The out-of-power-party always needs to figure out what to do. Defeat means a smaller party, the safe incumbents win, and the more ideologically pure dominate party proceedings.
But proud Republican ideology is not represented by their activity now. Birthers? Deathers — Kill the grannies? Spoiler alert: if you have faith in rational politics, skip the next parts.
“Birthers” is shorthand for people who think that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, and hence is not a natural-born citizen — and, hence, not eligible to be President. So everything being signed by him is illegal. Etc. etc.
To respond to this is goofy — but here I go. Obama’s birth in Hawaii is legally documented, and attested to, repeatedly, by senior state government officials in Hawaii. Birth announcements ran in the Honolulu newspapers on August 5, 1961.
So are the birthplace deniers like 9-11 deniers, Apollo moon landing deniers, Elvis death deniers? Americans have always had a surprisingly large nutty fringe, what the great historian Richard Hofstadter called the paranoid style in American politics. Not a fringe, these “birthers” represent a depressingly large segment of current political opinion. Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs endlessly hype the story, to the point where a recent poll of Republicans found that 28 percent think Obama wasn’t born here, and 30 percent aren’t sure — in other words, almost 60 percent of Republicans in this poll won’t say they believe Obama was born here, and the numbers are even worse in the South. Ten Republican members of the House are sponsoring a “birther” bill and similar bills are being introduced by Republicans in state legislatures.
“Birthers” not crazy enough for you? How about “deathers” — Republican members of Congress and others who say that Obama’s health-care reform has a provision that will lead to euthanasia among the elderly. Yes, deathers exist. Lots of them. Here’s a clip of Virginia Foxx (R-NC), recently famous for denying that Matthew Shepard’s murder was not a hate crime, saying that health-care reform will expose seniors to being “put to death by their government.”
Although these antics are funny to view and anyone can debate them, the fact that such views are a major force in one of our two parties is actually frightening for the contours of democractic debate and decision making. The Republican party, in this form, can’t seriously lead, debate, negotiate, or persuade — but it can block.
Ironically, the biggest losers from Congressional inaction on rising unemployment, effective financial reform, and health care are among the third of Americans who aren’t sure whether Obama is really the president.
39 Responses to Birthers: Party with the Lunatic Edges
ledzep - August 4, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I’m sure there’s much current hysteria and misinformation on this point, as on others, but since health-care rationing of some stripe, direct or indirect, is obviously in the cards at some point, unless the talk about controlling costs is just hot air (as admitted (and defended) by many serious progressives who support reform), and since the mainstream in bioethics has no problem with the idea that there can be a duty to die, there’s nothing crazy at all about concern regarding euthanasia. Granted, that’s not nearly the same as claiming that there is a specific provision already drafted that will allow the government to kill the terminally ill. I haven’t been keeping up on the most hysterical voices lately! But if there’s to be centralized decision-making about coverage of end-of-life care, maybe some “crazy people” are just looking at nations that already have such centralized decision-making bodies (like Britain’s NICE, which just came out with absolutely crazy new restrictions on pain medication for certain kinds of back pain – oh, by the way, this is the same country where there’s a lot of pressure on prosecutors to grant immunity for those helping their relatives fly to Switzerland to kill themselves, with or without terminal disease). Perhaps these crazies are reasoning that yes, in fact, health care rationing has effects on end-of-life care. How could it not? And if all the experts with a seat at Obama’s table have long disavowed anything particularly important about human life as such (a view known to its detractors as “speciesism”), why wouldn’t one think that there could end up being new pressures tending towards euthanasia, even if nominally “voluntary,” if the government deemed it cost-effective to counsel elderly patients away from expensive procedures that would provide little net benefit to society – just a couple years delay before death? There is nothing crazy about the belief that once the government becomes the central provider in some area, it gains new power to shape the lives of its citizens in that area.
lindamcphee - August 5, 2009 at 6:28 am
As an American living in Europe, I have lived with a form of single-payer health insurance for more than 25 years. If I need a doctor, I go to the family physician I chose. If I need the hospital, I go. If I need an ambulance, it appears. My prescription charges form part of the small deductable. We have multiple health insurance companies, and if I don’t loike mine, I can change it (though I’m content the way things are). “pre-existing conditions” are all covered. There is no such thing Neither are there people who are uninsurable — you live here, you have insurance. Cost? About half what I paid in 1984 for Harvard Health, a US HMO plan. NOW, do you see why insurance companies will do everything they can to scare you? Even lie.
