Michael Medved smacks down birfers

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes. That Michael Medved. I disagree with him on almost everything, but he does a periodic "Conspiracy Friday" on his radio show. This week he dedicated to the birthers after that crazy woman in Delaware took over Rep. Mike Castle's town hall meeting two weeks ago.
9V1nmn2zRMc
On Freep she was hailed as a firecracker (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2296075/posts), though I'd use a different adjective.

Medved was interviewed for the NBC Nightly News, during which he noted his disappointment with his fellow Conservative talkers for not confronting the birfers or worse supporting them. That inspired him to raise the issue on "Conspiracy Friday" and he was absolutely brutal on them.

I actually don't feel dirty saying "kudos to you Mike Medved".

[Alt+F4]

You're right, the woman in that video is crazy. Members of Congress should start carrying around their short form version of their birth certificate and next time they meet a nut like this, take it out and see if they will challenge their citizenship.

Notice you don't see the insane birthers the slightest bit worried out the thousands of Americans who get passports each year based on short form birth certificates. Such hypocrites.

[Horatius]

Notice you don't see the insane birthers the slightest bit worried out the thousands of Americans who get passports each year based on short form birth certificates. Such hypocrites.



Actually, I've seen several claim you can't get a passport with the short form. So the reality denial just keeps getting deeper.

[Alt+F4]

Actually, I've seen several claim you can't get a passport with the short form. So the reality denial just keeps getting deeper.

They can claim all they want but I got my passport using a short from birth certificate (NYC) and it didn't even list the nationalities of my parents.

You would think these morons would try to get a passport using only a short form birth certificate, be rejected and have their "ah, ha!" moment.

[Lisa Simpson]

The State Department says some short form birth certificates may not be acceptable, but the site doesn't specify what makes a short form unacceptable.

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

[LightinDarkness]

Oh for goodness sakes, what don't these woos get: The Hawaii government department that handles records went PAPERLESS. Thats right, there IS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE - but not because there is some massive conspiracy and Obama was born in Kenya - but because its all electronic!

As someone who studies the bureaucracy I have to say that the birther stupidity has caused a lot of government departments who were planning to go paperless (on a variety of things, including birth certificates) to halt their plans. Birthers are stopping government systems from becoming more efficient and effective, which will end up costing us all dearly.

[twinstead]

I look at birthers, like truthers, moon hoax believers, etc, as more of a scathing indictment of ours and other nation's education systems.

[MG1962]

As someone who studies the bureaucracy I have to say that the birther stupidity has caused a lot of government departments who were planning to go paperless (on a variety of things, including birth certificates) to halt their plans. Birthers are stopping government systems from becoming more efficient and effective, which will end up costing us all dearly.

And that is a shame actually. Where I come from, they went paperless years ago. I needed to get a birth certificate from 47 years ago - 11 minutes it was in my hand. I thought that was outstanding

[MattusMaximus]

I just watched the full video... wow, just... wow. As soon as that woman started going on her rant, you could just see everyone on the stage wishing they were somewhere else.

And the fact that so many people in the audience cheered her on... wow :nope:

If this sort of thing keeps up, the GOP's going to have some real trouble on its hands.

[Elizabeth I]

I just watched the full video... wow, just... wow. As soon as that woman started going on her rant, you could just see everyone on the stage wishing they were somewhere else.

And the fact that so many people in the audience cheered her on... wow :nope:

If this sort of thing keeps up, the GOP's going to have some real trouble on its hands.

Never mind the GOP, the country is going to have some real trouble on its hands. I swear, it seems like stupidity is spreading exponentially.

[MattusMaximus]

Never mind the GOP, the country is going to have some real trouble on its hands. I swear, it seems like stupidity is spreading exponentially.

Well, yes the country is going to have trouble on its hands precisely because these whackjobs look as if they're attempting to take over one of the two major political parties in the United States. It's downright eerie...

[JoeyDonuts]

Suddenly being a registered independent isn't as "fringe" as it used to be.

Bring back the Bull Moose, I says!

[Brainster]

Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people, but she's also not a Birther (http://newsrealblog.com/2009/07/26/fox-ann-coulter-tells-geraldo-that-birther-movement-just-a-few-cranks-out-there/):

WYQr2a4vqqg

Note as well (from the link) that R. Emmet Tyrell of the American Spectator is similarly dismissive of the Birther crowd:

Well, ha-ha-ha. Back comes my disappointed booker after conveying the good news that we would be setting the record straight on the show shortly. Alas, the show’s producers did not want me to set the record straight. They had wanted me to defend the false story. But I reminded the booker that I knew the story to be false. In fact, I had provided the show with irrefutable proof that the story is false. Obama is American-born.

What does amaze me is that aside from long-time cranks like Lou Dobbs, I can't think of any major conservative figures who have endorsed this. A few mid-level conservative blogs are on the bandwagon, but most of the majors have laughed at the story. And yet the Birthers do have significant support in the rank and file.

[T.A.M.]

Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people, but she's also not a Birther (http://newsrealblog.com/2009/07/26/fox-ann-coulter-tells-geraldo-that-birther-movement-just-a-few-cranks-out-there/):

WYQr2a4vqqg

Note as well (from the link) that R. Emmet Tyrell of the American Spectator is similarly dismissive of the Birther crowd:



What does amaze me is that aside from long-time cranks like Lou Dobbs, I can't think of any major conservative figures who have endorsed this. A few mid-level conservative blogs are on the bandwagon, but most of the majors have laughed at the story. And yet the Birthers do have significant support in the rank and file.

Has Palin come out on this issue?

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Has Palin come out on this issue?

TAM:)

She affirms that Trig is hers, not Bristols. ;)

[MattusMaximus]

What does amaze me is that aside from long-time cranks like Lou Dobbs, I can't think of any major conservative figures who have endorsed this. A few mid-level conservative blogs are on the bandwagon, but most of the majors have laughed at the story. And yet the Birthers do have significant support in the rank and file.

Rush Limbaugh has jumped on the birther bandwagon. I'd say he's a pretty major conservative player, not an intellectual conservative but a populist one. And he'll be influencing a lot of the GOP rank-and-file with this nonsense.

[dudalb]

I don't think Rush has jumped into the Birther pool yet, but he is testing the waters with his toe.

[T.A.M.]

I hope he takes up the "birther" cause. It will be another nail in the GOP coffin. How will the mainstream (is there such a beast) conservatives confront Boss Limbaugh on that one? Looks like some sparks will fly.

TAM:)

[SmartyPants]

Not that I would consider Liddy or Liz Cheney major conservative figures or intellectual heavyweights, but, for some reason, cable news shows continue to book them. Of course, that's probably more an indictment against 24 hour cable news. The fact that there are a few congressmen who can't give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to an easy question (Is Obama a natural-born citizen qualified to serve a President of the United States?) is a lot more troubling, though. However, my guess is that this will die a quiet death within a few months, and any otherwise reasonable conservative who has remained mum on the issue will eventually give the obvious "yes" answer when they realize that it is no longer something that's politically advantageous.

[Brainster]

Well, if I told you that one Congress Critter blocked a resolution on Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood because it contained an affirmation that Obama was born there, would you have any doubt which one?

