Then, and now. The hypocrisy and double standards of the media never fail to amaze.
96 thoughts on “Presidential Respect”
“Or, to quote from a prominent Clintonista, “When did patriotism, become a right-wing virtue?””
When the left chose to abandon it circa 1967-68.
IF the left want to wonder who is to blame there, they need look no further than the nearest mirror.
“The incidents I mentioned were reported in the mainstream press.”
Like I said, moonbat sites.
Not about illegal immigration.
Yes, Jim, he did lie. Illegal immigrants will be insured.
until it came out that Hawaii was a territory at the time of Obama’s birth
Umm, no. Hawaii is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its statehood this year; Obama was born in 1961.
Yes, Jim, he did lie. Illegal immigrants will be insured.
Not because of health care reform. Your argument is logically the same as arguing that ARRA paves roads for illegal immigrants (because there isn’t a citizenship check at every onramp). It’s a ridiculous argument, and Obama was correct to dismiss it.
Illegal immigrants will be insured.
Not because of health care reform.
Well then, the President lied.
And your analogy doesn’t hold water. What people are asking is for the government to check citizenship of people who aren’t paying for healthcare, so that we don’t continue to pay for illegal aliens to receive care. It’s a much better way to lower healthcare costs than your idea of limiting care to paying citizen patients with no hope of recovery.
Personally, I’m not so quick to put those checks in the medical industry, but it would be nice if politicians at least put checks on citizenship into the criminal justice system. That way, immigrants charged with sexual assault and murder can see their consulate, and other, more petty, criminals served their time in the US; they can be shipped back home.
Your argument is logically the same as arguing that ARRA paves roads for illegal immigrants (because there isn’t a citizenship check at every onramp).
Jim, if Obama said that illegal aliens aren’t driving on the roads, that would also have been a lie. You can spin it however you like, but the fact is that he did lie.
It’s a ridiculous argument, and Obama was correct to dismiss it.
It’s not an argument — these are facts.
Well then, the President lied.
No. The context was a list of lies about health reform proposals, not lies about the status quo. The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
What people are asking is for the government to check citizenship of people who aren’t paying for healthcare, so that we don’t continue to pay for illegal aliens to receive care.
Illegal aliens aren’t eligible for insurance subsidies under the proposed reform bills, but there’s no mechanism to stop them from purchasing insurance through the exchange. That’s nothing new: health insurance companies don’t check residency status today. And there’s no financial reason to bar illegals from buying coverage — illegal aliens tend to be younger and healthier than the median citizen, so their participation in the exchange lowers costs for legal residents, and means that they’re paying into the system rather than using emergency rooms.
The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
The president didn’t say “pay for” — Jim did.
Also, they will get the same subsidies (e.g.: new taxes per HR3200 to subsidize the exchange) that everyone else does.
No. The context was a list of lies about health reform proposals, not lies about the status quo. The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
Maybe they don’t now, but you’d have to be an idiot to ignore the future of these programs. It remains that the most certain way not to pay for health care for illegal immigrants is merely not to have a universal health care system that can be exploited.
It remains that the most certain way not to pay for health care for illegal immigrants is merely not to have a universal health care system that can be exploited.
The same argument would shut down public roads, schools, parks, libraries, museums, airports, etc.
The health care system does not exist to be an enforcement mechanism for immigration law.
Also, they will get the same subsidies (e.g.: new taxes per HR3200 to subsidize the exchange) that everyone else does.
The Baucus plans explicitly states “[no] illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits”. New taxes exist to pay for those credits.
The health care system does not exist to be an enforcement mechanism for immigration law.
Right, so he lied. Illegals will be insured. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that Obama lied.
Like I said, moonbat sites.
Glancing through the hits from Jim’s searches: Huff Post, Wonkette, Digg, Yahoo News Feed, random assortment of blogs, Mahalo…
Now, it could be that all of these sites are lying liars making up stuff to annoy you Andrea… or actually these things happened.