I’m thinking of that Bush aide who said ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore”. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” Yes, even when it’s clearly false.
quidditas - August 5, 2009 at 6:42 am
Yeah, I don’t know that end of life healthcare rationing is such a crazy idea, either. As someone with no health insurance for a good part of my adult life, I’ve become a card carrying member of the hemlock society. It’s not so bad. You’re really not as special as the crazy Christians in the Republican base want to pretend.
As far as having the government force people of median incomes buy over priced FIRE industry healthcare in order to socialize bloated end of life care for the spoiled baby boom, well, I’d become a Birther myself if I thought I could preserve my last shred of freedom while I’m still here.
Love those Democrats. Keep that campaign money rolling in.
rburns - August 5, 2009 at 9:31 am
Is The Chronicle of Higher Education going to continue this slide into purely political “journalism”? Just what is the link between this partisan piece and higher education? I share the writer’s view that “to respond to this is goofy–but here I go.” But my reference is to her article. Are members of Congress off base a lot of the time–yes, and it is regardless of party or topic. Do they play to the people whose votes they covet? Ditto. I understand why Ghilarducci wrote the article. My question is why it was published in The Chronicle of HIGHER EDUCATION. Yes, I know. The editorial offices are in D.C. so the virus is everywhere around the paper.
And the writer refers to “rational politics”–at once very far from what should be The Chronicle’s focus and as real as unicorns. If the public had learned somewhere along the way that they could believe what politicians tell them perhaps there wouldn’t be so many conspiracy theories.
But my main point on this is that The Chronicle can only damage its reputation by continuing to print partisan political pieces more than usual. Isn’t it enough that the American public distrusts most of the media. Now you want to yoke up with that other paragon of trustworthiness–politicians?
rsrobins - August 5, 2009 at 9:38 am
If the Chronicle becomes a politcal party advocate, then its utility to everyone, Dems, Inds, and Reps alike will suffer. This is self-indulgent journalism, with only the most distant relation to what the Chronicle is about.
rfonte - August 5, 2009 at 9:54 am
Very non-professional article–shame on the Chronicle. If there was an article about fringe elements in both parties and their negative effect on political dialogue that would have been worthy of publication–but this was just pure partisanship.
crunchycon - August 5, 2009 at 10:00 am
To deduce that a birth announcement constitutes birth in the locale of the announcement is lunacy! My child was born in one state but the birth announcement in the newspaper was placed in a state over 1300 miles away — where my family lived! It was even announced in a country thousands of miles away — where my ex was from. Why won’t Obama produce any of his school records, which would show he was registered as a citizen rather than an international/”foreign” student???? It begs the question… What DOES he have to hide?
crunchycon - August 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
So-called “birthers” are not crazies, not far right-wing nuts… Even Hillary Clinton raised the question during the primaries. There are people in both parties and independents who want his records produced — the REAL birth certificate — not the birth registration that even Hawaii doesn’t accept as proof of citizen ship; it is merely the equivalency of a birth announcement, his school records, his health records, not just a one page summary of recent health issues. ALL other presidents have provided such info — what if Bush 43 had refused to produce his school records? Kerry, who actually had LOWER grades than Bush (yes, it is the truth), didn’t release his school records until after the election — because he had something to hide.