GyrBakvKbyM

What an embarrassment!

[davefoc]

I look at birthers, like truthers, moon hoax believers, etc, as more of a scathing indictment of ours and other nation's education systems.

It is a subject for another thread, but I'm just not sure that you are right. It seems to be the nature of humans that a percentage of us are fairly susceptible to forming beliefs in things wildly unlikely to be true if they are consistent with our biases and it is true of all of us humans that we tend to form at least some views largely driven by our biases. An educational system might be able to address some of this but mostly I suspect people are going to believe what makes them happy regardless of the underlying facts and any kind of educational system is unlikely to have a huge impact on that.

I just watched the full video... wow, just... wow. As soon as that woman started going on her rant, you could just see everyone on the stage wishing they were somewhere else.

And the fact that so many people in the audience cheered her on... wow :nope:

If this sort of thing keeps up, the GOP's going to have some real trouble on its hands.

Also, a topic for another thread, but I have wondered about the same thing. Increasingly the GOP seems to be depending on various propaganda techniques to sustain what remains of their base. I have not seen any efforts to address their disastrous governance over the last eight years by anybody in the party elite. I think their view is that the path to reelection is to build up the base support with organized partisan attacks repeated over and over that are often created without any significant substance.

I guess from the standpoint of a lot of Democrats this is what the Republican Party always was and those of us who believe in small government and free markets were just a bunch of idiots anyway.

[CptColumbo]

Well, if I told you that one Congress Critter blocked a resolution on Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood because it contained an affirmation that Obama was born there, would you have any doubt which one?

GyrBakvKbyM

What an embarrassment!
She's within the rules to postpone. She did vote for the resolution in the end.

For the record I do not live in her district.

[boloboffin]

Yes, she did a quorum call, perfectly within the normal process in the House - in fact, expected in regular order. I don't think she mentioned a reason why other than that.

But I don't believe she was doing the quorum calls on the resolutions, etc., before this one came up. And somehow she managed to get up to the podium and send this one to a recorded vote. :D However, she did vote in affirmation of it.

[Brainster]

Good call, guys; I went with Think Progress' take on this because I distrust Bachmann, but apparently the vote for the resolution was unanimous (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/27/hawaii_resolution/index.html).

This time, though, Bachmann was being criticized unfairly. She did indeed block a vote on the resolution, noting the absence of a quorum, but that move wasn't about Abercrombie's resolution specifically. She was just playing her part. The House had already decided to postpone the votes on all of the resolutions being considered under a suspension of the rules until Monday evening. Bachmann noted the absence of a quorum for several other non-controversial pieces of legislation so that those votes, too, could be postponed until the scheduled time.

In fact, as a spokeswoman for Bachmann told Salon -- and C-SPAN video of the congresswoman's remarks on the House floor confirmed -- Bachmann supports the resolution.

After the postponement, on Monday evening the resolution passed -- unanimously. Bachmann was one of the "yea" votes.

I hate to say that I'm thrilled that no Republican voted against the bill, but I really am. I think perhaps we have to accept that Crazy Eileen video was sort of the equivalent of planting several truthers in an audience to applaud when one of their fellow nutbars makes his speech.

[Arisia]

Medved was also doing birther bashing yesterday morning in the first hour of On Point on NPR. They did have Orly Taitz on there for a couple minutes, she was sounding as incoherent/ranty as ever.

[Alt+F4]

Medved was also doing birther bashing yesterday morning in the first hour of On Point on NPR. They did have Orly Taitz on there for a couple minutes, she was sounding as incoherent/ranty as ever.

My gosh, Orly can't even explain her own argument but she did take time to call her critics "brown shirts".

[Alt+F4]

In the same NPR program Medved calls Orly "Constitutionally illiterate" and Republicans who support the birthers "sleezy" but then says the whole mess was started by Democrats (Phil Berg).

Medved seems so flustered that his political party is being stolen out from under him.

[Blender Head]

Is there any evidence that Berg was 'the first' to bring up Obama's birth certificate nonsense? I suppose evidence would have to be shown that others brought it up prior to Berg's lawsuit but I don't want my brain to explode if I go down that rabbit hole.

[headscratcher4]

. Where I come from, they went paperless years ago...

That can only mean one thing (well two actually): a). you were born in Mombasa or b). you weren't born.

[headscratcher4]

Well, if I told you that one Congress Critter blocked a resolution on Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood because it contained an affirmation that Obama was born there, would you have any doubt which one?

GyrBakvKbyM

What an embarrassment!

Actually, several liberal commentators have pointed out that Bachman (and they're no fans) wasn't trying to obstruct for the purpose of killing the resolution, just part of normal floor manouvers and that she hasn't indicated any particular sympathy for the Birther cause....

[Blender Head]

Good call, guys; I went with Think Progress' take on this because I distrust Bachmann, but apparently the vote for the resolution was unanimous (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/27/hawaii_resolution/index.html).


Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/27/obama-resolution-hawaii-378-0/) replies to Koppelman:

Salon's Alex Koppelman says TP attacked Bachmann unfairly in our previous post because Bachmann was simply "playing her part" because "the House had already decided to postpone the votes on all of the resolutions being considered under a suspension of the rules until Monday evening." But the Hawaii resolution was only one of three (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/index.asp) resolutions that the GOP forced a vote on. Approximately 20 measures (http://majorityleader.house.gov/links_and_resources/whip_resources/weeklyleader.cfm?pressreleaseID=3237)were considered today, most of which passed by voice vote.

I could be misreading the reply but Bachmann's admittedly crazy anyway so the fact she voted in favor of it is a plus on her part.

[Elizabeth I]

Do birthers deny that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen? Because if she were a citizen, then even if he were born in Kenya, doesn't that mean that at worst he would have dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship? And he would only lose U.S. citizenship if he renounced it to take up full Kenyan citizenship, right?

(At least, that's how it seemed to work for my friend, a U.S. citizen, who had a baby in Mexico with her husband, a Mexican citizen.)

[Blender Head]

Do birthers deny that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen? Because if she were a citizen, then even if he were born in Kenya, doesn't that mean that at worst he would have dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship? And he would only lose U.S. citizenship if he renounced it to take up full Kenyan citizenship, right?

(At least, that's how it seemed to work for my friend, a U.S. citizen, who had a baby in Mexico with her husband, a Mexican citizen.)

They argue that since Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, did not give birth to Barack after the full five years past her 14th birthday that she could not confer citizenship on him when he was (not) born in Kenya.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Source (http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html)

[Alt+F4]

Do birthers deny that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen? Because if she were a citizen, then even if he were born in Kenya, doesn't that mean that at worst he would have dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship? And he would only lose U.S. citizenship if he renounced it to take up full Kenyan citizenship, right?

This is my understanding of it: There was a law on the books in 1961 that said if a child was born outside of the U.S. to an American citizen that parent could only convey citizenship on the child if the parent had been residing in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of those being after age 14. Their argument is that since Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth to him, she was too young to convey citizenship upon him.

Here's the lie: The law doesn't say 5 years after age 14, it says 2 years after age 14. Therefore it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on Luke Skywalker's home planet Tatooine, he's still a natural born citizen of the U.S.