In the case of GOP activist Depass, who apparently joked on his facebook about an escaped Gorilla, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors – probably harmless.” – he had to apologize for that one.
But I guess he made up the apology too?
Seriously guys, reading you lot isn’t even funny anymore!
where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race
Jim, in a previous thread you were looking for bigotry in your writing. This is an example.
The birther phenomenon is an effort to question Obama’s legitimacy, and has lead 10 Congressmen to co-sponsor legislation to require additional documentation from Presidential candidates. No such legislation has ever been sought in the aftermath of the election of a white President, even one with a foreign-born parent (e.g. Wilson and Hoover). The birther phenomenon is concentrated in the South, which strongly suggests a connection to that region’s history of race relations.
Neither Wilson or Hoover could have been born overseas. Due to plane travel, Obama is unique in that he could have been born overseas and due to the law of the time not be legally a born US citizen. In addition your bigotry shows in that you assume the birther phenomenon exists to question Obama’s legitimacy and that it is concentrated in the south due to that region’s “history”.
It remains that the most certain way not to pay for health care for illegal immigrants is merely not to have a universal health care system that can be exploited.
The same argument would shut down public roads, schools, parks, libraries, museums, airports, etc.
Yes, it could, Jim. At least those services provided by government. But many of those services aren’t provided by government and most of the rest, nobody really cares if illegal immigrants use or not. Health care is a different issue because 1) it’s a lot more money, and 2) the risk is unbounded, there’s no limit (aside from a global population of more than six billion people) on either the number of users or the costs they can pull per user.
Incidentally, Jim, when will you get around to proving your assertion that Obama’s legitimacy is “questioned based on little more than his race”? A list of google terms doesn’t count. The burden is on you to prove that you aren’t wasting our time again.
Seriously guys, reading you lot isn’t even funny anymore!
Daveon, let me walk you through Jim’s current argument. Some possibly moderately racist things have been said which might involve Obama or his family. Hence, Jim is right. How does Jim support this controversial argument? He tells us to google it. He can’t even be bothered to link to his supposed evidence. If someone makes a crazy claim and expects me to believe it, then they at least have to do the work of citing supporting evidence for that claim.
If Jim expects me to read his garbage, he’s going to have to do some work. Now maybe he’s doing it as some sort of therapy rather than as an attempt to communicate. In which case there are better places for therapy. Jim could even start his own blog.
Neither Wilson or Hoover could have been born overseas.
Why not? Hoover’s mother was born in Ontario, not far from where Hoover was born in Iowa. She could have had him on a weekend visit to her parents.
Due to plane travel, Obama is unique in that he could have been born overseas and due to the law of the time not be legally a born US citizen.
Travel across U.S. borders did not begin with the invention of the jet airplane.
In addition your bigotry shows in that you assume the birther phenomenon exists to question Obama’s legitimacy
Questioning his legal qualifications for the office is questioning his legitimacy as president. When a woman brandishes her birth certificate at a congressional town hall, and demands her country back, she is saying that Obama is not a legitimate President of the United States.
and that it is concentrated in the south due to that region’s “history”.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
He can’t even be bothered to link to his supposed evidence.
I don’t link because it creates work for Rand, and means the post won’t show up until he gets a chance to moderate it. Is pasting into Google really that hard?
Health care is a different issue because 1) it’s a lot more money, and 2) the risk is unbounded
It does not cost us (i.e. legal residents) anything to let illegals buy insurance; in fact it subsidizes our insurance, and further spreads the risk.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout! Next you’ll object to illegal aliens paying taxes.
Is pasting into Google really that hard?
Don’t bother citing unless you post links. That’s my view. Doesn’t matter how “hard” it is for Rand or the reader.
Questioning his legal qualifications for the office is questioning his legitimacy as president.
Yes, that is true. But that doesn’t mean that the movement exists for the purpose of questioning his legitimacy. It seems more likely to me that it exists for the purpose of upholding US law in this area.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
My theory is that the poll is bogus. There might have been some elevated number of birthers in the South compared to elsewhere, but the poll at the least exaggerates the difference.
