Some thoughts from Jonah Goldberg:
The question of which scenario is more plausible is neither academic nor trivial. This summer, a host of columnists, commentators, and activists, seemingly taking their cues from a White House and DNC public-relations offensive, declared that the rise of the “birthers” was a fatal indictment of modern conservatism and the Republican party. The refusal of the birthers to give up their cockamamie theory was proof that the GOP had succumbed to the “paranoid style.” Indeed, according to some liberal commentators, the birthers were the potential wellspring for a nascent Nazi movement in America. Never mind that the vast majority of leading Republicans and conservatives — from Newt Gingrich to Ann Coulter — rejected the birthers categorically.
Fast-forward to the last week or so. Van Jones, an avowed “Communist” and passionate supporter of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, was a truther par excellence. Contrary to many reports, he didn’t merely sign 911truth.org’s petition in 2004, he helped organize one of the first truther groups as early as 2002.
When these and other revelations came to light, Jones resigned his post as White House “green jobs czar.”
The reaction from much of the liberal establishment has been fascinating, hypocritical, and deeply creepy.
Not out of character for them, unfortunately.
One important distinction to keep in mind is, however mistaken they may be, Birthers tend to be pro-freedom. While I’ve known some Ron Paul type libertarians (usually with a whiff of anti-Semitism about them) who are attracted to Trutherism because it appeals to their deepest anti-Zionist suspicions, Truthers (in my experience) tend to be collectivists.
Never mind that the vast majority of leading Republicans and conservatives — from Newt Gingrich to Ann Coulter — rejected the birthers categorically.
And yet most white Republicans in the South are birthers, as are at least 10 GOP members of Congress, Lou Dobbs, Andy McCarthy at the National Review, etc. When will we be seeing them resign?
One important distinction to keep in mind is, however mistaken they may be, Birthers tend to be pro-freedom.
As do Klansmen. What’s your point?
And yet most white Republicans in the South are birthers
Careful Jim, your bigotry is starting to show through.
As do Klansmen.
Oops, too late.
And yet most white Republicans in the South are birthers, as are at least 10 GOP members of Congress, Lou Dobbs, Andy McCarthy at the National Review, etc. When will we be seeing them resign?
There’s a rather large and important difference between wanting to see Obama’s original birth certificate and believing that Obama’s wasn’t born in Hawaii, which is what “birtherism” is really all about. Andy McCarthy, at least, certainly believes Obama was born in Hawaii. And why should Lou Dobbs or Andy McCarthy resign their private jobs, anyway? Or elected members of Congress subject to re-election?
Tell us, Jim: did your mother have any children that lived?
I am a white southern Republican and I take great offense to your generalizations Jim. Your racism and bigotry is only exceeded by you stupidity and ignorance.
I apologize for the flame Rand but I just couldn’t let it go.
“As do Klansmen”–what? Klansmen are Birthers? Well . . . so what? My observation (which I admit is largely impressionistic, unlike your observation about most white Southerners, which I’m sure probably has the same foundation of evidence and logic as most of your statements) was that “Birthers tend to be pro-freedom.” Repeat “tend to.” Is the meaning of the phrase “tend to” too obscure for you/?
Lefties like Jim believe that people who hold different beliefs from themselves should be cast out into the outer darkness to starve. (That’s not the same thing, by the way, as wanting someone to not have a position of authority in the government that will be paid via taxpayer’s money.)
Can we “cap & trade” Jim’s bigotry? You know, exchange all that CO2 for something useful?
Titus, what Jim spews is far too toxic to ever be useful.
most white Republicans in the South are birthers?
Well, you’ll be happy to show us the data that you derived that statement from, right?
I can wait.
“Birthers tend to be pro-freedom… Truthers … tend to be collectivists.”
I think that may just happen to be a product of the Presidents the two conspiracy theories are referring to. If Gore was President, we might see Right wing Truthers, and if McCain won left wing Birthers (since he had some campaign issues with his place and time of birth too).