[Blender Head]

Here's the lie: The law doesn't say 5 years after age 14, it says 2 years after age 14. Therefore it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on Luke Skywalker's home planet Tatooine, he's still a natural born citizen of the U.S.

Not true (look at my previous post for the law), unless I am misunderstanding you.

[volatile]

How would Birthers feel if Arnie made a case for a law-change allowing him to make a presidential bid?

[Blender Head]

How would Birthers feel if Arnie made a case for a law-change allowing him to make a presidential bid?

I'm no fan of Arnold's politics (for the most part) but if the law change was done appropriately I don't see the problem. Also, he's white.

[Alt+F4]

Not true (look at my previous post for the law), unless I am misunderstanding you.

No, you are right, I stand corrected. :)

So the only hope the birthers have is to "prove" a Kenyan birth. I did see an Obama Kenyan birth certificate for sale on ebay, maybe that will help them out.

[Alt+F4]

How would Birthers feel if Arnie made a case for a law-change allowing him to make a presidential bid?

I'm sure they would be fine with it, after all Arnie's not black.

[Brainster]

How would Birthers feel if Arnie made a case for a law-change allowing him to make a presidential bid?

Can't do it by legislation, but by constitutional amendment, which is exceedingly hard. And I'm sure they'd object that it was an end run to make Obama's presidency legitimate.

[volatile]

Can't do it by legislation, but by constitutional amendment, which is exceedingly hard. And I'm sure they'd object that it was an end run to make Obama's presidency legitimate.

It has been mentioned in passing though, hasn't it? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6480958/)

[MattusMaximus]

I don't think Rush has jumped into the Birther pool yet, but he is testing the waters with his toe.

Wrong. Rush has very clearly dived into the deep end of the woo pool on this one, and on multiple occasions. Linky. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595)

[MattusMaximus]

Not that I would consider Liddy or Liz Cheney major conservative figures or intellectual heavyweights, but, for some reason, cable news shows continue to book them. Of course, that's probably more an indictment against 24 hour cable news. The fact that there are a few congressmen who can't give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to an easy question (Is Obama a natural-born citizen qualified to serve a President of the United States?) is a lot more troubling, though. However, my guess is that this will die a quiet death within a few months, and any otherwise reasonable conservative who has remained mum on the issue will eventually give the obvious "yes" answer when they realize that it is no longer something that's politically advantageous.

I really hope you're right, but I don't think it'll be like that. In fact, I can see it going the opposite way - if enough of the hardcore Republican base buys into this birther nonsense, it could become a kind of litmus test for conservative Republican politicians in their primaries. Remember that in such primaries it is the conservative base of the GOP that wields the real power; that's why there are so few moderates in the GOP these days.

It's almost as if these birther nuts are taking a page from the religious right in that they're trying to infiltrate the Republican party. And if they get their hooks into the GOP establishment... :boggled:

[Piggy]

This is what the GOP is left with.

They got in bed with these people, and everybody else has now left the party to go sober up. Sadly, the leadership feels they have to wallow around with them.

What's truly shameful here is how the folks who are supposed to be directing this event allow it to be hijacked. My God, this crackpot lady actually noserings the entire crowd into a grammarschool exsercise of reciting the pledge of allegiance!

And sensible Democrats understand that it's not in their interest either for the GOP to descend into a regional party beholden to the dead-enders -- the bigots, conspiracy theorists, free-market anarchists, and other rabble.

This is frightening, folks. Nobody should be happy about this situation.

ETA: The recent Republican turnabout on Sotomayor is scary as all hell. Obama threw them a sop with her nomination, a strong advocate of judicial restraint who will not move the court one inch to the left. And yet, rather than tout that as a victory, they feel compelled to call her an activist anyway and vote against her in order to appeal to their aptly-named "base". No one is willing to fall on his sword. They all feel compelled to kowtow to the torch and pitchfork crowd in order to keep their seat. This is genuinely scary.

[MattusMaximus]

I hate to say that I'm thrilled that no Republican voted against the bill, but I really am. I think perhaps we have to accept that Crazy Eileen video was sort of the equivalent of planting several truthers in an audience to applaud when one of their fellow nutbars makes his speech.

I sure hope that you're right, Brainster. Because if you're not, then the reasonable conservatives & Republicans, like you, are going to have a helluva time clearing the kooks out of the GOP. Good luck.

[MattusMaximus]

This is what the GOP is left with.

They got in bed with these people, and everybody else has now left the party to go sober up. Sadly, the leadership feels they have to wallow around with them.

What's truly shameful here is how the folks who are supposed to be directing this event allow it to be hijacked. My God, this crackpot lady actually noserings the entire crowd into a grammarschool exsercise of reciting the pledge of allegiance!

That's what upset me about it. Mike Castle, a very level headed & reasonable Republican (imo), corrected the woman and he was booed and yelled down! He didn't toe the birther true-believer line and those folks yelled at him for it. Heresy!!! :jaw-dropp

How much do you want to bet that in the 2010 GOP primaries some nut is going to go up against Castle and make this birther incident a reason why he's not a "real Republican"?

And sensible Democrats understand that it's not in their interest either for the GOP to descend into a regional party beholden to the dead-enders -- the bigots, conspiracy theorists, free-market anarchists, and other rabble.

True. How true.

This is frightening, folks. Nobody should be happy about this situation.

No kidding. I'd be laughing my ass off if the implications weren't so scary.

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: The recent Republican turnabout on Sotomayor is scary as all hell. Obama threw them a sop with her nomination, a strong advocate of judicial restraint who will not move the court one inch to the left. And yet, rather than tout that as a victory, they feel compelled to call her an activist anyway and vote against her in order to appeal to their aptly-named "base". No one is willing to fall on his sword. They all feel compelled to kowtow to the torch and pitchfork crowd in order to keep their seat. This is genuinely scary.

Not entirely true. Senator Lindsay Graham, who is on the Judiciary Committee, voted for her, and some other GOP senators have stated they will do likewise - link. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/22/2004554.aspx)

Bully for them. I love it when moderate Republicans stand up to the wingnuts, it's just a shame there are so few moderates left in the GOP these days.

[/end derail]

[Brainster]

He even admits it in this clip:

vws9fTtQgz4

[Piggy]

Not entirely true. Senator Lindsay Graham, who is on the Judiciary Committee, voted for her, and some other GOP senators have stated they will do likewise - link. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/22/2004554.aspx)

Bully for them. I love it when moderate Republicans stand up to the wingnuts, it's just a shame there are so few moderates left in the GOP these days.

[/end derail]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. I don't believe Graham is vulnerable. SC is not Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi. There's enough Reagan-Republican gentry up there to keep him afloat, especially on the high-rent coast where the real money is. I believe it's a calculated decision.

[JoeyDonuts]

You guys don't even want to know how much traction this is getting in Oklahoma.

:mad:

[SmartyPants]

I really hope you're right, but I don't think it'll be like that. In fact, I can see it going the opposite way - if enough of the hardcore Republican base buys into this birther nonsense, it could become a kind of litmus test for conservative Republican politicians in their primaries. Remember that in such primaries it is the conservative base of the GOP that wields the real power; that's why there are so few moderates in the GOP these days.