It does not cost us (i.e. legal residents) anything to let illegals buy insurance; in fact it subsidizes our insurance, and further spreads the risk.
That depends what kind of “insurance” they are buying. Public insurance, that is actually purchased, will be heavily subsidized. Public health care will be as well. How can I know? There would be no advantage over private insurance otherwise and the program might as well not exist.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout!
It is a handout. Here’s my view on the matter. For all the talk of making health care more efficient, the bottom line is that they’re promising to cap costs while not capping benefits. Only way to do that is to heavily subsidize health care.
They aren’t talking about buying health insurance at market rates. Else there would be no incentive to introduce universal health insurance. You can already buy health insurance at market rate. Just because 40-50 million don’t buy insurance, doesn’t change that aspect. Those people either can’t afford market rates (that is, the people with preexisting conditions) or chose not to (meaning they rather self-insure than pay market rates). Either way, the problem isn’t with insurance costing more than market rate.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
The obvious candidate is that the South is far more heavily Republican.
The notion of the “history” — presumably that of the 1850s through 1950s — being suggestive is the kind of repulsive character smear folks used to employ on women who complained of being raped. Oh yeah? Well what kind of…history…do you have? How much cleavage do you show? Let’s judge from that how credible your story is…
Reasonable people will judge a people and a region on what they do now, not their “history” or “natural tendencies” which, like skin color or “social class” pretty much all substitute ignorant and vicious stereotyping mythology for actual experience.
Anyway, argument with the closed mind of a bigot is useless. Anyone who can argue that vast swathes of the country are instinctive racists ten months after they elected a black man President has his head so thoroughly jammed up his ass he could inspect his own tonsils from below.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout!
Price fixing by comission != market.
It seems more likely to me that it exists for the purpose of upholding US law in this area.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area? Is there really any good reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm shouldn’t be eligible to run for president? One of the nutty theories is that Anne Dunham snuck out of the country to Kenya, had Obama there, and then rushed back and pretended he’d been born here. Would Obama be a different president if that was the case? How much GOP concern was there for US law when George Romney ran for president?
The birther theory is just a stick to beat Obama with — if the people in question supported Obama their concern for “upholding US law” would be nowhere in sight. The birther idea got its big media break with Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation. Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command, and a truther, is known for hyping politically explosive conspiracy theories. He is not known for his dedication to “upholding US law.”
My theory is that the poll is bogus.
In other words, the facts don’t fit your theory, so you discard the facts.
Public insurance, that is actually purchased, will be heavily subsidized.
It isn’t looking like there will be a public insurance option, but if there is it will not be subsidized — no one on the left is asking that it be subsidized, and it’s easy enough to write the legislation to ensure that it not be.
There would be no advantage over private insurance otherwise and the program might as well not exist.
No. One advantage is that the public plan would be non-profit. Another is that it would spend less on marketing.
You can already buy health insurance at market rate.
Again, no. Individual insurance today costs 40% more than group coverage, for the same benefits. The market for individual health insurance has failed.
Here’s my view on the matter. For all the talk of making health care more efficient, the bottom line is that they’re promising to cap costs while not capping benefits. Only way to do that is to heavily subsidize health care.
Rather than trying to guess how health reform will work, it would help to actually read a description of what is being proposed. Click my name for a high-level description in flowchart form.
The obvious candidate is that the South is far more heavily Republican.
The South has 4x the “birtherism” as the West — do you really think it is 4x as Republican? That would make it more than 100% Republican….
Reasonable people will judge a people and a region on what they do now
The poll was taken in July, not in 1950.
Anyone who can argue that vast swathes of the country are instinctive racists ten months after they elected a black man President
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Individual insurance today costs 40% more than group coverage, for the same benefits.
Pre-paid plans are more expensive. Actual insurance is still cheap.
Also, price distoritions cause by govt intervention and/or failure to act as Jim demans != market failure.
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Jim, do you ever see anything beyond the color of people’s skin?
