Imagine discovering that Iran’s president was actually named Mahmoud Smuckers Ahmadinejad. Now imagine throwing a party to celebrate. We were wrong about Iran all along; with a middle name like Smuckers, he has to be good. It’s silly, but that seems to be what U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, thinks you would do.

King said Friday that if Barack Obama is elected, members of al-Qaida will be “dancing in the streets because of his middle name . It has a special meaning to them.” Obama’s middle name is Hussein, which means “handsome one,” according to www.names4yourbabies.com.

When criticized for his remarks, King refused to apologize and said to The Des Moines Register, “No one has rebutted my argument, so I have to say I must be right.” In fact, the reason no one has rebutted his “argument” is that it’s so laughable, it defies rebuttal. Even an article on www.worldnetdaily.com, which King proudly posted on his Web site as support for his claims, quickly disavowed the notion that Obama’s middle name makes any difference to terrorists.

Since a serious rebuttal is impossible, maybe we can take a different approach:

If King is re-elected in 2008, the forces working to destroy democracy will be emboldened. The Queen of England, the radical monarchists and their supporters will dance in the streets. They’ll dance in the streets because of his last name, which has a special meaning in that part of the world.

Webster’s dictionary defines “king” as “a male monarch of a major territorial unit, especially one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life.” In other words, an unelected leader!

Now, I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their name, but when you think about the optics of a King getting elected, what does that look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the British world? What does it look like to those who would follow in Henry VIII’s footsteps, outlawing Protestantism and imposing the laws of the Anglican Church on America and the world?

I think this is the right way to address a clown like King: with mockery, not with accusations of racism and fear-mongering (no matter how accurate those accusations might be). If we call his comments “fear-mongering,” King can say he’s taking a stand against terrorism, and voters will miss the fact that he’s taking a stand against terror-friendly middle names. If we call his comments “diarrhea of the mouth,” King will have no rebuttal, and voters will recognize him for what he is.

The Register reported that Democratic state lawmakers spoke out against King’s remarks, but unfortunately, all of their statements took the wrong tone. State Rep. Deborah Barry, D-Waterloo, said King’s statement “does not represent the direction our state is going” and “could incite fear and hate.”

State Sen. Robert Dvorsky said King’s comments were “divisive, vicious and perhaps racist” and said, “I think it would dishonor the Senate if I repeated them on the floor of the Iowa Senate.” In fact, Dvorsky dishonored the Senate by suggesting that King’s words could have any power over it.

Instead of refusing to repeat King’s words, Dvorsky should repeat them as often as possible to as many news outlets as possible, and the Democratic National Committee should hire as many comedy writers as it takes to “rebut” King’s “argument.” Voters deserve to know what their representative is saying and doing, and in this case, voters in Iowa’s 5th District deserve to know that King is making an ass of himself.

– Bill Waite is a graduate student in computer science from Terre Haute, Ind.