Birtherism has stuck with conservatives...

dc1971 · 1st July 2012, 10:42 PM

Yes, it started within the Hillary campaign (most likely as a joke), yet the Birther conundrum has become a mainstay with conservatives...

...take a look...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Puppycow · 2nd July 2012, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

Yes, it started within the Hillary campaign (most likely as a joke)

Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim.

Aridas · 2nd July 2012, 12:59 AM

Incidentally, this was uploaded on Aug 5, 2011, when the page was checked. Hopefully a bit out of date?

bit_pattern · 2nd July 2012, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim.

Maybe not the official campaign but def. from the zealots who rallied around Clinton in the primaries. I clearly remember when I first heard it, it was on another forum and from a "mothers for Clinton", or "cougars for Clinton" lobby group.

EDIT: It was the PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-birthers.html

BenBurch · 2nd July 2012, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Maybe not the official campaign but def. from the zealots who rallied around Clinton in the primaries. I clearly remember when I first heard it, it was on another forum and from a "mothers for Clinton", or "cougars for Clinton" lobby group.

EDIT: It was the PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-birthers.html

A group funded by the GOP, BTW.

Brainster · 2nd July 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A group funded by the GOP, BTW.

Cite?

BenBurch · 2nd July 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Cite?

I'd have to care enough to bother.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd July 2012, 11:29 AM

At any rate, that's not "the Hillary campaign".

carlitos · 2nd July 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'd have to care enough to bother.

I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share?

Brainster · 2nd July 2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share?

Yes, that's what I found digging around. She donated the money to McCain in 2000, and donated $850 to Hillary in 2008. There was a website called Clintons for McCain which was an RNC site, which may be what Ben is remembering. But I can find no indication that PUMA was funded in any way by the GOP.

Puppycow · 2nd July 2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

At any rate, that's not "the Hillary campaign".

This. Every candidate has a few nutty supporters.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd July 2012, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share?

With just a quick bit of googling, I suspect Ben's allegation will not be substantiated. PUMAPAC lost its IRS standing as a PAC for failure to adhere to the requirements. I suspect that requirement includes donor disclosure, so we probably will not know where all their funding came from. (I only assume this, because I can't think of any other requirement that would cause them to surrender their status as a PAC.)

Still, the fact that a GOP supporter also funded PUMA, makes me think that it probably wasn't even composed, necessarily, of Hillary supporters. Sounds pretty sleazy to me.

ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)

leftysergeant · 2nd July 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Cite?

Weren't you listening to the Rushblob back then?

dc1971 · 2nd July 2012, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

With just a quick bit of googling, I suspect Ben's allegation will not be substantiated. PUMAPAC lost its IRS standing as a PAC for failure to adhere to the requirements. I suspect that requirement includes donor disclosure, so we probably will not know where all their funding came from. (I only assume this, because I can't think of any other requirement that would cause them to surrender their status as a PAC.)

Still, the fact that a GOP supporter also funded PUMA, makes me think that it probably wasn't even composed, necessarily, of Hillary supporters. Sounds pretty sleazy to me.

ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)

So we could just say a "Fringe group of people"?

bit_pattern · 3rd July 2012, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A group funded by the GOP, BTW.

Didn't know that, ta.

KDLarsen · 3rd July 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

So we could just say a "Fringe group of people"?

That'd be a very good description of the PUMA's. IIRC After Hillary withdrew from the race, they started supporting Sarah Palin

carlitos · 3rd July 2012, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)

That's the politics sub-forum in a nutshell. Unintentional overstatements.

daredelvis · 3rd July 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)

Interesting, it seems to be the lore (especially from the right wing supporters) that the whole birther thing started with the Clinton campaign. Is there any evidence to support this, or is it really only based on some Hillary supporters?

Daredelvis

ANTPogo · 3rd July 2012, 10:51 AM

Blogger Loren Collins actually tracked back the "secret origins" of Birtherism.

http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/201...-birthers.html

http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/201...in-part-2.html

Basically, doubts and rumors about Obama's birthplace started on far-right-wing sites like Free Republic and anti-Muslim writer Alan Peters' blog in March of 2008. It then exploded after a commentary article in early June (just days after Obama cinched the delegate count in the Democratic primary) posted on the more mainstream (but still right-wing) National Review Online, with both angry Clinton supporters like Larry Johnson and other right-wing sites like Michelle Malkin's blog and lunatic Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs posting questions and rumors about Obama's true birthplace. On June 12, the Obama campaign released the "short form" certificate.