More data is available. Another polling group has also been doing “birther” polls. I don’t know anything about the group. I’m not making claims about what the following links prove or don’t prove.
Here are some links:
Commentary on a poll taken in North Carolina
“publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/birthers-strong-in-nc-too.html”
Here’s the complete North Carolina report:
“www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_811424.pdf”
Commentary on a National poll
“publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html”
Here’s the complete National Report.
“www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf”
I suppoe you could compare the national numbers with the north carolina numbers.
There seems to be more by this group regarding birthers – they polled in Virginia, for example.
I wonder if other groups have done “birther” polls? An intial query to google to answer that question gave ambiguous results.
So we should ignore poll results if the pollster donates to Democrats, because obviously the polls are bogus? Should we do the same if the pollster donates to Republicans?
The South has 4x the “birtherism” as the West — do you really think it is 4x as Republican? That would make it more than 100% Republican….
Oh of course! Silly me! I forgot the rule that if the percentages don’t match, there must be no correlation at all. For example, we know there’s no correlation between having sex and getting pregnant, because the percentage of women who have sex in a given month is far higher than the percentage who get pregnant.
I srtuggle with whether to conclude you’re just really stupid, or at least really ignorant of quantitative subjects, or whether you write these posts with about 4 seconds thought, while simultaneously watching ESPN or Barney.
The poll was taken in July, not in 1950.
So? The problem is your attitude, your ample prejudices on display here, the way you assume you know the causes behind the numbers. You’re very like those who, in the 1950s, said that the cause of the much higher incarceration rates for blacks is because blacks are naturally criminal. It’s just that in your case you think the “obvious” reason for the higher rates of “birther” beliefs in the South is because Southerners are naturally racist, based on their “history” 50 to 150 years old. I see zero difference in the “logic” (or lack thereof). You’re just as much a bigot, you’re just a more fashionable bigot, at best.
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Really, Jim? In the first place, did you just pull this number out of your ass? It sure seems like it. In 2002 Alabama had a population of 3,193,888 whites. (No doubt there were more in 2008, but that just makes it worse for you.) If they turned out to vote at the national rate in 2008 (63.6%) and, as you claim, cast 85% of their ballots for McCain/Palin, then that would be 1,726,615 votes. Alas, back here in reality there were only 1,266,546 McCain/Palin votes in Alabama. Looks like about half a million (or one third) more whites voted for Obama than you think. Oops! I can assume the rest of your numbers are also fantasy, I expect.
But more to the point, every vote counts just as much as every other vote as a signal of the voter’s intention and beliefs. The first vote Obama got identifies an Obama supporter no less than the last, and votes he got in states he won identify Obama supporters just as surely as votes he got in states he lost. Obama got millions of votes in the South. Not enough to win those states, but clear evidence — for someone not blinded by prejudice — that he enjoys (or perhaps enjoyed at one time) widespread support, even though he’s a Chicago Democrat, and the last time the South voted for a northern Democrat is back when the Democratic Party was the party of open racism.
Hey, what about that “history,” Jim? The Democratic Party was openly racist until far more recently than the South as a whole. Would it be reasonable for me to infer that because you’re a Democratic Party supporter — a supporter of a traditionally racist party — then I can conclude you’re by nature a racist? Or should I judge you by your actual statements and actions? Either way, I think you lose.
Should we do the same if the pollster donates to Republicans?
At your peril.
But like people who use the term “tea-baggers”; when the Democratic pollster, who donates routinely to Democratic candidates, discusses their poll regarding “birthers”; I’ll consider that their poll more than likely achieved the results that they set out to find. So, I don’t see any reason to put much credibility in Dean Debnam’s opinions.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area? Is there really any good reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm shouldn’t be eligible to run for president?
The theory is that these people could have divided loyalties between the US and another country. Requiring that a presidential candidate be born in the US is intended to eliminate some of these conflicts of interest. For example, suppose the president has to war or make some other serious decision that would kill people in their native land?
One of the nutty theories is that Anne Dunham snuck out of the country to Kenya, had Obama there, and then rushed back and pretended he’d been born here.