Though actually, in challenge to your assertion, plenty of people on the Right are statists, and I wonder if the average Birther is a statist or dynamist (to use Postrel’s terms). Dynamists need to have a mindset that change and freedom is good, that you can’t predict or control others, and part of me feels it’s hard to have that mindset while also believing that vast conspiracies are possible where these klutzy politicians and officials that can’t get things right, suddenly can organize vast coverups. Many on the Right cry “freedom” but then say “except for this list of activities we need to control” etc.
Anyway, I don’t know what makes people believe in conspiracies, I just wish we taught more science and logic and critical thinking. I was watching some ridiculous Nostrodamus show on the History channel, and the whole time I was thinking “why aren’t they debunking this? Why are they reporting it as possible fact? What good are these ‘science’ channels?” sigh
Sigivald – as provided previously, the poll on birthers can be found here.
Larry – I don’t understand why you need to see Obama’s “full” birth certificate if you accept that he was born in Hawaii. Being born in the United States and of the correct age is all that is required to be President.
Chris — I don’t need to see his birth certificate. I think there are enough reasons to object to him as it is. 😉
I do think it’s, um, interesting though that he spends so much time and money covering up his past. On the one hand, I think politicians are asked to display far too much of their personal lives to the world. Only psychotic narcissists are going to be up to even thinking of running for office, which does not help the country at all.
On the other hand, both of the big parties have invested themselves in forcing people to do it. Isn’t it weird that suddenly the democrats think the past doesn’t matter? The hypocracy is disgusting.
Anyway, both parties are power-hungry, freedom-denying moralists. They just have different morals in their different religions that they want to force on everyone else.
I don’t understand why you need to see Obama’s “full” birth certificate if you accept that he was born in Hawaii.
I can’t speak for Larry, but I don’t “need” to see it — I’d just like to. I’m curious what it is that he’s going to such great lengths to hide (just as I am with his transcripts). The issue isn’t whether or not he’s constitutionally qualified so much as if he could be electable if he were less of a cipher.
Silvermine – I hear this “he spends a lot of money hiding” theme a lot. Except how much money has Obama actually spent? The birth certificate cases are being dismissed at the most initial levels, without even a hearing. Obama is paying a local lawyer (probably affiliated with the local Democratic party) to write a “this is BS” legal response. How much would that cost?
Rand – what “great lengths” regarding his transcripts? He just said no. That’s not a “great length” or very costly.
Regardless of the lengths, I want to know why he “said no.”
What is he hiding, in both cases?
I am a white southern Republican and I take great offense to your generalizations Jim.
It isn’t a generalization, it’s a poll result.
Well, you’ll be happy to show us the data that you derived that statement from, right?
Chris Gerrib posted the link, above.
There’s a rather large and important difference between wanting to see Obama’s original birth certificate and believing that Obama’s wasn’t born in Hawaii, which is what “birtherism” is really all about.
Both are attempts to cast doubt on Obama’s legitimacy.
“As do Klansmen”–what? Klansmen are Birthers?
No, Klansmen tend to be pro-freedom. You wrote that birthers tend to be pro-freedom, I’m asking you why that is relevant.
What is he hiding, in both cases?
A judge would say: assumes facts not in evidence. Maybe he isn’t hiding anything?
This curiosity starts from an assumption that there must be something juicy, it’s just a matter of uncovering it. It’s the sort of psychology that motivated the anti-Clinton Arkansas project, the Kerry Swift Boat business, and the Obama is a Muslim/communist/terrorist/Kenyan/stupid-person-pretending-to-be-a-smart-person memes. It also motivates equally crazy theories on the left: 9/11 conspiracy theories, the search for proof that George W. Bush used cocaine, or paid for a girlfriend’s abortion, or was AWOL from the National Guard, and the Palin fake-pregnancy theory.