It's almost as if these birther nuts are taking a page from the religious right in that they're trying to infiltrate the Republican party. And if they get their hooks into the GOP establishment... :boggled:

I'm only making a guess. From what I can see, it seems as if these people are quickly becoming the targets of ridicule for just about every side. Unless they can get some mainstream conservative critics ("mainstream" being kind of vague), I don't think the birther stuff will catch on. At some point I think the ones who are less than explicit in their beliefs will admit that there's enough evidence to put the issue to bed. Frankly, I don't really think the politicians are worrying much about placating their constituents, because I don't think that the birthers make up that much of their base. And if they do, it seems likely that they're in safe Republican districts anyway...however, as I wrote before, some of them are giving far too much credence in order to score as many political points as possible.

But like I said, this is only a guess and opinion. I think it speaks volumes, though, that Ann Coulter is calling the birthers a bunch of cranks. My eyeballs almost exploded out of my head in disbelief when I read that. Credit where credit is do, I suppose.

Nevertheless, I don't think birthers will completely disappear, just like the black helicopter crowd never did. Of course, those two groups are pretty much the same.

[SmartyPants]

You guys don't even want to know how much traction this is getting in Oklahoma.

:mad:

Pray tell. Not that I doubt it, mind you, but it's been awhile since I've been down that way.

[JoeyDonuts]

Pray tell. Not that I doubt it, mind you, but it's been awhile since I've been down that way.

A lot of callers to the local AM radio shows have been going off about it, and the hosts haven't done a very good job of smacking it down. On the contrary, they've been giving it a lot of air. Alternative viewpoints (in this case the voices of reason) never seem to get on the air.

I may have to rectify that, although I probably won't last more than 20 seconds.

[MattusMaximus]

You guys don't even want to know how much traction this is getting in Oklahoma.

:mad:

Really? Please, do share. Personally, I'm curious to know if anyone's done any polling on this whole birther issue. Anyone know?

ETA: Has the birther billboard campaign been big in OK? I'm going on vacation to Utah later this week, and we're driving. I'll be looking for any of these stupid billboards.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm only making a guess. From what I can see, it seems as if these people are quickly becoming the targets of ridicule for just about every side. Unless they can get some mainstream conservative critics ("mainstream" being kind of vague), I don't think the birther stuff will catch on. At some point I think the ones who are less than explicit in their beliefs will admit that there's enough evidence to put the issue to bed. Frankly, I don't really think the politicians are worrying much about placating their constituents, because I don't think that the birthers make up that much of their base. And if they do, it seems likely that they're in safe Republican districts anyway...however, as I wrote before, some of them are giving far too much credence in order to score as many political points as possible.

I would agree with you, were it not for the fact that Rush Limbaugh, who sways a huge number in the Republican base and is considered by many in the GOP to be the unofficial mouthpiece for the party, has clearly jumped aboard the birther bandwagon. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595)

I know of no other conservative talking-head that commands an audience as large as Limbaugh's. So there you go.

[patchbunny]

ETA: Has the birther billboard campaign been big in OK? I'm going on vacation to Utah later this week, and we're driving. I'll be looking for any of these stupid billboards.

There's a birther billboard on I-5 north of Maxwell here in California proclaiming "Show us the birth certificate". If I was still under 18 I'd go out there one night and add "HE DID".

[dudalb]

This is what the GOP is left with.

They got in bed with these people, and everybody else has now left the party to go sober up. Sadly, the leadership feels they have to wallow around with them.

What's truly shameful here is how the folks who are supposed to be directing this event allow it to be hijacked. My God, this crackpot lady actually noserings the entire crowd into a grammarschool exsercise of reciting the pledge of allegiance!

And sensible Democrats understand that it's not in their interest either for the GOP to descend into a regional party beholden to the dead-enders -- the bigots, conspiracy theorists, free-market anarchists, and other rabble.

This is frightening, folks. Nobody should be happy about this situation.

ETA: The recent Republican turnabout on Sotomayor is scary as all hell. Obama threw them a sop with her nomination, a strong advocate of judicial restraint who will not move the court one inch to the left. And yet, rather than tout that as a victory, they feel compelled to call her an activist anyway and vote against her in order to appeal to their aptly-named "base". No one is willing to fall on his sword. They all feel compelled to kowtow to the torch and pitchfork crowd in order to keep their seat. This is genuinely scary.

I agree no one should be happy about the demise of the GOP. I guarantee, if it happens, the Democrats will soon become unbearable in their arrogance,and just as corrupt as the GOP at their worst. Lord Acton's satement about what power does remains as accurate now as when he first said it.
Some of the people in The Politics Section at JREF who are basically doing a Snoopy Happy Dance over the end of the GOP are being very,very,short sighted.

[Brainster]

ETA: The recent Republican turnabout on Sotomayor is scary as all hell. Obama threw them a sop with her nomination, a strong advocate of judicial restraint who will not move the court one inch to the left. And yet, rather than tout that as a victory, they feel compelled to call her an activist anyway and vote against her in order to appeal to their aptly-named "base". No one is willing to fall on his sword. They all feel compelled to kowtow to the torch and pitchfork crowd in order to keep their seat. This is genuinely scary.

This is silly and belongs in the politics section anyway. Remember Chief Justice John Roberts? A total of 22 Democrats voted against him. Remember Associate Justice Samuel Alito? A total of 40 Democrats voted against him.

I'm going to predict here and now that Sotomayor gets about the same number of Republican votes as Roberts got from the torch and pitchfork Democrats.

[Redtail]

You guys don't even want to know how much traction this is getting in Oklahoma.

:mad:

:jaw-dropp NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'm up for a job at North Eastern State...:covereyes

[dudalb]

Maybe a parody of "Oklahoma" is in order....

[JoeyDonuts]

:jaw-dropp NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'm up for a job at North Eastern State...:covereyes

Hah! If you get a job at the Broken Arrow branch, not only will you live about three miles away from me, you'll also have to drive past a homemade John Birch Society billboard every day.

[dudalb]

And memories of my days at Fort Sill come back....

[ryanebelhar]

the only mention i've heard of this in person was my dad. he said he had heard that he may have been born in Kenya, and i just pointed out the facts and he agreed with me. this was in December.

[Piggy]

Really? Please, do share.

Jumping in, here...

In Georgia, so far we've had a lawsuit over the matter -- dismissed, thank Chaos -- and a US Army Major from Georgia is refusing deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that the Commander in Chief is not a citizen (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/776335.html).

Several folks at my place of work are into this. Many of them believe Obama to be a secret Muslim planted in the White House in order to destroy America from within. Others believe he may be the Antichrist.

I'm telling you, unless you live in this kind of environment, you just can't imagine.

[Piggy]

Remember Chief Justice John Roberts? A total of 22 Democrats voted against him. Remember Associate Justice Samuel Alito? A total of 40 Democrats voted against him.

Yup. It was stupid then, it's stupid now.

[Foster Zygote]

My gosh, Orly can't even explain her own argument but she did take time to call her critics "brown shirts".

Orly Taitz was on the Cobert Report the other night and he poked fun at her for comparing the Obama administration to the Nazis. She also compared Obama to Stalin.

