Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
27
I am so glad I don’t follow this stuff closely. I can’t figure out a thing when it comes to these Republicans.
After [Neil] Cavuto aired a clip of [Ohio conservative radio show host Bill] Cunningham introducing [John] McCain he asked him what was up. Cunningham said initially he “was not too warm” to McCain until last week’s New York Times story when he felt McCain was “under attack.” So, “the McCain campaign in Ohio got a hold of me and asked me if I would “do the honor” of “warming up the crowd — throw some red meat to get them standing and applauding.”
Cavuto wondered who told him to throw some red meat and Cunningham said former senator ‘Mike DeWine,” McCain’s Ohio campaign chair, and Joe Deiters (sp?) a local Republican official. Cunningham is furious because McCain “didn’t know what I said,” but he “apologized anyway. He did to me what the New York Times did to him.” Cunningham said McCain should be attacking “Barack Hussein Obama,” not him.
Naw…
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:42 pm February 27th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Flip, John McCain, WH2008
Comments
12 Responses to “Mike DeWine gave Bill Cunningham instruction that led to rift with McCain?”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
[...] Cunningham says McCain campaign told him to throw out the Red Meat” Writes Like She Talks – “Mike DeWine gave Bill Cunningham instruction that led to right with McCain?” The Carpetbagger Report – “As much as I appreciate McCain’s denunciation of [...]
Party of Hate…your tables ready!
Well – I would never call the GOP that, since I’m so against name-calling.
But I feel that a more appropriate moniker would reflect some factions within the GOP’s anger, fear of change, fear of losing control, lack of trust of the system (which they’ve helped corrupt as we’ve seen time and again in Ohio) and lack of trust of their fellow Americans. What a way to live one’s life.
John McCain is allying himself with the wrong Republican operatives in Ohio. After all, didn’t Mike DeWine lose his last election? Didn’t Joe Deters beat a hasty retreat to Cincinnati from a statewide office after receiving contributions culled from Frank Gruttadauria’s ill-gotten gains (among other things)? If McCain wants to tap into the conservative base, he shouldn’t lean too heavily on DeWine, and if McCain wants to have a spotless image free from the appearance of impropriety, he shouldn’t be heeding the advice of Joe Deters.
He shook up his campaign staff when his candidacy was declared dead. He needs to shake up his Ohio campaign staff to avoid headlines that call attention to rifts between McCain and conservatives, like this Cunningham story has done. (It’s fitting for Cunningham to endorse Hillary Clinton: He’s using the same FAILED tactics that Hillary uses against Obama. He should know that his inflammatory rhetoric will only backfire if he’s been paying any attention at all.)
John McCain needs to know that Ohio Republicans were demoralized in the wake of the Tom Noe and Bob Ney scandals, depressing turnout in 2006. These disaffected voters still aren’t gathered back into the GOP fold. More than a few conservatives in Ohio now consider themselves independent, or have gone searching for a minor political party that might be more to their liking because they don’t have enough trust in some of Ohio’s most prominent GOP figures after those scandals caused headline after headline. John McCain needs to be fully aware of these GOP voter turnout issues in Ohio, because it’s hard to see a pathway to the White House for McCain if he doesn’t win Ohio in November.
Even if we catch Osama Bin Laden and even if we emerge victorious in Iraq with a stable government in place before the November elections, proving to everyone that McCain was right about Iraq, he could still lose Ohio because there are still disaffected voters.
In addition to his views on Iraq, he needs to make ethics a hot topic of his campaigning in Ohio. He needs to identify CONSERVATIVE, SQUEAKY-CLEAN Republicans and talk about cleaning house in Washington. He should identify Ohio GOP candidates in down-ticket races that are squeaky-clean (upholding the highest ethical standards), and make joint campaign appearances with them, sending a message to rank-and-file Ohio Republicans that we can clean house in Washington AND Columbus all at the same time. That’s what I think can help disillusioned voters take a chance on the GOP again and energize them to turnout in 2008.
If he can’t find down-ticket Ohio Republicans that he trusts to campaign on the theme of cleaning house in Washington and Columbus, then he should dispatch some high-profile surrogates to Ohio who have staked their own political reputations on reforming government. He could dispatch Rudy Giuliani to Columbus and Northeast Ohio to give speeches about how he turned around New York City and say that he supports McCain in his bid to turn around Washington. He could dispatch Mitt Romney to Northwest, North Central, and West Central Ohio to give speeches about cleaning up a scandal-infested 2002 Winter Olympics and say that he supports McCain in his bid to clean up scandal-infested Washington. He could dispatch Haley Barbour to East Central and Southeast Ohio to talk about rebuilding in Mississippi after Katrina and liken it unto rebuilding the GOP after Bob Ney’s Abramoff scandal, not just in eastern Ohio, but also in Washington DC as McCain bids to rid Washington of those who fit the Abramoff mold. McCain should bring either Congressman Flake or Congressman Shadegg, bona fide conservatives, with him to Southwest Ohio to talk about stopping Congressional earmarks and stopping curbing unethical activities in Congress and among lobbyists.