At that point, disgruntled Clinton supporters were the main "birthers", with only a few of the far-right sites still clinging to it. WND even reported on Clinton supporter and Democrat Philip Berg's lawsuit about Obama's supposed ineligibility in August 2008 (hysterically, considering WND is now the main proponent of birtherism, it said Berg's lawsuit was based on "discredited claims", and found no evidence Obama's birth certificate was anything other than genuine).

It was only after Obama's election in November 2008 that the PUMA support for birtherism faded, and right-wing birtherism resurged once more. And here's where we are today, four years later.

carlitos · 3rd July 2012, 11:46 AM

Thanks for posting those. Wow - Volokh was just posting a hypothetical, it sounded like to me, and it just fed the rumor.

Brainster · 3rd July 2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It then exploded after a commentary article in early June (just days after Obama cinched the delegate count in the Democratic primary) posted on the more mainstream (but still right-wing) National Review Online, with both angry Clinton supporters like Larry Johnson and other right-wing sites like Michelle Malkin's blog and lunatic Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs posting questions and rumors about Obama's true birthplace.

I realize you are summarizing, but Malkin has been very firm about condemning the Birther nonsense. Here's a post from December 2008, where she compares the Birthers to the 9-11 Truthers and the Trig Truthers (an even more ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's son):

Quote:

I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew – not Bush and Cheney – perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?

The "questions" she posted were way back on June 10, 2008 (prior to the release of the birth certificate):

Quote:

Has anyone seen it? Why shouldn’t the record be in the public domain for presidential candidates?

Note that she does not speculate at all that Obama was born outside the US; indeed the one point she highlights from the National Review piece is the least consequential: Whether Barack or Barry was his given name. Obama released his birth certificate four days later, and ever since, Malkin has been dismissive of the Birthers.

RandFan · 3rd July 2012, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I realize you are summarizing, but Malkin has been very firm about condemning the Birther nonsense. Here's a post from December 2008, where she compares the Birthers to the 9-11 Truthers and the Trig Truthers (an even more ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's son):

The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency.

mikedenk · 3rd July 2012, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency.

Trig Truthers? Republicans looking for "equivalency" don't need to mess around with those small potatoes.

2006: Majority of Democrats = Truthers

Talk about a broad base of support!

RandFan · 3rd July 2012, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Trig Truthers? Republicans looking for "equivalency" don't need to mess around with those small potatoes.

2006: Majority of Democrats = Truthers

Talk about a broad base of support!

Yeah, I'll grant the point. I think there are some substantive differences but that's fine.

Brainster · 3rd July 2012, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency.

I was providing an explanation for the first line of the quote from Malkin. And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency. Hell, the Trig Truthers even had Andrew Sullivan supporting their cause.

Corsair 115 · 3rd July 2012, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency.

Maybe so, but I'll take a swing at defining the 'substantive differences' RandFan referenced. Let's say the 2008 election had turned out differently.

The Trig conspiracy might reflect negatively on Palin's character, but in no other way whatsoever would it offer any sort of challenge to the legal and electoral legitimacy of her as Vice President. The Birther conspiracy, on the other hand, alleges that the President is not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, is illegitimate.

One of these theories attacks the person but in no way impacts upon the legal legitimacy of that person's ability to serve in the office to which they were elected, while the other theory most certainly does.

I'd call that an important difference.

Brainster · 3rd July 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Maybe so, but I'll take a swing at defining the 'substantive differences' RandFan referenced. Let's say the 2008 election had turned out differently.

The Trig conspiracy might reflect negatively on Palin's character, but in no other way whatsoever would it offer any sort of challenge to the legal and electoral legitimacy of her as Vice President. The Birther conspiracy, on the other hand, alleges that the President is not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, is illegitimate.

