if we agree bigot is a strong characterization, at the very least using the middle name is akin to race baiting Andre plain and simple.

    It’s got a slight spin on it because you tie Obama to Muslims for his given name that he did not select, nor should he have to renounce it particularly because is is a practicing Christian.

    This is likely straight out of the Clintonista playbook, playing to our legitimate concerns about Islamo Facism, but in this case Obama is neither a Muslim nor an Islamic fascist.

    And yes you pro-Clinton Black Democrats have demonstrated that there is black on black race baiting.

    You and the Clintonistas will do and say whatever is necessary to get Bill Clinton a third term.

    Like Barack H****** Obama said to Hillary in the debate, he doesn’t know who he is running against her or Bill (AKA Slick Willie)….

    That Clinton Kool-aide is pretty strong stuff…..

  16. sndeak says:

    I noticed you didn’t put this on DKOS or MyDD with your other ‘diaries’.

    Nice way to ‘slip’ in a hit against Obama. What are you gonna do if Obama wins? How are you gonna slither back into the party tent after this kinda trash?

    You are by far the most self-loathing Democrat I have ever seen. Do it man, please..just switch parties and get it over with.

  17. sndeak says:

    You mean the one that I haven’t posted on since last year with the big ass Obama for President image on it?

    Been kinda busy with other stuff and haven’t kept the site up for almost a year. Oh and the three white dudes are the last the Democratic presidents.

  18. Andre Walker says:

    SouthFultonGuy,

    I’m glad you used the term “race baiting” because I believe that gives us all an opportunity to examine what exactly is meant by that.

    The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “race-baiting” as “the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group” [Source: “race-baiting.” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/race-baiting.].

    Using the Merriam-Webster definition of the term “race-baiting”, South Fulton Guy, can you tell me how the use of Barack Hussein Obama’s full and legal name qualifies as “the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group?”

  19. Jace Walden says:

    Andre,

    When it becomes necessary to whip out a dictionary more than once when trying to justify something you have said or done, it is usually a sign that you are guilty of whatever it is you’re being accused of.

    You are race-bating. And you’re giving the impression of bigotry. I don’t need a dictionary to tell me that 80% of the time, folks who go around referring to Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama” are simply trying to play on that animosity that many Americans have toward Muslims.

    Technically, there’s nothing wrong with referring to someone by his/her full name, but you’re not even being consistent.

    You didn’t refer to John Roberts by his full name. And save this thread, you’ve never consistently called any other politician by his/her full name. It’s pretty clear what you were trying to do, Andre. I’m not saying you are a bigot, but to suggest that you’re not trying to stir up the passions of those who are bigots is at best a bold-faced lie.

  20. Andre Walker says:

    Jace,

    I can’t control what people think, and it is not my fault that people may assume the worst about someone based on what their full and legal name is.

    It is not my fault that, as you say, “many Americans [have animosity] toward Muslims.” I did not put that animosity; those feelings of ill-will into their hearts.

    You say that I am race-baiting and you say that I am “giving the impression of bigotry.” Well, my response remains the same.

    Can you tell me how using an individual’s full and legal name gives the “impression of bigotry”?

    Can you tell me how using an individual’s full and legal name demonstrates that one is “stubborn and completely intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own?”

    Can you tell me how using an individual’s full and legal name constitutes “the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group?”

    I have not called Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim. I have not called Barack Hussein Obama a, as SouthFultonGuy would say, “Islamic fascist.” And to suggest otherwise, to me, reflects a willingness by some to attempt to decipher some other meaning of my words. To suggest otherwise, quite frankly, reflects an attempt to put words into my mouth.

    By the way, Chief Justice John Roberts’ full and legal name is John Glover Roberts, Jr. I didn’t know that in order to be “consistent” in my position that using one’s full and legal name does not amount to bigotry and/or race-baiting, I had to constantly refer to everyone by their full and legal names.

  21. Jace Walden says:

    Andre,

    I don’t know anyone who is buying your bullshit here. Keep doing what you’re doing. Ride that dictionary as long as you can. From here on out though, anytime on this blog or any other that you don’t refer to any presidential candidate by his/her first name, I’m going to come on here an call you a “bigot.”

    And to suggest otherwise, to me, reflects a willingness by some to attempt to decipher some other meaning of my words.