It isn’t clear to me that any of this curiosity has actually turned up information that led to better assessments of the candidates in question.
No, Klansmen tend to be pro-freedom.
They certainly aren’t pro-freedom wrt the people they murder.
“Klansmen tend to be pro-freedom.”
I was going to respond to this amazing statement by writing: “If the rest of you needed any further evidence that Jim is a blithering idiot, here you go.” But let’s be fair. Maybe Jim has access to data we lack. If there’s evidence that there’s some new libertarian movement that has taken over the Klan, I’d be glad to hear it. Jim?
Hey, come on. Be kind to Jim. He is a self-made millionaire who through his great success in life now has free time to peruse the Internet and extol his ideas on us underlings. We should be grateful for the wonderful nuggets of Jim’s wisdom that emanate from his bodily orifices.
A poll commissioned by Daily Kos found that “most white Republicans in the South are birthers.”
What other Kos-funded poll findings can we expect? That 98% of Sarah Palin’s grandchildren are really her children?
If one can make any sense out of what Jim says at this point, I’m guessing he believes (or pretends to believe, for the sole purpose of grouping truly pro-freedom people in with the Klan), or simply to divert the discussion) that the Klan is pro-freedom because in many instances they have opposed the federal and even state governments. One might argue, using that logic, that the Nazis were pro-freedom because at one point they warred against the Weimar Republic; or that German Communists were pro-freedom because they opposed the Nazis. (Except during the Hitler-Stalin Pact, of course, or as the party line otherwise dictated. ) As anyone with a modicum of intelligence, would know, such instances aren’t examples of noble, heroic resistance to statism. They’re just gang warfare. The Kleagle who, for example, opposes gun control today would be the first to disarm Jews and Blacks if he somehow obtained the power to do so.
Klansmen eat bread and breathe air too Jim. Are you proposing to forgoe those luxuries Jim?
What other Kos-funded poll findings can we expect? That 98% of Sarah Palin’s grandchildren are really her children?
HuffPo is corroborating those results, so it must be true.
The KKK endorsed Ron Paul on the main page of their website in 2007. I don’t know if this is germane to the argument or not. The KKK certainly talks a good game about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly when they are being represented by the ACLU. My guess is that, like nearly all Americans, they genuinely believe in broad freedoms for their countrymen, it is just they disagree with non-racists and non-bigots about who should live in their country.
A poll commissioned by Daily Kos found that “most white Republicans in the South are birthers.”
The poll was conducted by Research 2000, a non-partisan polling outfit with a good record. Research 2000’s final 2008 presidential poll (also commissioned by Daily Kos) was Obama 51, McCain 46; the actual result was Obama 52, McCain 46.
Percentage of respondents answering “yes” to the question “Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?” by region:
Northeast: 93%
South: 47%
Midwest: 90%
West: 87%
One of these things is not like the others.
If there’s evidence that there’s some new libertarian movement that has taken over the Klan, I’d be glad to hear it. Jim?
I wouldn’t say that the Klan is libertarian, but to the degree that they care about government policy, they seem to focus on opposition to freedom-restricting government policies, such as civil rights laws.
Again, my point was: who cares whether birthers are pro-freedom or not?
I grew up at a time when the Klan was anti-Catholic, and yet now I hear they allow Catholic members. I suspect this “reaching out” to Papists was less enlightened than strategic, and a wise move on the Klan’s part, since the many of the Catholic Archie Bunkers could have furnished the Klan with many a recruit. But who knows? Maybe someday even the Klan will evolve into seeing that it’s coercion, and especially State-sponsored coercion, that’s the real enemy, and not race or religion.
“Again, my point was: who cares whether birthers are pro-freedom or not?” Admittedly this is perhaps a minor point; but in evaluating groups my main criteria is: do they threaten me or not? To the extent that Birthers are pro-freedom, they do not; to the extent that Truthers are collectivists and statists, they do. I believe that is an important moral distinction, and one that should be taken into account before cavalierly lumping Birthers and Truthers together.