[JoeyDonuts]

Several folks at my place of work are into this. Many of them believe Obama to be a secret Muslim planted in the White House in order to destroy America from within. Others believe he may be the Antichrist.

I'm telling you, unless you live in this kind of environment, you just can't imagine.

At my workplace (I work for the media) it's not quite that bad, since almost everyone here is fairly centrist.

Oklahoma is a bit of an anomaly in that they fairly consistently put Democrats in the State Senate and local governmental positions, but our national representatives and electoral college votes go red every single time with a few exceptions.

Before I mentioned a John Birch Society sign. It's been sort of a fixture around here for a long time. I don't know anything about the guy that has it in his front yard. Anyway he used to live next to a busy intersection (about ten years ago) where a lot of people saw it, but it was little more than a curiosity. It said in large letters "GET US OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS." I had to see that thing every time I went to my fiancee's house. It didn't bother me that much. Free speech, put whatever the hell you want in your yard. The thing is, even though the guy's moved to a lower traffic area, the JB's have gotten web-savvy since then and now their web URL is right under the sign nowadays.

There's been about three or four additional home-brewed signs popping up in high-traffic areas here and there with the same message. By all accounts it appears that the John Brown Society is picking up members in Oklahoma.

In all honesty, they could be culling together the remnants of the old Tom Metzger W.A.R. organization which used to have a fairly significant presence here. Or it could be otherwise normal folks who've been laid off, are angry as hell and need someone to blame.

The birther and more fringe stuff isn't getting a lot of play on the TV news channels, but on the AM radio call-in show's it's going BALLISTIC.

I am seriously considering changing my voter registration. The GOP isn't the party of Reagan anymore no matter how much they invoke his name. Since "Bull Moose" isn't an option anymore, I've discovered to my absolute amazement that I'm more of a "blue-dog" Democrat.

[JoeyDonuts]

Pssst...hey. You guys wanna see pictures of these signs? I could probably go on a photo safari.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Orly Taitz was on the Cobert Report the other night and he poked fun at her for comparing the Obama administration to the Nazis. She also compared Obama to Stalin.

She was chock-full-o'crazy. Colbert did a nice smackdown on the birfers before the interview.

[davefoc]

Yup. It [lockstep partisan voting for supreme court nominations] was stupid then, it's stupid now.

I'm not so sure. The Supreme court today has become a kind of legislative branch and as such doesn't it make sense to only vote for people who are ideologically aligned with your side? Far and away the most important issue is what the justice's ideological leanings are. After that legal skills are a nice to have attribute but probably all likely candidates are pretty well schooled in the law anyway. What separates them is their ideology.

Maybe the senate should just eliminate all the hearings, and all the hypocritical questioning and just put the nomination up for a straightforward vote. Senators would just vote based on their own partisan interests. I suspect this is what happens now, but under the current system the US must endure several weeks of ridiculous hypocritical partisan posturing, just straightforward lying and absurd non-answers by the candidate before the he is accepted or rejected.

[Piggy]

The Supreme court today has become a kind of legislative branch

Beg pardon?

Maybe the senate should just eliminate all the hearings, and all the hypocritical questioning and just put the nomination up for a straightforward vote.

Maybe they should stop televising it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

More Freeper madnesss.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2304240/posts
Forget birfer rumors, "Chris37" apparently thinks he's the anti-Christ.

[davefoc]

Beg pardon?[apparently expressing disagreement with davefoc's comment that the Supreme Court has become a kind of legislature]

If the Supreme Court made decisions just based on the content of the constitution, existing law and precedent it would be reasonable to see the Supreme Court's function as primarily judicial. In fact, the constitution and the law are full of ambiguities that open the door for decisions where the constitution and law are just interpreted to mean whatever the justices thinks it should mean. In most cases, I think that is what happens. And as such I suggest that the justices are serving more as a legislature where their personal views of what the law should be are more important than whatever the written meaning of the law is.

If the Supreme Court just deferred to the legislature where the ambiguity of the constitution and other laws precluded an objective decision I would agree that the Supreme Court was primarily fulfilling only a judicial function. Of course the Supreme Court doesn't do that. Instead it claims objective meaning in the relevant law where it doesn't exist to support what they wanted the law to be.



Maybe they should stop televising it [Supreme Court candidate hearings].I don't think that would change the underlying fact, given the function of the Supreme Court as it exists today, that a Supreme Court nomination is almost a completely partisan event. The hearings might be the most dishonest and hypocritical public action that the Senate engages in but they still might serve some purpose in that they might serve to filter out unethical or dishonest justices.

[MattusMaximus]

Pssst...hey. You guys wanna see pictures of these signs? I could probably go on a photo safari.

Yes. Please share.

[Piggy]

If the Supreme Court made decisions just based on the content of the constitution, existing law and precedent it would be reasonable to see the Supreme Court's function as primarily judicial. In fact, the constitution and the law are full of ambiguities that open the door for decisions where the constitution and law are just interpreted to mean whatever the justices thinks it should mean. In most cases, I think that is what happens. And as such I suggest that the justices are serving more as a legislature where their personal views of what the law should be are more important than whatever the written meaning of the law is.

If the Supreme Court just deferred to the legislature where the ambiguity of the constitution and other laws precluded an objective decision I would agree that the Supreme Court was primarily fulfilling only a judicial function. Of course the Supreme Court doesn't do that. Instead it claims objective meaning in the relevant law where it doesn't exist to support what they wanted the law to be.

I disagree. The process of judicial review has been well established for generations, and is necessary for our system to work properly. Deferring to the legislature would short-circuit that process. It's a bad idea.

And I don't think that justices' political ideologies are what distinguish them primarily. It's more their judicial philosophies. That said, of course, they're human, so all sorts of factors come into play.

And I don't see that there's a real problem with justices' "personal views of what the law should be [being] more important than whatever the written meaning of the law is". That's become a political bogeyman under the misnomer of "activist judges" -- ignoring the law is simply an outright failure to do the job, which has nothing to do with the philosophies of judicial restraint v. activism -- who are "legislating from the bench", but I don't see any evidence that there's any real problem in this country with that, although occasionally you get some truly bizarre rulings, but these are usually corrected on appeal.

As to the SoSo hearings, we were treated to a strange spectacle of many Republicans falsely accusing SoSo of being an "activist judge" (she's squarely in the judicial restraint camp) while simultaneously raking her over the coals for not serving up rulings that they would like to see based on their ideology rather than the law and precedent as written.

And the news media all too often conspire in this by consistently mis-reporting on SCOTUS and federal appeals cases. It's rare that I see a news story which reports on the legal issue that is actually before the court. Rather, they go for the "story" by elaborating a narrative of personal conflict among the parties couched in the language of current hot-button social issues, even though the narrow legal issue to be decided doesn't really have anything to do with that.

[davefoc]

Hello Piggy,
At least some of what you said might have been based on a misunderstanding of what I intended.

I was not attempting to say that judicial activism was bad, just that judicial activism is the current standard for the supreme court. Frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue my point in detail.

I am only somewhat familiar with a few decisions in detail. In addition I have some knowledge of quite a few other decisions and the fact that the court is divided on many of them.

I would argue that the fact that the court is often divided and often along predictable ideological lines suggests that the basis for the decisions is not based on objective interpretations of law.