    I sure hope to God that someone can find some meaning in your words, because I sure as hell can’t. I guess I’ll take your advice and just assume that you made the most irrelvant post in Peach Pundit history out of sheer boredom and in no way was it intended to deliberately draw attention to the islamic-sounding middle name of the opponent of your particular candidate of choice.

    Or I could just call “bullsh*t”. Yeah, calling “bullsh*t” is a lot easier than believing it.

    At least when I call Mike Huckabee a stupid, mouth-breathing hick, I don’t make up an irrelevant post involving all the other candidates so I can back out when someone calls me on it.

  22. Jace Walden says:

    Assuming that the comments won’t be released in a timely manner, suffice it to say, Andre that I just called “bullsh*t” on your whole argument. Because it’s a lot easier to call “bullsh*t” than it is to sit here and be fed “bullsh*t.”

  23. Decaturguy says:

    Andre,

    Based on just about everyone’s opinon here, except yourself, your use of Barack Obama’s full legal name was an attempt to smear him and, at least in my book, that makes you a bigot.

    Oh, and just because you own a dictionary and are able to cite it, doesn’t make you smart. How is that college degree coming?

  24. Andre Walker says:

    Well, DecaturGuy, let me conclude this thread by saying that everyone seems to have an opinion on what the intent of this blog post was. However, as the principal author of this blog entry, I reserve the right to say that their opinion is wrong.

    It was my intent, with this posting, to highlight the full and legal names of every candidate runnin g for President of the United States of America. I got the idea for this particular posting from the January 19, 2008 Political Insider article “They Do Solemnly Swear”.

    It is unfortunate that you, SouthFultonGuy, and Jace Walden all chose to interpret this post as meaning something other than I, the author, intended it to mean.

    And DecaturGuy, I am continually disappointed by your lack of decorum in discussion and debate.

  25. SouthFultonGuy says:

    Andre,

    The first comment on this post by Adrian Doyle still stands true: “This might be the most irrelevant post I have ever seen in my life.”

    For the record in addition to Jace, DecaturGuy and I, you nearly left GriftDrift speechless with his very telling response of “Wow”.

    The truth is you were busted with a clearly partisan post and are just to stubborn to admit it.

    This nonsense of as author I posteth thus I meaneth and cannot be questioneth henceforth is comical.

    Though it is too late to get the toothpaste back in the tube on this exercise in futility, it’s time to turn the page dude and demonstrate you are still worthy of front page posting rights on this BLOG.

  26. Andre Walker says:

    Well, see, there you go again interpreting the meaning of someone’s comments without actually asking the person who made the comments what they meant by their comments.

    GriftDrift just typed the word “Wow”.

    “Wow” could mean anything, and I just find it interesting that you have the clairvoyance to see through the computer and into the mind of any person that comments on this site with the ability to discern, without a shadow of a doubt, what the intent of their comments were and the meaning of their words were.

  27. Loren says:

    I got the idea for this particular posting from the January 19, 2008 Political Insider article “They Do Solemnly Swear”.

    It is unfortunate that you, SouthFultonGuy, and Jace Walden all chose to interpret this post as meaning something other than I, the author, intended it to mean.

    Then what was the point of the opening paragraph about political correctness and the “bigot” label? It certainly didn’t come from the Political Insider, so unless it helped inspire this post in some other way, it’s just three sentences of non sequiturs.

    But on a more general note, why refer to candidates by anything other than their own preferred names? I find “Willard” hilarious, but it’s kinda disrespectful to call him that when he prefers to go by Mitt. The same goes for “Johnny.” Or “Ronald.”

    We’ve only had one President ever who is consistently referred to by his full three names: John Quincy Adams. It seems rather arbitrary to suddenly start referring to all candidates by their full names now, when there’s no precedent or new reason for it.

  28. Decaturguy says:

    From a post on Andre’s blog on 1/13/08, which by the way was several days before 1/19/08:

    I received this question from the tip line late last week:

    “When is Barack Obama is going to start offering up some proposals to solve America’s growing problems instead of giving inspiring speeches?”

    My answer to that question is I don’t know.

    As I’ve said before, Barack Hussein Obama is trying to go from the Illinois State Senate to the United States Senate to the White House in the span of four years. Quite frankly, Barack Hussein Obama has only been on the national stage for, more or less, four years. Just think about it…

    http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/01/answering-another-question-from-reader.html

Comments are closed.