I still say that all Obama is hiding with regards to his birth certificate is the fact that his real name isn’t “Barack” but something less Black-Power-sounding, like “Bartholomew” or even “Barry” (or as my friend says, maybe he’s named “Stanley Jr.” after mom). Also, it’s a useful diversionary tactic — he and/or his handlers know that dumb stunts like this drive conservatives crazy, and that once you have at least one conservative objecting to said stunt there will come out a reliable gaggle of leftwingers to start screeching about “crazed rightwing southern racist Klan frothing wingnut” etc. And thus all the really important stuff the government is up to gets drowned out by the (mostly) left-created hysteria. (I mean, this could all be cleared up by releasing the birth certificate. But then they’d have to think of something new to claim the opposition is getting crazy about.)
On a side note, it’s hilarious that there are still people who are terrified of the Klan, a bankrupt, laughably sidelined group if there ever was one. I mean, endorsing Ron Paul and letting in Catholics? Talk about desperation moves.
Both birthers and truthers are obsessed with conspiracy theories debunked by widely available facts, but I’d still have to argue that birthers are a little more deranged than truthers. The “birther” conspiracy revolves around whether Obama was born in the US: his birth certificate indicates he was, and there’s corroborating evidence in the form of birth announcements in a contemporary newspaper. This is pretty open- and shut: simple allegation, easy refutation. Yet the birthers continue to harp on about a conspiracy. The truthers allege that the 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for neoconservative imperialist policies, and were either at least permitted by the government if not instigated by the government. They back up their conspiracy theory with a tangle of alleged inconsistencies in facts and events. They’re also deluded – their allegations tend to be rooted in ignorance of engineering, historiography, and other areas. However, 9/11 was a much more complicated event, which provides some excuse for confusion and mistaken conclusions. It doesn’t excuse their willful denial of inconvenient facts, however.
“I’d still have to argue that birthers are a little more deranged than truthers.”
Thanks, that helps us know that you’re someone whose views on everything else can be safely ignored.
I must admit that the poll, if true, is a bit bizarre since that would imply deep penetration of a part of the country by a marginalized belief. I simply don’t believe that to be more likely than that the poll is flawed. I’d want to see more evidence than a partisan study by a no-name poll company.
What I find tiresome is the spin being placed on this study. For example, the blog Jim linked to above, claims non-birthers “know” Obama was born in the US while birthers “believe” Obama was born elsewhere. Then there are claims of racism among Southern Republicans. Jim hasn’t done that so far in this thread, but he has exhibited anti-south bigotry in other threads. Sometimes I get the impression that everything some people know about the South came from Cool Hand Luke.
Finally, there’s two elephants in the room. Namely, that Obama may indeed be foreign born. The only real evidence for birth in Hawaii is a birth certificate and a birth announcement. Both which would have been within the reach of the Obama family to fake then or Obama to fake now. I find it a bit odd that there is no discussion of friends of the family who could collaborate the birth or activities of the parents around the time of the birth. To be honest, most people would have baby showers and similar social activities. Even fifty years later, there should be some friends who remember that.
The second elephant is that it doesn’t matter legally unless someone turns up solid evidence to the contrary. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to second-guess Hawaii. Hawaii has a birth certificate that says Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. That is good enough for any legal purpose including holding the office of US president.
While you can put me in the camp of wanting to see Obama’s original birth certificate, if for no other reason that wanting to upsets the right sort of people, I would note that Obama spending large chunks of cash to not show it is not all that indicative. Two points:
1) Obama isn’t spending *his* money, he’s spending contributor’s money and this is hardly the most absurd or wasteful way of doing that he’s done.
2) It might well be a way of laundering those contributions back to legal backers in Chicago.
After all, sending the little guy’s money to his cronies is what Obama does, why should this issue be any different?
“Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?”