Or she might have never set foot in the US for some time around Obama’s birth. I find it utterly mystifying how little we know of her whereabouts at this time. Was she working? Where did she live? Why can’t anyone find some neighbors who helped her out around the time of Obama’s birth? This sort of uncertainty forms the seeds of conspiracy especially combined with Obama’s time overseas as a youth exposed to an unpopular religion (yes, that does fuel bigots biased against Islam) and the premature deaths of both parents.
For example, I was born to a couple right after they graduated from from college. There would be plenty of people at the time who were aware that my mother was pregnant (she worked in a college department for a few months as a secretary while pregnant and had been a student in that department for four years prior to that). If someone questioned whether I was born in Bangor, Maine (after all, I could have been smuggled across the border), could question surviving people who remembered my parents and get backing of that story.
A birth is a notable event. How does it become so invisible that only a little documentation exists?
Glancing around, I see evidence that they stayed in Hawaii (the university still enrolled Obama’s mother at least through the start of the 1961-1962 year and his father was enrolled in the school through to mid 1962). She also apparently visited friends in Washington state after the birth in 1961.
Not sure how the birthers spin that, but doesn’t look like anyone had the time to be in Kenya unless as Jim says, Obama’s mom flew down to Kenya just to give birth.
I’ll say that my criticism of Jim’s position just isn’t that strong. But it still remains that there are a number of people who believe that its right to enforce laws even if the laws are considered unjust now and have been overturned. I consider Jim’s characterization of the South especially on the basis of a single lousy poll (and presumably a lifetime of cringing at his fellow Northern bigots’ remarks) extremely biased and offensive.
In other words, the facts don’t fit your theory, so you discard the facts.
I didn’t discard the facts because they didn’t fit my theory. I discarded them because they’re grossly unreliable.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area?
This goes again to the concept of a Republic. A government of the people ought to have a leader that comes from the people. Monarchs maintained authority in Europe at the time of the revolution and to this day by maintaining a line of royalty that distinguished themselves from the people. The US Constitution was written to prevent this from occurring here. Just like the 1st Amendment was written to prevent government from taking away the freedom of the people to say “liar” in a crowded room.
I forgot the rule that if the percentages don’t match, there must be no correlation at all.
Okay, Carl, I’ll walk you through it. Here are the numbers:
Yes No or Not Sure
All 77 23
Dem 93 7
Rep 42 58
Ind 83 17
Northeast 93 7
South 47 53
Midwest 90 10
West 87 13
Sample breakdowns
Dem 31
Rep 22
Ind 25
Other 5
Non-voter 17
Northeast 21
South 30
Midwest 27
West 22
If we assume, as you contend, that there’s no regional variation in the chance that a Republican (or non-Republican) is a birther, and try to explain this difference in terms of regional variations in party affiliation, we get:
SRP = Republican percentage of Southerners polled
(Birther percentage of Southerners polled) = (Birther percentage of Republican respondents) x SRP + (Birther percentage of non-Republican respondents) x (1 – SRP)
53% = 58% x SRP + 13% x (1 – SRP)
Solving for SRP, we get:
SRP = 89%
So for GOP birtherism to be as prevalent in the South as elsewhere, as you contend, 89% of the Southern respondents would have to be Republicans.
Since Southerners were 30% of those polled, this would imply that 27% of those polled were Southern Republicans. But we know that only 22% of the national sample were Republicans! And obviously there are some Republicans outside the South.
Clearly the Southern GOP must be more prone to birtherism than the GOP elsewhere. The question is why.
I can assume the rest of your numbers are also fantasy, I expect.
No, they come from the exit poll data. Click my name for the source.
Obama got millions of votes in the South.
Yes, but he got a lower percentage of the Southern white vote than John Kerry, despite doing better than Kerry with whites nationally.
I find it utterly mystifying how little we know of her whereabouts at this time. Was she working? Where did she live? Why can’t anyone find some neighbors who helped her out around the time of Obama’s birth?