Nothing suggests this more strongly to me than the recent court decision about medical marijuana. It seemed very clear to me that the justices didn't want to allow states to set medical marijuana policies and they went searching for anything in law or the constitution that would back their views on this. They found it in the interstate commerce clause, but if the logic they applied here was applied generally, the states might as well fold up shop. There are no limits on federal power. And there are no limits on how the constitution can be interpreted to support any decision.

[Minadin]

Mark Reardon, a rather conservative talk-show host here in St. Louis, has been lamenting / ridiculing 'birthers' for a while now, and today he did a segment on how silly the notion is, and how it hurts Republicans and conservatives in general, because of this incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/07/roy-blunt-on-birthers-barack-obama-born-in-us-but/

Hopefully he'll have audio up tomorrow that I can link. It was a really funny segment for a show that's usually about politics.

[Wildy]

She affirms that Trig is hers, not Bristols. ;)

Since when did a city own a field of math?

[Piggy]

Hello Piggy,
At least some of what you said might have been based on a misunderstanding of what I intended.

I was not attempting to say that judicial activism was bad, just that judicial activism is the current standard for the supreme court. Frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue my point in detail.

I am only somewhat familiar with a few decisions in detail. In addition I have some knowledge of quite a few other decisions and the fact that the court is divided on many of them.

I would argue that the fact that the court is often divided and often along predictable ideological lines suggests that the basis for the decisions is not based on objective interpretations of law.

Nothing suggests this more strongly to me than the recent court decision about medical marijuana. It seemed very clear to me that the justices didn't want to allow states to set medical marijuana policies and they went searching for anything in law or the constitution that would back their views on this. They found it in the interstate commerce clause, but if the logic they applied here was applied generally, the states might as well fold up shop. There are no limits on federal power. And there are no limits on how the constitution can be interpreted to support any decision.

SCOTUS is necessarily more activist, as it should be.

Thumbnail version, judicial restraint is the more narrow approach examining the previous decision -- asking whether the lower court committed a blatant error and tending to side with the lower court in the absense of a clear mistake in application or procedure (which was how SoSo's court approached the firefighter case, for instance) -- whereas judicial activism takes a broader view by considering the entire context and attempting to balance the full sets of rights of all parties involved.

The popular term "activist judge", on the other hand, refers to judges merely ignoring the law.

I'll take a look at the marijuana case, hopefully this weekend. I haven't read that one. Sounds interesting.

Maybe this tangent needs to be split?

[Brainster]

Couple more data points here.

Huffington Post Blogger says the only thing weirder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-joseph/the-only-thing-weirder-th_b_248227.html) than the Obama Birthers are the Anti-Birthers.

The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate.

Andrew Sullivan, who pushed the Trig Truther story last year signs up as one of those who wants to see the birth certificate (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/on-the-birthers.html):

So many readers are furious that I have dared to ask the president to show the original copy of his birth certificate. The reason for demanding it is the same reason for demanding basic medical records proving Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig.

Because it would make it go away and it's easily done.

New Kos poll (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.ht ml) shows that 28% of Republicans (and 4% of Democrats) think Obama was born outside the US.

The poll also shows a significant geographic difference; Southerners (23%) were far more likely to say Obama was born outside the US than those from the Northeast (4%), the Midwest (6%) or the West (7%).

Of course, Democrats had their own problem with conspiracy theorists (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance ) back in 2007, so it's not as if the Birther "problem" is an insurmountable obstacle to winning back the White House.

[SmartyPants]

Couple more data points here.

Huffington Post Blogger says the only thing weirder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-joseph/the-only-thing-weirder-th_b_248227.html) than the Obama Birthers are the Anti-Birthers.



Andrew Sullivan, who pushed the Trig Truther story last year signs up as one of those who wants to see the birth certificate (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/on-the-birthers.html):



New Kos poll (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.ht ml) shows that 28% of Republicans (and 4% of Democrats) think Obama was born outside the US.

The poll also shows a significant geographic difference; Southerners (23%) were far more likely to say Obama was born outside the US than those from the Northeast (4%), the Midwest (6%) or the West (7%).

Of course, Democrats had their own problem with conspiracy theorists (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance ) back in 2007, so it's not as if the Birther "problem" is an insurmountable obstacle to winning back the White House.

As long as the GOP is contributing to its own implosion (not really sure if that's true yet) with the birther nonsense, there's no way the White House would or should consider releasing anything, even if the anti-birthers wanted them to.

[dudalb]

Mark Reardon, a rather conservative talk-show host here in St. Louis, has been lamenting / ridiculing 'birthers' for a while now, and today he did a segment on how silly the notion is, and how it hurts Republicans and conservatives in general, because of this incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/07/roy-blunt-on-birthers-barack-obama-born-in-us-but/

Hopefully he'll have audio up tomorrow that I can link. It was a really funny segment for a show that's usually about politics.


Sadly, Reardon might be a voice in the wilderness.
The Birther crap seems on the verge of mainstreaming in the conservative movement. If that happens, look for a lot of polticians and media personalities who are so far ignroing it to jump on the band wagon.
I am pretty sure it is only a matter of time before one of the more wackjob GOP House Members introduces a resolution about it.If fact, it might have already happened,since I don't follow what the nutcase wing of the party does on a case by case basis....

[MattusMaximus]

Sadly, Reardon might be a voice in the wilderness.
The Birther crap seems on the verge of mainstreaming in the conservative movement. If that happens, look for a lot of polticians and media personalities who are so far ignroing it to jump on the band wagon.
I am pretty sure it is only a matter of time before one of the more wackjob GOP House Members introduces a resolution about it.If fact, it might have already happened,since I don't follow what the nutcase wing of the party does on a case by case basis....

This is precisely my concern, especially with Rush Limbaugh talking the nonsense he is these days on this non-issue.

It's like how the religious right hijacked the GOP, but now the birthers are coming knocking. By catering to the birthers, some of those politicians might help themselves in Republican primaries, but I predict that it'll hurt the party overall.

Of course, this could also just add to the continuing vilification within the GOP of those who "aren't real Republicans", thus causing the party to become even more extreme and loony.

Good grief, the GOP these days is turning into an absolute freakshow :boggled:

[Piggy]

This is precisely my concern, especially with Rush Limbaugh talking the nonsense he is these days on this non-issue.

It's like how the religious right hijacked the GOP, but now the birthers are coming knocking. By catering to the birthers, some of those politicians might help themselves in Republican primaries, but I predict that it'll hurt the party overall.

Of course, this could also just add to the continuing vilification within the GOP of those who "aren't real Republicans", thus causing the party to become even more extreme and loony.

Good grief, the GOP these days is turning into an absolute freakshow :boggled:

We're definitely in the downward spiral. The economy shows signs of leaving the downward spiral and approaching a stabilization or rebound, but the Republican Party's vicious circle seems to be intensifying.

When so few party members feel that it's even possible for them to publicly object to this kind of nonsense, it's a clear sign that the rabble has, for all intents and purposes, taken control.

We're facing a purge of those who are not beholden to the ignorant mob.

This is not just a threat to the party, it's a threat to the nation.