“Born in America” != “natural born citizen”
Huh, can’t imagine why Kos would want to conflate the issue…
The 47% figure purports to be the percentage of Southern respondents who answered “Yes” to the question. Failing to answer “Yes” is not the same as answering “No.” I live in Georgia, and it’s entirely possible my response to a poll asking me a stupid question like that would be, “I don’t give a shit-kicker’s damn one way or the other because it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans’ difference to me.”
Jim and Gerrib,
You are old fashion slime ball racists. The article you linked to, which didn’t have any hard data, specifically stated “So what proportion of Southern whites doubt that Obama is an American citizen? While Ali did not release the racial breakdowns for the the South,”
I will repeat so you can get it through your thick racists skull “Ali did not release the racial breakdowns for the the South”.
You two are the worst type of people in this world. You act and believe that you are better then everybody else but when it comes down to it you are nothing more then lying, cheating carpet baggers.
You also probably support importing girls from Africa for prostitution just like your ACORN buddies.
Here is a direct link to the poll that Jim and Gerrib are referring to:
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/7/30/US/320
Any pollster or statisticians in the audience?
The DKos poll that Jim and Chris Gerrib cite shows even fewer (roughly half as many) Southerners think Obama was born outside the US than think he was born here! No wonder you fall for all the free-lunch promises, if you’re that innumerate!
Quote from DKOS poll:
“QUESTION: Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?”
SOUTH: Yes – 47%, No – 23%, Not Sure – 30%
Sorry, gentlemen, but your bigotry and prejudice are self-evident, even if they’re of a region-based variety instead of a race-based one.
Still, it’s kind of funny how nearly a third of Southerners say “not sure,” even though that’s not the plurality (which remains YES!). After all, it’s not like he’s demanding his personal, official records remain sealed…
For the record, I think that Barry Obama was born in the US. Also for the record, I think that the official records of anyone running for public office, from County Dogcatcher to the President of the United States, should be unsealed, possibly excepting only the SSN. This is due to their assumption of a position of “public trust” and personal power. To do any less is ultimately dangerous, unless the relative power of these positions is greatly diminished – an alternately acceptible outcome.
Birthers in a nutshell: Obama has not produced an original birth certificate verifying that he was born on American soil, therefore such a certificate does not exist.
Gee, isn’t that the same logic employed to argue that Saddam still had WMDs after Iraq War I? We didn’t find it, therefore it ain’t there?
There’s a big difference between the two: the latter claim has supporting evidence. We found elements of his nuclear program. We found chemical WMDs.
Birthers don’t have a smoking gun pointing to a foreign birth. All they have is Obama’s evasive behavior, his refusal to cough up the original printed-in-1961 certificate. Evasiveness isn’t courtroom-quality evidence, whether it’s Obama vs. the birthers or Saddam vs. the weapons inspectors. (But evasiveness is cause for investigation…)
I believe Obama is keeping the certificate under wraps specifically to keep the birther movement alive.
That said, it’s understandable that a lot of people would be confused as heckity heck about Obama’s birth records. Most people have never heard of a Certificate of Live Birth. I first heard of the CoLB a month or two ago. Most of us are used to thinking of a legal birth record as a piece of paper as old as the individual, not something that was laser-printed yesterday. Most people don’t research the news, and the MSM hasn’t put a lot of effort into explaining the CoLB, so lots of people don’t understand it.
The CoLB is like a college transcript. It is an official certificate that represents legal evidence that the individual in question is in the issuing entity’s official records – the University of Texas at Arlington, in my case, and the Hawaiian health bureaucracy, in Obama’s.
One thing I don’t understand about the birthers. If I were among their ranks, I’d be hunting his mom’s citizenship records just as fervently. If she was a citizen, Obama was a citizen, whether he’s born in Hawaii, Kenya, Aruba, or the L5 Lagrange point. If she wasn’t a citizen, then Obama was either not a citizen, or he was a Hawaiian anchor baby – and in either case, Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s opposition research team sucked dirt.