This isn’t going to go away. All Obama has to do is release the records to stop this. It has cost him over a million dollars at last estimate to “defend himself” — so what is he so afraid of releasing? It just doesn’t make sense, and Obama is keeping this alive by refusing to release his records. Release of his record would stop this cold. Think about it. Why would he let this go on and on and cost him so much money? Principle??? Not hardly.
rightwingprofessor - August 5, 2009 at 10:31 am
It’s mostly the left wing that is hyping this birther thing, Michael Moore types going around ambushing congressmen. What about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, more than 1/3 of Democrats think Bush knew ahead of time about 9/11. Absurd!
What I’d like to see is Obama’s college transcripts, I wonder why he absolutely refuses to release them? Gore, Kerry, GWB all had poor grades in college so that alone isn’t a disqualifier.
swish - August 5, 2009 at 10:36 am
1. “quidditas” is not a “card carrying member” of the Hemlock Society, since that organization no longer exists, having split into two groups called “Compassion & Choices” and “Final Exit Network.” (Both advocate for people who wish to end their _own_ lives, not anyone else’s.)
2. This is an editorial piece, a commentary. Perhaps the _Chronicle_ needs to label it and put a disclaimer on it for you folks.
3. We already have rationing of health care to the elderly. Whether that’s a bad thing is another question, but I doubt we’d have any more of it under a government or single-payer plan. What’s worse is the current rationing of care to the uninsured.
4. As for the birthers, I was astonished to run into one yesterday at my workplace. He had a claim so bizarre I wondered if it was true: because Obama’s mom was younger than 19 when she gave birth to Barack _off_ the American mainland (yes, Hawaii), he could never be a natural-born citizen. It’s in the actual Constitution, the fellow said. Yeah, according to what web site? I asked. He said it was in the _Chicago Tribune_. Hmm. I’d always thought he was a sensible guy before, so I actually pulled up Article 2 of the Constitution and examined it. Stared my eyes out at it, and followed all kinds of links, trying to figure out how it could possibly be interpreted that way. Finally decided that it just plain couldn’t. Crazy.
jms948 - August 5, 2009 at 10:43 am
Ghilarducci Dear, you should be smart enough to realize that if you want something to “go away,” the worst thing that you can do is to talk/write about it.
Pay attention to what today’s mainstream media DOES NOT report and govern your own actions accordingly. You don’t hear anyone in Obama’s administration speaking to this issue, do you? Do you hear Robert Gibbs or Rahm Emmanuel talking about Obama’s school records, or his expunged criminal history, or the orgin of the passports which he has used? Of course not.
Come on, I know that you are capable of doing better. Maybe you should dig up your old Saul Alinsky writings. You know, kind of like a refresher course. Good luck…jms
luigi - August 5, 2009 at 10:45 am
Birthers assume that if Obama cannot be President, the job goes to John McCain. I would assume that it would go to Vice President Biden. Maybe they should consider backing off.
irvi7996 - August 5, 2009 at 11:10 am
I agree with rburns, rsrobins, and rfonte. Why would the Chronicle publish this article, which is clearly a political rant and has nothing to do with higher education? It undermines the Chronicle’s journalistic integrity and suggests that the newspaper as a whole is slanted to the Left. If you want to read non-partisan commentary on higher ed news, visit http://www.NAS.org.
jimlyttle - August 5, 2009 at 11:23 am
The (tenuous) relevance of the artice to education is this: We can hold any position we want but, when we refuse to accept evidence, professors have something to say. It is none of their business what we believe, until we ignore evidence that is right in front of us. At that point, we are making a mistake and educators have a duty to draw out evidence-based thinking. Whether it is the holocaust, 9/11, the lone gunman, or gravity; they must speak up. They have a responsibilty to advocate thought that is based on evidence, and will be revised in the face of contradictory evidence. The article did not stay on this point, and it did veer into partisanship (leading to the predictable responses). However, it could be re-stated to make the point that IS relevant to education: namely, that an educated person prioritizes evidence over passions.
swish - August 5, 2009 at 11:31 am
Re irvi7996′s suggestion: the NAS does offer some very interesting and thought-provoking commentary. And to the organization’s credit, it makes its agenda very clear on its “Who We Are” page at http://www.nas.org/who.cfm. Non-partisan? Perhaps. Unbiased and impartial? No way.