Neil Abercrombie, currently one of Hawaii’s congressmen, was a friend of Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. at the University of Hawaii. Click my name for some of his recollections of the period around Obama’s birth.
There’s information out there if you look, but it isn’t that surprising that Obama’s parents kept a low profile. Obama Sr. was (unbeknownst to Dunham) still married to a woman in Kenya, Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African she had just met, and their inter-racial marriage happened at a time when such unions were illegal in much of the U.S.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area?
What is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in any area?
Do you think that we should simply ignore that pesky Constitution if Jim and Dear Leader Obama find it inconvenient?
Quite the fascist notion, that.
No, I don’t think Jim had a fascist notion. I think that in a Republic, and especially in a free democratic republic like this one, it is good to at least question the advantage of upholding the law, while continuing to actually uphold it unless and until it is lawfully changed. Jim questioned, Karl answered, long live our Republic!
The particular part of the natural born citizen law that discriminated against young mothers who were US citizens seemed to have no advantage for anyone, and I’m glad Congress changed it.
Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African
Is that so? It’s probably not because they knew little of the 23 year old man and figured their 18 year old daughter didn’t either. Or that their daughter got married to the man after knowing him for a semester. Oh no… to Jim, who apparently hasn’t read any actual history on the subject, it was because the white parents objected to an interracial marriage to an African. After all, it was outlawed in some parts of America, right?
Surely, the Dunham’s objection wasn’t because they received a letter from Kenya on which Obama Sr’s. father wrote: “He didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman.“
Oh no… to Jim, who apparently hasn’t read any actual history on the subject, it was because the white parents objected to an interracial marriage to an African.
I wrote no such thing.
Really, then what did you mean by suggesting it was Dunham’s parents that objected, followed by
and their inter-racial marriage happened at a time when such unions were illegal in much of the U.S.
Dunham’s objection had nothing to do with the comment you added. Technically, Obama’s paternal grandfather’s objection has nothing to do with the comment you added. In fact, your comment has no function in the issue of Dunham-Obama marriage at all, because indeed, the marriage occurred legally in the US.
So Jim, why did you feel the need to make the comment? We all know there existed racial issues in America’s past. Apparently there were racial issues in Kenya’s past. Most of us have moved past it. Why do you feel the need to keep bringing it up as if it is relevent? It certainly wasn’t relevant in the words you wrote about the Dunhams, but yet you wrote it. And now we are suppose to pretend you didn’t write it?
Yes, but he got a lower percentage of the Southern white vote than John Kerry, despite doing better than Kerry with whites nationally.
You base this on exit poll data from 2004?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
So Jim, why did you feel the need to make the comment?
Jim was speculating on multiple reasons why Obama’s birth might not be as celebrated in public as Karl initially expected.
Jim was speculating on multiple reasons why Obama’s birth might not be as celebrated in public as Karl initially expected.
Perhaps not stateside, but Hawaii never had miscegenation laws. Karl was discussing neighbors. Bob, are you claiming that the Lovings in Virginia were neighbors to Obama’s in Hawaii? Seriously, the legality of the marrigae in Hawaii was never at question, and as such, had no reason not be celebrated along those lines.
Now a graduate student knocking up a freshman girl in her first semester is usually not celebrated in public, but that point isn’t being made by Bob or Jim. Instead, they rather discuss the racial issue, even though it only seemed to matter to paternal grandparents.
1) Don’t put words in my mouth. I was showing reading comprehension, not discussing racial issues.
2) Karl mentioned that Obama’s parents visited friends in Washington State, where “miscegenation” bills were repeatedly introduced to the state legislature and fought back with difficulty. The absence of such a law does not show an absence of widespread social disapproval.