The CoLB lacks details found on an actual birth certificate, like birth weight and whether or not the baby was the product of a multiple birth. Maybe the birthers should check to see if any current prison inmates are sporting an iron mask.
That’s undoubtedly how the pollster would have recorded my response.
If I were among their ranks, I’d be hunting his mom’s citizenship records just as fervently. If she was a citizen, Obama was a citizen, whether he’s born in Hawaii, Kenya, Aruba, or the L5 Lagrange point.
That is incorrect. For the laws of the time, it really does matter where Obama was born even though his mother was a US citizen (my understanding is that it affected solely young people married to non-citizens). These days, he’d be a US citizen, no questions asked. And come to think of it, that’s another big factor making the birther side dubious. The US Congress closed this particular loophole for a reason. The whole argument against Obama’s legitimacy by place of birth is based on something that wouldn’t hold water today.
George – I pointed to the results of a poll executed by a company with a track record of accurate results. You may interpret those results however you see fit.
Titus – actually, under the 14th Amendment, “born in the US” is equal to “natural-born citizen.”
Andrea Harris – he, or his mother, lost the original, printed in 1961 birth certificate. What he provided is what the State of Hawaii provides if you go ask for a replacement.
We are all bigots, because there is some poll that suggests there is a likelihood we are bigots. Jim and Gerrib are bigots, because they personally act like bigots.
QUESTION: Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?”
How is that a yes or no question? The “or not” makes the question ambiguous. When you say “yes” are you saying “yes I believe Barack Obama was born in the United States’ or “yes I believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States”. The embarrassing aspect is that only 30% people answered correctly. “Not sure” is the proper response to such a poorly worded question.
Mr. Skinner – “However, 9/11 was a much more complicated event”
Actually, no – it wasn’t a complicated event at all. It was mass murder, grand theft, piracy and arson committed by agents (also citizens) of a foreign power and financed and organised by a member of the royal family of that same power. Which, by the way, remains unpunished for the act of war that they committed. In fact, the president of the USA at the time gave orders that a number of co-conspirators be allowed and in fact encouraged to escape. Nothing to do with money at all. Oh no no no. /sarc off
Gerrib, keep digging you bigoted, racist, slime and you may make it to Hades yet.
Titus – actually, under the 14th Amendment, “born in the US” is equal to “natural-born citizen.”
But they are not materially equivalent. You can be born abroad and still be considered a “natural-born citizen.” One is a sub-set of the other. For instance, it’s possible he could have born outside the US but still be eligible for the office. That does not make me a “birther” but bigots like you and Jim would infer such based on this poorly worded question.
Also, excellent analysis, R Anderson! All that tells me is that Southerners are more skeptical. Horror! If they don’t trust the leftstream media, they must be racists!
Strictly speaking, “born in the usa” does not imply “citizen” (natural-born, or not). A person can be born in the USA, be a citizen, and then renounce their citizenship.
How do we know that Obama didn’t renounce his citizenship? Maybe he did it when he visited Pakistan as a young man, eh? Maybe he is a spy! For that matter, did anyone check to see if Ronald Reagan was still a citizen when he was president? After all, he publically offered to share all of our SDI research with the USSR! All sorts of people in leadership positions could be non-citizens! We need proof! And for that matter, maybe we need more proof about 9/11!
All that tells me is that Southerners are more skeptical.
Indeed! I look to the skeptical South for leadership on Obama, Reagan, 9/11, and that moon landing malarkey!
I actually think skepticism is fine, and it is hard to decide where to best target it, which is why people suspect that unfair bias and even bigotry guides the targeting.
I haven’t followed the birther issue closely, so I’m curious: did other presidents ever produce their birth certificates or their grades?
It occurred to me that if Jim is correct (and that’s always a big “if”) about the Ku Klux Klan–i.e., that it is now a pro-freedom organization, that means that even the Klan now values freedom more than Jim does!