One of these theories attacks the person but in no way impacts upon the legal legitimacy of that person's ability to serve in the office to which they were elected, while the other theory most certainly does.

I'd call that an important difference.

Sure, as far as that goes. And if there were anybody in his or her right mind as compared to morons like Joe Arpaio who believed in the Birtherism nonsense, there might be cause for concern.

Oh, and by the way, did anybody ever allege that George W. Bush was not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, was illegitimate? Yes, I do seem to remember a few people making that argument. We could call it the Florida conspiracy (and in 2004, the Ohio conspiracy).

Yes, you can say that's just tu quoque, except that those conspiracy theories got a whole lot more support from the left than did the Birtherism from the right. Bush stole Ohio was obviously not as popular as the 2000 Florida conspiracy theory, right? But it got a heckuva lot of traction in the mainstream media:

Harper's Magazine (formerly Harper's Bazaar): None dare call it stolen:
Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

Rolling Stone published a piece in 2006 by RFK Jr.; while it apparently is no longer on the web, here's Salon's debunking.

Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism). Consider:

Booman Tribune: The Real Voter Fraud: How Bush Stole Ohio in 2004

Firedoglake: Audits – and Proof that Bush stole 2004 Ohio and election coming out

That latter one's just from last year; Ohio Truthers are still pushing the story!

zeggman · 3rd July 2012, 11:07 PM

Sorry, I thought it said "blitherism".

Carry on.

Chaos · 4th July 2012, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency.

More importantly, the Trig Truther thing died a swift and final death the moment evidence to the contrary appeared. The Birther thing... not so much.

varwoche · 4th July 2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim.

Me neither. But I do recall that her campaign played a similar tune when they released a picture of Obama in Somali garb, denied it, then admitted it.

varwoche · 4th July 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency.

Not just tu quoque. Speculative tu quoque! <laughing dog!>

Wangler · 4th July 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Sure, as far as that goes. And if there were anybody in his or her right mind as compared to morons like Joe Arpaio who believed in the Birtherism nonsense, there might be cause for concern.

Oh, and by the way, did anybody ever allege that George W. Bush was not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, was illegitimate? Yes, I do seem to remember a few people making that argument. We could call it the Florida conspiracy (and in 2004, the Ohio conspiracy).

Yes, you can say that's just tu quoque, except that those conspiracy theories got a whole lot more support from the left than did the Birtherism from the right. Bush stole Ohio was obviously not as popular as the 2000 Florida conspiracy theory, right? But it got a heckuva lot of traction in the mainstream media:

Harper's Magazine (formerly Harper's Bazaar): None dare call it stolen:
Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

Rolling Stone published a piece in 2006 by RFK Jr.; while it apparently is no longer on the web, here's Salon's debunking.

Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism). Consider:

Booman Tribune: The Real Voter Fraud: How Bush Stole Ohio in 2004

Firedoglake: Audits – and Proof that Bush stole 2004 Ohio and election coming out

That latter one's just from last year; Ohio Truthers are still pushing the story!

Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try.

The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones.

RandFan · 4th July 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try.

The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones.

Let's see, there are actualy people here from the right defending religious infringement, taking away the rights of women, discriminating against gays and lesbians and all manner of asshatery. But it's those lefty-libs that want to protect rights and improve social services that are the problem.

Newtons Bit · 4th July 2012, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism).

Patterico, my favorite conservative blog bought into the "just asking questions" aspect of the Birthers. That caused an issue for me. Carlitos can back that up. It was nasty.

A lot of other conservative blogs also fell into the JAQ'ing off line as well. For some reason, those on the right think that the birth issue is somehow embarrassing to Obama and don't want it to die out. I don't get it.

Regnad Kcin · 4th July 2012, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try.

The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones.

There, there, it's okay. The bad men won't hurt you.

carlitos · 4th July 2012, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Patterico, my favorite conservative blog bought into the "just asking questions" aspect of the Birthers. That caused an issue for me. Carlitos can back that up. It was nasty.

A lot of other conservative blogs also fell into the JAQ'ing off line as well. For some reason, those on the right think that the birth issue is somehow embarrassing to Obama and don't want it to die out. I don't get it.