mjg6601 - August 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
I hope the President will address this issue involving the birth certificate and stop the speculation. The main request seems to be that he release the long form birth certificate, as Sen. McCain released his. Surely that’s a reasonable request. The President ran on a platform of bringing people together and not dividing them, but this issue is clearly causing division. He can be decisive and show leadership by producing the long form. By not producing it he is stoking wild speculation and counter-speculation, which now is even getting column space in the Chronicle!
tbdiscovery - August 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm
This is partisan nonsense. Why should we require transcripts when students transfer? That would be silly! All of this blind support has led to this President not being held accountable for much.
Higher education is based on effective record-keeping, so this article shows that the masses have fallen prey to the deification of Obama.
hawalker - August 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm
At the risk of making The Chronicle become even more political, I raise a question that seems worthy of intellectual investigation. Why would a society establish rules and do everything possible to ensure that the rules are not enforced or enforceable? Cases in point: (1) Give the privilege of voting to citizens and balk at asking prospective voters for proof of citizenship; (2) prohibit people from entering or residing in the country illegally and prohibit questions about legal residence from lawful authorities; (3) restrict the office of President to natural-born citizens thirty-five and older and presume those who question a candidate’s (or officeholder’s) birth status are lunatics (unless they question the birth status of John S. McCain III or George W. Romney).
In the main, I agree with those who decry the politicization of The Chronicle. Leave the political stuff to Townhall.com and the Huffington post.
greenhills73 - August 5, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I agree that the Chronicle publishes WAY too many purely political commentaries, and they have NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGHER EDUCATION. This is supposed to be a “trade journal,” not a typical biased newspaper.
nlincolnhanks - August 5, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I agree with many here who are appalled that the Chronicle is fast becoming a political rag. Stop it, or you will start seeing your membership drop. Many of us do not subscribe in order to engage in partisan tussles.
ledzep - August 5, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“We already have rationing of health care to the elderly. Whether that’s a bad thing is another question, but I doubt we’d have any more of it under a government or single-payer plan.”
Why would you doubt that, if one of the major stated purposes of the public option is to control costs? Look, either you believe this will control costs, in which case there is going to be more rationing of end-of-life care, or you don’t, in which case one of the major claims in favor of ObamaCare is kaput. Why is it so hard to admit that the structure of a far-reaching governmental program can put pressures on individual decisions? Academics acknowledge that kind of thing 24/7 in so many contexts – social structures delineate the space of possible choices for individuals. As to the claim that we already have rationing for end-of-life care, that’s too general to be relevant in this context. The question is, what is going to change, and who is going to make the decisions? The more centralized the provision or subsidizing of health care gets, the more influence the relevant bureaucrats have, and effectively, the less freedom there is to find a provider or insurer who will ration less strictly on a given treatment, etc. You say you doubt that we’ll have more rationing of end-of-life care, but you give no reason whatsoever for that belief. Societies with more socialized and centralized provision or insurance of health care do in fact have stricter rationing of such care, and decisions in those circumstances are more constrained by centrally defined policy. Why would you expect it to be different? Particularly, since Obama has shown no inclination to appoint people with any respect for human life as such (i.e., as opposed to human life as sentient or whatever), what is going to counteract the tendency for the structural forces to make it more difficult to get end-of-life care? Magic? Hope? What’s your mechanism?
ledzep - August 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I should say that I don’t think it’s a good thing that many people die in a blizzard of invasive and largely futile medical interventions. But it’s not at all irrational to doubt whether the federal government should be given a vastly greater role in shaping the standard of care in those circumstances. Again, mainstream bioethicists, and particularly those Obama has given his ear to, don’t share the beliefs of most of the population about the value of human life simply as human life. It’s totally irrational to hand over a big role in the shaping of the standard of care to some entity that has entirely different set of priorities and valuations. There is absolutely nothing crazy about resisting that.