One way or another, McCain has to restore voter confidence in the GOP to get the turnout he needs to win this year.
This is absurd. Democrats have leveled some the most vile and hateful attacks on President Bush for years – and it was fine. Jim Webb called George Allen “George Felix Allen Jr” in his campaign – it was fine.
But now that someone dares say something bad about St. Obama – then all hell breaks lose. Its always funny and acceptable when the target is a Republican, right?
Ben – I think you are responding to Dan and/or maybe me too but let me ask you this, totally straightfaced: are you saying that people think that it is slander to call George Allen by his full name? Why is that?
I’m very confused. We know that people have used Obama’s middle name in less than straightforward ways – what are you saying – what is wrong with Felix? Or are you saying that calling Obama B. Hussein or President Hussein is okay?
What suprises me is how little discretion and common sense people are using here. Why isn’t it obvious, that when you speak someone’s name in a way that’s disingenuous, it shouldn’t be done? If you are speaking their name in a way to distinguish them a father or whatever, it’s straightforward.
Why don’t people see that distinction as ok? I feel like I’m missing something here, again lol.
Come on Keeler! You know better. I know you are smarter than this. I believe it was a Jim Webb spokesman Steve Jarding who said that and he was responding in a forceful manner after Allen attacked Webb’s patriotism. The context was in the same manner your mother would call you by your full name: to dress you down. I can hear it now “William Eric Vessels you get your ass in here!”
You knew you were in trouble then, buddy. As was George Allen apparently since he is out of a job in the Senate.
The context in which Obama’s middle name is being used is completely different and you know it. It was what everyone knew was coming and probably will continue as Republicans find some way – any way – to desperately hold on to executive power.
Hussein is used for one reason only. To put in the minds of voters that Barack is somehow related to the guy we spent billions deposing and hanging. To make people think that somehow because of his father’s religion and his being named after the person that gave him life somehow he is an evil raghead camel fucker out to destroy our great nation of red white and blue.
There will be the sycophant mouth breathing creepazoid lemmings who fall for cunningham’s bullshit, let there be no doubt. Don’t you mingle with those types. Don’t do it.
If you can’t see the distinction between the Webb campaign use of George Felix Allen Jr. and Cunningham’s use of Barack Hussein Obama then you aren’t thinking with the active parts of your brain.
Please try harder.
Yeah – what he said. (Thanks, Eric)
I’ll have to disagree respectfully (i.e., there is a disingenuous reason for using the middle names in the circumstances Ben cites).
The purpose of using the middle names for George Allen, George H.W. Bush, and even using a “J. Kenneth Blackwell” rather than just “Ken Blackwell” is to try to tell voters that such candidates come from a privileged, patrician class. So there is an ulterior motive in using the middle names (or full names) in certain instances.
Greg- Respectfully responding:
I worked in the Yale Development Office for three years. The Bush father and son HAVE to be distinguished from one another somehow. And no one but no one is going to convince me that if your middle name is Felix and it gets used, that Felix will make people think “privilege.”
“Felix” makes people think Tony Randall, Jack Lemon and maybe Art Carney if people remember that far back to the original Broadway production of <i>The Odd Couple.</i>
Sorry – I’m not buying it.
When I see someone use a first initial, I automatically assume it may be a woman who is hiding her gender – as in J.K. Rowling.
When used on the campaign trail in those instances, however, it is disingenuous. Big difference between calling someone George Herbert Walker Bush on 60 Minutes, or Meet the Press, than someone using it in a development office.
In ’92, why did Bill Clinton’s campaign (whose full name is much more patrician sounding, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton) go to great lengths to call then President George Bush (remember, at this time, W. was not in any kind of elective office and had run just one campaign, back in ’78), George Herbert Walker Bush? The reason was an easy way to try to re-inforce the notion that President Bush was out of touch with the common person.
Greg, are we having our first disagreement!?
There are so many presidents and politicians who have the same background and name issues re: prestige and wealth that this argument does not work in the realm of politics – the American public is too used to such names and moneyed people being in the flow of elected office. Especially in print.
In fact – how do we know that people don’t say Felix to ridicule George Allen? No offense to whomever was Felix.
We know why Hussein is being emphasized by those who are emphasizing it and they aren’t doing it with any benign reasoning.
Again – I am just flummoxed – why do people who want to claim the moral high ground of being the party of values take this route of taking a person’s name and figuring out how to justify its negative use?