Agree 100%. I drove past that Joseph Farah "Where's the birth certificate" billboard for months. I saw the CPAC conference where they played this nonsense up. As a conservative, I find it offensive and embarrassing. Having my favorite blogger falling down the JAQ rabbit hole was awful.

UnrepentantSinner · 5th July 2012, 02:11 AM

The birther meme is still going strong on Free Republic.

KDLarsen · 5th July 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

The birther meme is still going strong on Free Republic.

Only partially. You're out of luck if you're trying to push the "Two Natural born citizen parents"-theory, or suggesting that neither Jindal, Rubio or even Romney aren't Natural Born Citizens

BenBurch · 5th July 2012, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Only partially. You're out of luck if you're trying to push the "Two Natural born citizen parents"-theory, or suggesting that neither Jindal, Rubio or even Romney aren't Natural Born Citizens

True, they go all the way to a Conspiracy which plotted out Obama's rise to power before he was even born.

eeyore1954 · 5th July 2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Joe the Juggler

Quote:

ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)

Originally Posted by carlitos

That's the politics sub-forum in a nutshell. Unintentional overstatements.

I think the OP also falls into that category

Quote:

Birther conundrum has become a mainstay with conservatives

While clearly there are some who cling to birtherism few mainstream conservative politicians do.

2nd July 2012, 12:26 AM	#2
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by dc1971 Yes, it started within the Hillary campaign (most likely as a joke) Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

2nd July 2012, 12:59 AM	#3
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Incidentally, this was uploaded on Aug 5, 2011, when the page was checked. Hopefully a bit out of date?
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

2nd July 2012, 02:22 AM	#4
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by Puppycow Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim. Maybe not the official campaign but def. from the zealots who rallied around Clinton in the primaries. I clearly remember when I first heard it, it was on another forum and from a "mothers for Clinton", or "cougars for Clinton" lobby group. EDIT: It was the PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass) http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-birthers.html
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs." Last edited by bit_pattern; 2nd July 2012 at 02:25 AM.

2nd July 2012, 07:42 AM	#5
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,093	Originally Posted by bit_pattern Maybe not the official campaign but def. from the zealots who rallied around Clinton in the primaries. I clearly remember when I first heard it, it was on another forum and from a "mothers for Clinton", or "cougars for Clinton" lobby group. EDIT: It was the PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass) http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-birthers.html A group funded by the GOP, BTW.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

2nd July 2012, 09:08 AM	#6
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,416	Originally Posted by BenBurch A group funded by the GOP, BTW. Cite?
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

2nd July 2012, 09:30 AM	#7
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,093	Originally Posted by Brainster Cite? I'd have to care enough to bother.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

2nd July 2012, 11:29 AM	#8
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,696	At any rate, that's not "the Hillary campaign".
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

2nd July 2012, 11:42 AM	#9
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,466	Originally Posted by BenBurch I'd have to care enough to bother. I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share?
	Last edited by carlitos; 2nd July 2012 at 11:43 AM.

2nd July 2012, 12:55 PM	#10
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,416	Originally Posted by carlitos I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share? Yes, that's what I found digging around. She donated the money to McCain in 2000, and donated $850 to Hillary in 2008. There was a website called Clintons for McCain which was an RNC site, which may be what Ben is remembering. But I can find no indication that PUMA was funded in any way by the GOP.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

2nd July 2012, 03:25 PM	#11
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler At any rate, that's not "the Hillary campaign". This. Every candidate has a few nutty supporters.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

2nd July 2012, 03:53 PM	#12
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,696	Originally Posted by carlitos I vaguely remember that some individual who filed PUMA paperwork and appeared on Fox had previously given $500 to John McCain in a primary election cycle. Is that what you mean by the group being "funded by the GOP?" If not, care to share? With just a quick bit of googling, I suspect Ben's allegation will not be substantiated. PUMAPAC lost its IRS standing as a PAC for failure to adhere to the requirements. I suspect that requirement includes donor disclosure, so we probably will not know where all their funding came from. (I only assume this, because I can't think of any other requirement that would cause them to surrender their status as a PAC.) Still, the fact that a GOP supporter also funded PUMA, makes me think that it probably wasn't even composed, necessarily, of Hillary supporters. Sounds pretty sleazy to me. ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 2nd July 2012 at 03:56 PM.