ledzep - August 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm
To the point that the rationing of care to the uninsured is worse, that would suggest that it would be better if we could take care of that problem without granting such a huge systemic role to the federal government in setting standards of (insured) care for everybody, including those more or less happily insured. There are a lot of people without insurance, and that is a big problem, but the number of those who are chronically and involuntarily uninsured is much less (though still too high, to be sure), and it’s far from clear that that problem is best addressed by the administration’s proposal, which shows every sign of being as fiscally disastrous as the status quo.
edresearcherinca - August 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I agree with jimlyttle, and I’d add: how do institutions of higher education prepare students to use language effectively when discussing contested issues? For ex., for a given term (e.g., “rationing,” “euthenasia,” “real” records), are different people using the term to mean different things, and if so, how can we disambiguate the meanings so that we can discuss the issue more clearly / effectively? Who gets to define what a given term means? and so forth. I continue to be saddened by the extent to which people who comment on CHE articles often cherrypick evidence, draw unfounded conclusions from some piece of evidence, use language in ways that confuse rather than illuminate, and more. That doesn’t bode well for preparing our students to do better.
jms948 - August 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It bothers me terribly that so many of you who hase “posted” here today don’t have more faith in President Obama. Some of you don’t seem to understand/believe that our President is a uniter, not a divider; and that he will use Health Care to further that end.
Our President WILL provide all Americans and undocumented Mexicans with a govenment run health care system which will add years to our lives. And just knowing that each and every resident of this country will be treated totally equally (except for himself and congress) by our local government controlled health care facility, will further serve to bring us together in a social environment which will be free of petty jealosy and class envy.
And as if all that isn’t enough, President Obama has promised all but the top one percent of all wage earners a decrease in our federal income taxes. Have any of you taken the time to contemplate how that extra money will make our lives easier?
In the entire history of our country we haven’t had a President like Barack Obama. Please DO NOT doubt this man. Please have faith that his programs will provide health, prosperity, peace, and happiness to all of us.
May god bless Barack Hussein Obama…jms
schultzjc - August 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm
While the article probably isn’t relevant enough to higher education to warrant appearance in the Chronicle, the often-vitriolic and mostly-ignorant posts here claiming partisanship are way off base. The birther and euthanasia claims are, in fact, crazy, and the author identified those who are promulgating those crazy ideas. Was someone left out? Reporting who said what isn’t partisanship, it’s the truth.
jms948 - August 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Some of you write about this “Chronical” as if it’s something more than the forum for disguntled Marxist teachers which it in fact is. It’s really too bad that you folks aren’t more in tune with the reality of your existence, but what’s even worse is that too many of our children, grandchildren, etc. won’t get wise to your demented, liberal agenda until they’ve wasted a lot of their valuable time, and even more of their parents’ hard earned money.
Schultzjc, Ghilarducci, et al, do you really think that those who would dare to demand that Obama produce his “vaulted” birth certificate are “lunatics” or “crazy?” Personally what I would like to get my hands on is his criminal history. There is little doubt in my mind that this “citizen of the world” has a sheet that’s longer than my (37″ shirt size)arm.
I sincerely believe that the truth will surface eventually, but right now we know laughably little about Barry Hussein–including his name. Unlike the “real” Messiah,however, pretty much everything that we do know about this teleprompter reading fraud is NOT GOOD.
And so, great scholars, you have First Amendment rights to say/write what you will; but when you deviate from the truth, as you so often do, be prepared to get slapped back to “reality.” jms–H.R.I.M.
danieldpu - August 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Dear Editors:
We’ve always been able to count on the Chronicle of Higher Education as a source of interesting news, new trends, reports on research, and yes, even opinion and commentary in the our world of higher education. That’s what makes this publication worth the fee of subscription.
CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the rest give away for free plenty of opinion (and sometimes news) about politics and the rest of society every day. Please don’t waste space or resources covering this political silliness unless it is somehow linked to or otherwise impacts higher education.