Back when McCain chose Palin and she went out on her pitchfork rallies, costing the Republican ticket the independent vote -- which was the only vote that mattered at that point -- I told my Democrat friends that the real story to watch in the coming year would be the trajectory of the GOP, and whether they opted to continue whoring around with the basest of the "base", or developed a new strategy to transform the party by forming larger coalitions.

Their reaction to the financial crisis -- the "let 'em fail" rhetoric, support for a stimulus consisting entirely of tax cuts, etc. -- indicated that they were taking the former path, and now they seem to have gone too far down that road to back up.

[billw]

Bill Maher's take:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher31-2009jul31,0,622151.story?vote48379954=1

From the Los Angeles Times

'Birthers' must be stopped

No matter how dumb, the people who are questioning whether Obama was born in the U.S. could eventually cause real problems.
By Bill Maher

July 31, 2009

Never underestimate the ability of a tiny fringe group of losers to ruin everything.

For the last couple of weeks, we've all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the "birthers" -- the far-right goofballs who claim Barack Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii and therefore the job of president goes to the runner-up, former Miss California Carrie Prejean.

Also, when Obama was sworn in as president, he forgot to give his answer in the form of a question.

And yet, every week, the chorus of conservatives demanding to see his birth certificate grows. It's like they're the Cambridge police, Obama's in his house -- the White House -- and they need to see some ID.

And there's nothing anyone can do to convince these folks. You could hand them, in person, the original birth certificate and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background ... and they still wouldn't believe it.

Which raises the question: Why, in this country, is it always the religious right that won't take anything on faith?

So far, the reaction from Democrats is to laugh this off, and I understand why. If you seriously believe that President Obama is an African sleeper spy, get out of your chat room and have your house tested for lead.

But we live in America, and in America, if you don't immediately kill arrant nonsense, no matter how ridiculous, it can grow and thrive and eventually take over, like crab grass or reality shows about fat people.

This flap might be a deluded right-wing obsession that is a total waste of time, but so was Whitewater, and look where that ended up. A handful of Republican operatives, enraged at Bill Clinton's unprecedented economic growth and budget surpluses, found a woman named Paula Jones, which led to a woman named Monica Lewinsky, which gave me enough material to eventually be able to buy a big house in Bel-Air. Which I'm still conflicted about.

More recently we had the Swift Boat allegations against John Kerry, in which Kerry was accused of volunteering to serve in Vietnam so he could jump in front of a bullet so he could get a medal and then throw it away to satisfy his urge to insult real Americans. This was so stupid that Kerry refused to even discuss it.

And we all know how well that worked out.

And once these stories get out there, they're hard to stamp out because our media do such a lousy job of speaking truth to stupid. Vietnam, Iraq and the Spanish-American War were all sold on lies that were unchallenged or even abetted by the media. Clinton got impeached and Kerry got destroyed in large part because the media didn't have the guts to say, "This is nonsense."

Lou Dobbs has been saying recently that people are asking a lot of questions about the birth certificate. Yes, the same people who want to know where the sun goes at night.

And Lou, you're their new king.

That's why it's so important that we the few, the proud, the reality-based attack this stuff before it has a chance to fester and spread. This isn't a case of Democrats versus Republicans. It's sentient beings versus the lizard people, and it is to them I offer this deal: I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma.

[Arisia]

We're definitely in the downward spiral. The economy shows signs of leaving the downward spiral and approaching a stabilization or rebound, but the Republican Party's vicious circle seems to be intensifying.

When so few party members feel that it's even possible for them to publicly object to this kind of nonsense, it's a clear sign that the rabble has, for all intents and purposes, taken control.

We're facing a purge of those who are not beholden to the ignorant mob.

This is not just a threat to the party, it's a threat to the nation.

Back when McCain chose Palin and she went out on her pitchfork rallies, costing the Republican ticket the independent vote -- which was the only vote that mattered at that point -- I told my Democrat friends that the real story to watch in the coming year would be the trajectory of the GOP, and whether they opted to continue whoring around with the basest of the "base", or developed a new strategy to transform the party by forming larger coalitions.

Their reaction to the financial crisis -- the "let 'em fail" rhetoric, support for a stimulus consisting entirely of tax cuts, etc. -- indicated that they were taking the former path, and now they seem to have gone too far down that road to back up.

As one of those independents that the Republicans chased away by choosing Sarah Palin, I am getting less likely to consider voting Republican in the next mid-term election the longer the party leadership remains silent on this.
Where is the RNC Chairman on this, or has he totally conceded that he doesn't have the power to say something like: "This nonsense is harmful to the nation, so stop!" and have it actually mean something within his party? :eek:

[Piggy]

Where is the RNC Chairman on this, or has he totally conceded that he doesn't have the power to say something like: "This nonsense is harmful to the nation, so stop!" and have it actually mean something within his party? :eek:

He conceded when he allowed himself to be publicly spanked by Rush Limbaugh, then followed up with what amounted to "Thank you, sir, may I have another".

The only clear voice I'm hearing on this issue at the moment from party heavyweights is coming from Colin Powell, who has also directly criticized the GOP leadership for not publicly disavowing this (and other) nonsense.

As a result, Powell is being called a RINO and there are loud shouts from the gallery for him to follow Specter out of the party.

It's chickens coming home to roost, I'm afraid.

I trace it back to Dubya's campaign strategy when he worked for his father. He advised Bush Sr., correctly, that they could increase their market share if they pulled resources away from courting the Catholic vote and instead aggressively pursued the fundamentalist/evangelical vote.

And of course, post-Clinton, the Bush-Rove team pressed this strategy even harder, and coupled it with deplorable campaign tactics such as swiftboating and the whisper campaigns.

McCain avoided these excesses at first, but all of that went out the window when he brought Rove protege Steve Schmidt on board as campaign manager. Schmidt, unfortunately, had all of Rove's amoral zeal for dirty tricks but none of his sensitivity for the lay of the political landscape. Amazingly, he pushed a cookie-cutter strategy borrowed from the Dubya campaigns, and McCain, to his great discredit, gave the green light.

So they went and got Palin, who had no right being on the ticket for any national office in the first place, and set her loose to "energize the base". Her rallies -- rather sparsely but quite enthusiastically attended -- were, as we know, a running horror show of lies, distortions, and pandering to the basest emotions of the conspiracy-theorist lunatic fringe of the party, where shouts of "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" from the bleachers were accepted without so much as the flutter of an eyelash.

It was hard to believe what I was hearing when she told her little mobs that, under Obama, their property would cease to be theirs and would instead be owned by the government.

Independents and a lot of moderate Republicans headed for the exits and McCain was handed an embarrassing loss.

So there they were. Out of the White House and a minority in both chambers.

On a party level, clearly the way out of that hole was to get busy re-building coalitions, and the most immediate targets of that effort were obviously the moderate and swing voters they had lost because of Palin, and the business constituency that had long been a key component of their former winning coalitions. And they took at least one step in that direction by giving Palin the Judas treatment in the media.

But since the failure of Lehman Brothers had caused the global economy to seize up, courting the business community meant approving some sort of bailout.

At this point, most of the Republicans left in office owed their seats to the torch and pitchfork crowd. So although it made sense, as a party, to take the risky step of backing away from the fringers and attempting a radical restructuring, the majority of office holders knew that doing so would be suicide for them.