2nd July 2012, 04:19 PM	#13
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Brainster Cite? Weren't you listening to the Rushblob back then?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

2nd July 2012, 11:18 PM	#14
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler With just a quick bit of googling, I suspect Ben's allegation will not be substantiated. PUMAPAC lost its IRS standing as a PAC for failure to adhere to the requirements. I suspect that requirement includes donor disclosure, so we probably will not know where all their funding came from. (I only assume this, because I can't think of any other requirement that would cause them to surrender their status as a PAC.) Still, the fact that a GOP supporter also funded PUMA, makes me think that it probably wasn't even composed, necessarily, of Hillary supporters. Sounds pretty sleazy to me. ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.) So we could just say a "Fringe group of people"?
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033

3rd July 2012, 03:09 AM	#15
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by BenBurch A group funded by the GOP, BTW. Didn't know that, ta.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

3rd July 2012, 04:36 AM	#16
KDLarsen Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lord's Posts: 1,940	Originally Posted by dc1971 So we could just say a "Fringe group of people"? That'd be a very good description of the PUMA's. IIRC After Hillary withdrew from the race, they started supporting Sarah Palin

3rd July 2012, 05:08 AM	#17
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,466	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.) That's the politics sub-forum in a nutshell. Unintentional overstatements.

3rd July 2012, 10:25 AM	#18
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,866	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler ETA: Looks like we have two unintentional overstatements: "the Hillary campaign" and "the GOP". (I think Ben might have mean to say "Republicans" rather than "the GOP", and dc might have meant to say "Hillary supporters" rather than "the Hillary campaign". Both statements as amended might be true, but it's also possible that only Ben's amended statement is true.) Interesting, it seems to be the lore (especially from the right wing supporters) that the whole birther thing started with the Clinton campaign. Is there any evidence to support this, or is it really only based on some Hillary supporters? Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

3rd July 2012, 10:51 AM	#19
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,322	Blogger Loren Collins actually tracked back the "secret origins" of Birtherism. http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/201...-birthers.html http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/201...in-part-2.html Basically, doubts and rumors about Obama's birthplace started on far-right-wing sites like Free Republic and anti-Muslim writer Alan Peters' blog in March of 2008. It then exploded after a commentary article in early June (just days after Obama cinched the delegate count in the Democratic primary) posted on the more mainstream (but still right-wing) National Review Online, with both angry Clinton supporters like Larry Johnson and other right-wing sites like Michelle Malkin's blog and lunatic Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs posting questions and rumors about Obama's true birthplace. On June 12, the Obama campaign released the "short form" certificate. At that point, disgruntled Clinton supporters were the main "birthers", with only a few of the far-right sites still clinging to it. WND even reported on Clinton supporter and Democrat Philip Berg's lawsuit about Obama's supposed ineligibility in August 2008 (hysterically, considering WND is now the main proponent of birtherism, it said Berg's lawsuit was based on "discredited claims", and found no evidence Obama's birth certificate was anything other than genuine). It was only after Obama's election in November 2008 that the PUMA support for birtherism faded, and right-wing birtherism resurged once more. And here's where we are today, four years later.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris Last edited by ANTPogo; 3rd July 2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason: birth certificate, not birther certificate

3rd July 2012, 11:46 AM	#20
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,466	Thanks for posting those. Wow - Volokh was just posting a hypothetical, it sounded like to me, and it just fed the rumor.

3rd July 2012, 05:25 PM	#21
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,416	Originally Posted by ANTPogo It then exploded after a commentary article in early June (just days after Obama cinched the delegate count in the Democratic primary) posted on the more mainstream (but still right-wing) National Review Online, with both angry Clinton supporters like Larry Johnson and other right-wing sites like Michelle Malkin's blog and lunatic Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs posting questions and rumors about Obama's true birthplace. I realize you are summarizing, but Malkin has been very firm about condemning the Birther nonsense. Here's a post from December 2008, where she compares the Birthers to the 9-11 Truthers and the Trig Truthers (an even more ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's son): Quote: I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew – not Bush and Cheney – perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me? The "questions" she posted were way back on June 10, 2008 (prior to the release of the birth certificate): Quote: Has anyone seen it? Why shouldn’t the record be in the public domain for presidential candidates? Note that she does not speculate at all that Obama was born outside the US; indeed the one point she highlights from the National Review piece is the least consequential: Whether Barack or Barry was his given name. Obama released his birth certificate four days later, and ever since, Malkin has been dismissive of the Birthers.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