If we’ve all missed how this “birther/deather” commentary somehow has the slightest bearing in higher education, by all means, please enlighten us. Otherwise, please stick to what you do so well: Reporting on the issues of our field, and how other fields (even looney politics) affect our work.
Sincerely,
Your appreciative readers
macheath - August 5, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I’m not troubled by this blog. Ghilarducci writes about public policy, like her recent work on health care. The birthers and deathers are ruining public debate in this country on critical issues, like health care. They are know-nothings, and represent the antithesis of intelligent political debate. The debasement of our political discourse is a perfectly appropriate topic for the Chronicle. Plus she mentioned Richard Hofstadter and “the paranoid style in American politics”–that ought to be intellectual enough for any one blog!
jms948 - August 6, 2009 at 1:13 am
How many (or few) conservatives do you think that it would take to turn this website upside down? And do you school teachers know why that it wouldn’t take very much to do exactly that?
The fact that we have no trouble making liberals look silly and stupid is only because we have facts and truth on our side. We can point to history, and easily demonstrate how socialism/communism has never worked. Any popularity which it may enjoy today is only among feeble minded academics, illegal Mexicans,and other minority groups, and those who are looking for something for nothing.
I had a little extra time today and had some fun with this Ghilarducci nonsense, but I’ve learned over the years that this type of gross ignorance must be nipped in the bud. I promise to stick around and do exactly that.
jms–H.R.I.M.
wewhoknow - August 6, 2009 at 4:38 am
Speaking of the LUNATIC EDGE. The author of this article should not be throwing stones as she herself lives in a glass house. Teresa Ghilarducci has advocated what comes out to essentially GOVERNMENT CONFISCATION of IRA PLANS. She has proposed Americans surrender their free will in how to invest and instead allow the same incompetent government that bankrupted Social Security to run your retirement plan. This proposal is fully unethical and more lunatic than the birthers.
wewhoknow - August 6, 2009 at 5:01 am
On Teresa’s Guaranteed Retirement Accounts “I would make them mandatory. A reasonable reality-based path would be to phase in mandatory GRAs.” MANDATORY? Talk about Lunatic thinking. . .Americans are not infants that need the government to point a gun to their head to put their dollars into a GRA for their “Safe Keeping.” Certainly the government will give these dollars back — after dollar devaluation and hyperinflation. And please don’t tell me about how they will be adjusted for inflation. The government will just conveniently create metrics that grossly underestimate true inflation, as the already have.
goxewu - August 6, 2009 at 8:07 am
For a while there, I thought “Brainstorm” had been effectively killed off by the re-do of the Chronicle’s website. The new look is cold and formal, the site is hard to get to, the account/log-in system discourages comments, and the pervasive glitches have exacerbated the situation. But the comments here are almost like the good old days: complaints about the Chronicle forsaking academics and “objectivity” for politics and partisanship (this is a blog, folks), middle-school-level sarcasm about the “deification” of Obama, and conservative commenters posting consecutively (Oh, and by the way…). Rightwingprofessor’s back, and jms948 sounds a whole lot like the paleoconservative H.R.I.M. from days of yore. Perhaps even 2 cents worth (about whom I was worried–stuck down there in Hickory Hollow with so many personal issues and no outlet if “Brainstorm” was logistically unavailable) is in here somewhere, under another pseudonym. It feels good to be home.
mwalsh - August 6, 2009 at 9:17 am
I do wish that authors would fully cite information in their columns/comments. For inquiring minds, I assume that the “birther bill” is H.R. 1503, introduced 3/12/2009, “To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution”. The title’s just about as long as the text itself! For more information, including co-sponsors, CRS summary, full text, etc. go to http://thomas.loc.gov/
MJW
macheath - August 6, 2009 at 9:29 am
Several commentators here have said that this blog by Ghilarducci isn’t appropriate for Brainstorm or the Chronicle, and decry the partisan nature of it, etc. etc. But it should be noted that some of those posters arguing for this “nonpartisan” view of blogging are in fact very conservative and opposed to liberal and progressive views. That’s fine–in fact, that’s great! Forums like Brainstorm should have a vigorous exchange of views, and I assume the Chronicle wants its blogs to be provocative, interesting, and sparking debate. But if conservative are trying to drive people like Ghilarducci off of Brainstorm, they should just be honest and say they don’t like her views, rather than wrapping themselves in a “nonpartisan” stance that they don’t actually believe in.