So we were treated to a Republican chorus of "Let 'em fail" and an alternate stimulus bill consisting entirely of tax cuts.

As if that were not bad enough, a little media tiff with Limbaugh, egged on by high-profile Democrats, blew up into a full scale showdown. The party leadership blinked, leaving Rush crowing like a rooster on top of the hill.

The party was now beholden to the mob.

As if more proof were needed, we were subsequently treated to the dog and pony show which was the Sotomayor hearings where what could have been spun as a Republican victory -- a restrained jurist who would not move the court to the left -- became instead a potential sacrifice of many remaining hispanic votes in 2010 and 2012. Instead of proclaiming that Obama had decided to dance to their tune, they went on the attack, dragged out the "activist judge" slur (a favorite hot-button charge) and in the end even senators who had intended to vote for Sotomayor could not get away with it.

And that's where we are now.

So I think the reason we're not hearing voices of rationality and restraint from GOP poobahs is that they're no longer in control. They're subject now to the whims of their remaining constituents, who feed on a steady diet of Limbaugh, Norquist, and Beck.

Powell does not have to put up with that junk, so he's free to call it as he sees it. But few other players in the party have that luxury now.

[MattusMaximus]

Nice synopsis, Piggy. Thanks.

[MattusMaximus]

As one of those independents that the Republicans chased away by choosing Sarah Palin, I am getting less likely to consider voting Republican in the next mid-term election the longer the party leadership remains silent on this.
Where is the RNC Chairman on this, or has he totally conceded that he doesn't have the power to say something like: "This nonsense is harmful to the nation, so stop!" and have it actually mean something within his party? :eek:

Another registered Republican, JoeyDonuts I think, stated that he's getting so sick of this birther nonsense from the right and the lack of GOP leadership opposing it that he's actually going to change his party affiliation. He's decided to become a Blue-Dog Democrat.

Not a good time for the GOP to be losing registered members or the support of independents. Sadly, it's only going to make those who remain behind even more powerful within the party, and the GOP will get even more stoopid.

[MattusMaximus]

More trouble ahead for the GOP. It seems that during the August recess the birthers are planning on, as I predicted, going after Republican Congress-critters when they appear in public forums...

GOP headache: The birther issue (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25444.html)
As GOP Rep. Mike Castle learned the hard way back home in Delaware this month, there’s no easy way to deal with the small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

At a town hall meeting in Georgetown, a woman demanded to know why Castle and his colleagues were “ignoring” questions about Obama’s birth certificate — questions that have been put to rest repeatedly by state officials in Hawaii, where the birth certificate and all other credible evidence show that Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

When Castle countered that Obama is, in fact, “a citizen of the United States,” the crowd erupted in boos, the woman seized control of the gathering and led a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The video went viral; by Sunday, it had been viewed on YouTube more than half a million times.

And birthers say members should expect more of the same in the coming weeks.

“Absolutely,” says California resident Orly Taitz, the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement. “It is a very important issue, one that politicians should have taken up a long time ago.”

Moments after speaking with POLITICO Saturday, Taitz posted a call to arms on her blog:

“I believe it is a serious concern and I hope that each and every decent American comes to town hall meetings with a video camera and demands action,” she wrote.

Wow, this is going to be interesting. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion...

[Alt+F4]

Orly Taitz was on the Cobert Report the other night and he poked fun at her for comparing the Obama administration to the Nazis. She also compared Obama to Stalin.

Anyone who thinks Obama is like Stalin isn't going to be satisfied with any birth certificate presented...and doesn't know anything about Stalin!

[Piggy]

Anyone who thinks Obama is like Stalin isn't going to be satisfied with any birth certificate presented...and doesn't know anything about Stalin!

You didn't know that FEMA is building concentration camps?

Glenn Beck even tried to debunk it, but it turns out, he couldn't!

(I'm not making that up -- people believe this.)

[Brainster]

I trace it back to Dubya's campaign strategy when he worked for his father. He advised Bush Sr., correctly, that they could increase their market share if they pulled resources away from courting the Catholic vote and instead aggressively pursued the fundamentalist/evangelical vote.

And of course, post-Clinton, the Bush-Rove team pressed this strategy even harder, and coupled it with deplorable campaign tactics such as swiftboating and the whisper campaigns.

McCain avoided these excesses at first, but all of that went out the window when he brought Rove protege Steve Schmidt on board as campaign manager. Schmidt, unfortunately, had all of Rove's amoral zeal for dirty tricks but none of his sensitivity for the lay of the political landscape. Amazingly, he pushed a cookie-cutter strategy borrowed from the Dubya campaigns, and McCain, to his great discredit, gave the green light.

1. This is way too political for the conspiracy theory section. Mattus has started several threads on the Birther phenomenon in the political section; if you want to discuss the political aspects of the CT, do it there.

2. The bit about Steve Schmidt is quite frankly a joke. Balance your mischaracterization of Schmidt with this post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/steve-schmidt-mccain-camp_n_188354.html):

Speaking publicly for one of the first times since the end of the presidential campaign, John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt painted a dire portrait of the state of the Republican Party, arguing that the GOP has largely been co-opted by its religious elements.

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," Schmidt declared. "And in a free country, a political party cannot be viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

Sounds to me like you'd agree with the real Steve Schmidt whole-heartedly if you weren't trying to paint him as Darth Vader.

3. McCain lost because the economy went south.

End of political rant.

[Piggy]

1. This is way too political for the conspiracy theory section. Mattus has started several threads on the Birther phenomenon in the political section; if you want to discuss the political aspects of the CT, do it there.

2. The bit about Steve Schmidt is quite frankly a joke. Balance your mischaracterization of Schmidt with this post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/steve-schmidt-mccain-camp_n_188354.html):

Sounds to me like you'd agree with the real Steve Schmidt whole-heartedly if you weren't trying to paint him as Darth Vader.

3. McCain lost because the economy went south.

End of political rant.

Tracing the roots of a CT is quite apt for a CT thread.

Schmidt isn't Darth Vader, he just made an amazingly dumb miscalculation. When the guard changed, the strategy changed, and it was the wrong strategy -- whip up the base and fight dirty rather than attend to your reputation and make a concerted putsch for the middle.

Schmidt may be having buyer's remorse, and both he and Rove appear to have had come-to-Jesus moments, judging by their current rhetoric.

But that doesn't change the fact that he made the wrong call, and McCain ran the play.

The economic crisis didn't have to doom the McCain campaign. It was his response to it that did him in.

And yes, I think you have to look at Schmidt's strategy, especially how Palin was used, to understand where the party is today and why birtherism is so popular among Republicans and why the party leadership doesn't seem to be able to control it.

It's certainly not the only factor, but it's an important one.

Full disclosure: I was a long-time McCain supporter, and not just in the most recent election cycle. In fact, I made a bet with an Obamista, back when both he and McCain were dark horses, on the outcome of an unlikely McCain-Obama election, which neither of us actually expected would come to pass. In the end (after the selection of Palin and the rollout of McCain's health care scheme) I was forced to withdraw my support. I ended up voting for Obama and losing my bet!