3rd July 2012, 06:18 PM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,131	Originally Posted by Brainster I realize you are summarizing, but Malkin has been very firm about condemning the Birther nonsense. Here's a post from December 2008, where she compares the Birthers to the 9-11 Truthers and the Trig Truthers (an even more ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's son): The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd July 2012, 07:34 PM	#23
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 788	Originally Posted by RandFan The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency. Trig Truthers? Republicans looking for "equivalency" don't need to mess around with those small potatoes. 2006: Majority of Democrats = Truthers Talk about a broad base of support!

3rd July 2012, 07:57 PM	#24
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,131	Originally Posted by mikedenk Trig Truthers? Republicans looking for "equivalency" don't need to mess around with those small potatoes. 2006: Majority of Democrats = Truthers Talk about a broad base of support! Yeah, I'll grant the point. I think there are some substantive differences but that's fine.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd July 2012, 09:30 PM	#25
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,416	Originally Posted by RandFan The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency. I was providing an explanation for the first line of the quote from Malkin. And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency. Hell, the Trig Truthers even had Andrew Sullivan supporting their cause.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

3rd July 2012, 09:59 PM	#26
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,556	Originally Posted by Brainster And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency. Maybe so, but I'll take a swing at defining the 'substantive differences' RandFan referenced. Let's say the 2008 election had turned out differently. The Trig conspiracy might reflect negatively on Palin's character, but in no other way whatsoever would it offer any sort of challenge to the legal and electoral legitimacy of her as Vice President. The Birther conspiracy, on the other hand, alleges that the President is not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, is illegitimate. One of these theories attacks the person but in no way impacts upon the legal legitimacy of that person's ability to serve in the office to which they were elected, while the other theory most certainly does. I'd call that an important difference.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." Last edited by Corsair 115; 3rd July 2012 at 10:00 PM.

3rd July 2012, 11:05 PM	#27
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,416	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Maybe so, but I'll take a swing at defining the 'substantive differences' RandFan referenced. Let's say the 2008 election had turned out differently. The Trig conspiracy might reflect negatively on Palin's character, but in no other way whatsoever would it offer any sort of challenge to the legal and electoral legitimacy of her as Vice President. The Birther conspiracy, on the other hand, alleges that the President is not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, is illegitimate. One of these theories attacks the person but in no way impacts upon the legal legitimacy of that person's ability to serve in the office to which they were elected, while the other theory most certainly does. I'd call that an important difference. Sure, as far as that goes. And if there were anybody in his or her right mind as compared to morons like Joe Arpaio who believed in the Birtherism nonsense, there might be cause for concern. Oh, and by the way, did anybody ever allege that George W. Bush was not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, was illegitimate? Yes, I do seem to remember a few people making that argument. We could call it the Florida conspiracy (and in 2004, the Ohio conspiracy). Yes, you can say that's just tu quoque, except that those conspiracy theories got a whole lot more support from the left than did the Birtherism from the right. Bush stole Ohio was obviously not as popular as the 2000 Florida conspiracy theory, right? But it got a heckuva lot of traction in the mainstream media: Harper's Magazine (formerly Harper's Bazaar): None dare call it stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press Rolling Stone published a piece in 2006 by RFK Jr.; while it apparently is no longer on the web, here's Salon's debunking. Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism). Consider: Booman Tribune: The Real Voter Fraud: How Bush Stole Ohio in 2004 Firedoglake: Audits – and Proof that Bush stole 2004 Ohio and election coming out That latter one's just from last year; Ohio Truthers are still pushing the story!
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. Last edited by Brainster; 3rd July 2012 at 11:06 PM.