I am not saying that all commentators here are doing this–I’m sure some are genuinely concerned about too much partisanship in general. But it is easy to find other Chronicle commentary by rburns, irvi7996, and tbdiscovery, all of whom criticized this blog for being too partisan, that is itself very partisan and conservative. Again, that’s great–keep it up Brainstorm, and keep a wide range of views coming in. But some commentators should stop with the fiction of “nonpartisanship” and just own up to the fact that they disagree with Ghilarducci.
jms948 - August 6, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hey goxewu, thank you for reminding me that I’m a paleocon–seriously.
I haven’t heard that term used in a while, but the last time that I did hear it, it was “f-ing paleoconservative.”
Have a great day. jms–H.R.I.M.
megginson - August 7, 2009 at 3:35 pm
This bizarre birther business has been an amusing trip down memory lane. Does anyone remember 45 years after the fact that some Democrats pulled the same stunt on Barry Goldwater in 1964, questioning his ability to run for President because he wasn’t born in one of the “United States”? (One decision on these matters, written by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis in 1857, explicitly refers to natural born citizens as folks born in one of the “several States”, and when Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory in 1909, it wasn’t one of those.)
And of course the latest Republican candidate for President, John McCain, had to deal unfairly with people who questioned his own standing to run for President, due to his well-documented birth in Panama outside the U.S. zone; no doubt about that one. Republicans seem to be particularly prone to being slammed with this, since the issue arose with George Romney’s birth in Mexico, Lowell Weicker’s birth in France (brought up in 1980 when he was still a Republican), and Chester Arthur’s (yes, let’s get a Republican in there who actually served as President) rumored birth in Canada, now known to be documentably false.
Personally, I am siding with all the Democrats and Republicans of the U.S. House who voted 378-0 just eleven days ago for a resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii as a state, which contained the unqualified statement that “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
For those who are still charging that “If he was born in Hawaii, then he should produce the long birth certificate form and the absolutely rock solid proof of his birth there” – I think the George Bush Principle applies here, which was more or less established when the Democrats went after Bush’s military record in 2004: Whatever the extent of the concerns about that military record (and there are folks out there who think there is much more substance to that than to the Obama birth matter), it is not up to a sitting President to fork over stacks of documents to disprove every wild charge that comes flying in from left (or, in this case, right) field. It is up to the folks making the charges to provide some substance to the charges with genuine documentation, beyond evidence-free rumors spread by talk show hosts and partisan publications, Democratic *or* Republican. A President giving in to this sort of nonsense today will tomorrow have to deal with the rumor that he’s a space alien, with folks asking why he doesn’t just have a public medical exam to prove he’s actually human. It’s long past time to give this one a rest.
elsa1 - August 9, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I would like the ‘journalist’ to please tell us the name of the hospital in which Mr. Obama was born.
Thanks!
dank48 - August 10, 2009 at 10:17 am
“Und Macheath, der hat ein Messer/Doch das Messer sieht man nicht.” Nicely done, Macheath. And Megginson got in some very good points too. It’s definitely time we at least got honest about all this; freedom of speech means that other people have the freedom to say things I don’t agree with, after all, just as I have the freedom to say things others consider a crock. But in any case, surely Fascist Nazi Network has sufficiently prostituted the phrase “Fair and Balanced” past the point where anyone with an IQ above the ambient temperature of Labrador is likely to buy it. Fox is merely more flagrantly partisan than most outlets, and more shamelessly so. These pundits remind me of “The Firesign Theatre” character George Tirebiter, who tells voters, “You can believe me, because I’m always right, and I never lie.” After all, it’s the big lies that work best.