3rd July 2012, 11:07 PM	#28
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Sorry, I thought it said "blitherism". Carry on.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

4th July 2012, 02:43 AM	#29
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,776	Originally Posted by RandFan The "Trig Truthers" don't begin to compare. The Birther nonsense has been dead, buried and resurrected countless times by prominent people who really ought to know better. The Trig crap never had a broad base of support the way the Birther crap did/does. But, thank god Republicans have something as a sort of equivalency. More importantly, the Trig Truther thing died a swift and final death the moment evidence to the contrary appeared. The Birther thing... not so much.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

4th July 2012, 08:30 AM	#30
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,228	Originally Posted by Puppycow Really? I don't recall Hillary or any of her close advisers making the claim. Me neither. But I do recall that her campaign played a similar tune when they released a picture of Obama in Somali garb, denied it, then admitted it.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

4th July 2012, 08:33 AM	#31
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,228	Originally Posted by Brainster And believe it or not, Trig Trutherism would be huge if McCain had won the presidency. Not just tu quoque. Speculative tu quoque! <laughing dog!>
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

4th July 2012, 03:28 PM	#32
Wangler Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OH State Posts: 2,230	Originally Posted by Brainster Sure, as far as that goes. And if there were anybody in his or her right mind as compared to morons like Joe Arpaio who believed in the Birtherism nonsense, there might be cause for concern. Oh, and by the way, did anybody ever allege that George W. Bush was not lawfully entitled to be President, and thus his Presidency, and by extension his entire administration, was illegitimate? Yes, I do seem to remember a few people making that argument. We could call it the Florida conspiracy (and in 2004, the Ohio conspiracy). Yes, you can say that's just tu quoque, except that those conspiracy theories got a whole lot more support from the left than did the Birtherism from the right. Bush stole Ohio was obviously not as popular as the 2000 Florida conspiracy theory, right? But it got a heckuva lot of traction in the mainstream media: Harper's Magazine (formerly Harper's Bazaar): None dare call it stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press Rolling Stone published a piece in 2006 by RFK Jr.; while it apparently is no longer on the web, here's Salon's debunking. Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism). Consider: Booman Tribune: The Real Voter Fraud: How Bush Stole Ohio in 2004 Firedoglake: Audits – and Proof that Bush stole 2004 Ohio and election coming out That latter one's just from last year; Ohio Truthers are still pushing the story! Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try. The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones.

4th July 2012, 04:20 PM	#33
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,131	Originally Posted by Wangler Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try. The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones. Let's see, there are actualy people here from the right defending religious infringement, taking away the rights of women, discriminating against gays and lesbians and all manner of asshatery. But it's those lefty-libs that want to protect rights and improve social services that are the problem.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

4th July 2012, 05:54 PM	#34
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,882	Originally Posted by Brainster Major lefty blogs have repeated the Ohio story ad infinitum (while you cannot name a major conservative blog that has endorsed Birtherism). Patterico, my favorite conservative blog bought into the "just asking questions" aspect of the Birthers. That caused an issue for me. Carlitos can back that up. It was nasty. A lot of other conservative blogs also fell into the JAQ'ing off line as well. For some reason, those on the right think that the birth issue is somehow embarrassing to Obama and don't want it to die out. I don't get it.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,882	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

4th July 2012, 07:50 PM	#35
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,205	Originally Posted by Wangler Brainster, I'm not sure why you even try. The USA Politics forum here at JREF is already chock full of liberal circle-jerks masquarading as intellegent discussion threads, and I see no end to new ones. There, there, it's okay. The bad men won't hurt you.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

4th July 2012, 09:52 PM	#36
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,466	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Patterico, my favorite conservative blog bought into the "just asking questions" aspect of the Birthers. That caused an issue for me. Carlitos can back that up. It was nasty. A lot of other conservative blogs also fell into the JAQ'ing off line as well. For some reason, those on the right think that the birth issue is somehow embarrassing to Obama and don't want it to die out. I don't get it. Agree 100%. I drove past that Joseph Farah "Where's the birth certificate" billboard for months. I saw the CPAC conference where they played this nonsense up. As a conservative, I find it offensive and embarrassing. Having my favorite blogger falling down the JAQ rabbit hole was awful.