3) Jim mentioned two other reasons why Obama’s parents might have kept quiet – that Obama Sr. was secretly married back home, perhaps prompting him to stay low-profile, and that “Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African she had just met” – which raises three issues: the youth of Obama’s mother, the shortness of the relationship, and the foreign nature of Obama Sr. Now, maybe you read “African” and thought only about race, but I think the issue is “Africa, a distant land” – most American parents would want their daughter to marry someone who is likely to stay in America or at least not live an ocean away. If the Dunham’s feared Obama Sr. would permanently leave the country, they would have been right. “African” also implies cultural differences which might have worried them, just as they might have worried if Obama Sr. had been from a “white” guy from Minsk. This seems like a waste of time. If you know what was really going on in the Obama-Dunham household, good for you, but I don’t think Jim’s speculations were unreasonable or overly race-conscious.
which raises three issues: the youth of Obama’s mother, the shortness of the relationship, and the foreign nature of Obama Sr. Now, maybe you read “African” and thought only about race, but I think the issue is “Africa, a distant land” – most American parents would want their daughter to marry someone who is likely to stay in America or at least not live an ocean away.
No. What I did was actually research, which Jim suggested we do, and found nothing to why the Dunham’s opposed the marriage in regards to Obama’s African status. My question is to why it was assumed the issue was because he was African?
“Or, to quote from a prominent Clintonista, “When did patriotism, become a right-wing virtue?””
When the left chose to abandon it circa 1967-68.
IF the left want to wonder who is to blame there, they need look no further than the nearest mirror.
“The incidents I mentioned were reported in the mainstream press.”
Like I said, moonbat sites.
Not about illegal immigration.
Yes, Jim, he did lie. Illegal immigrants will be insured.
until it came out that Hawaii was a territory at the time of Obama’s birth
Umm, no. Hawaii is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its statehood this year; Obama was born in 1961.
Yes, Jim, he did lie. Illegal immigrants will be insured.
Not because of health care reform. Your argument is logically the same as arguing that ARRA paves roads for illegal immigrants (because there isn’t a citizenship check at every onramp). It’s a ridiculous argument, and Obama was correct to dismiss it.
Illegal immigrants will be insured.
Not because of health care reform.
Well then, the President lied.
And your analogy doesn’t hold water. What people are asking is for the government to check citizenship of people who aren’t paying for healthcare, so that we don’t continue to pay for illegal aliens to receive care. It’s a much better way to lower healthcare costs than your idea of limiting care to paying citizen patients with no hope of recovery.
Personally, I’m not so quick to put those checks in the medical industry, but it would be nice if politicians at least put checks on citizenship into the criminal justice system. That way, immigrants charged with sexual assault and murder can see their consulate, and other, more petty, criminals served their time in the US; they can be shipped back home.
Your argument is logically the same as arguing that ARRA paves roads for illegal immigrants (because there isn’t a citizenship check at every onramp).
Jim, if Obama said that illegal aliens aren’t driving on the roads, that would also have been a lie. You can spin it however you like, but the fact is that he did lie.
It’s a ridiculous argument, and Obama was correct to dismiss it.
It’s not an argument — these are facts.
Well then, the President lied.
No. The context was a list of lies about health reform proposals, not lies about the status quo. The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
What people are asking is for the government to check citizenship of people who aren’t paying for healthcare, so that we don’t continue to pay for illegal aliens to receive care.
Illegal aliens aren’t eligible for insurance subsidies under the proposed reform bills, but there’s no mechanism to stop them from purchasing insurance through the exchange. That’s nothing new: health insurance companies don’t check residency status today. And there’s no financial reason to bar illegals from buying coverage — illegal aliens tend to be younger and healthier than the median citizen, so their participation in the exchange lowers costs for legal residents, and means that they’re paying into the system rather than using emergency rooms.
The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
The president didn’t say “pay for” — Jim did.
Also, they will get the same subsidies (e.g.: new taxes per HR3200 to subsidize the exchange) that everyone else does.
No. The context was a list of lies about health reform proposals, not lies about the status quo. The health reform proposals being debated do not pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
Maybe they don’t now, but you’d have to be an idiot to ignore the future of these programs. It remains that the most certain way not to pay for health care for illegal immigrants is merely not to have a universal health care system that can be exploited.
It remains that the most certain way not to pay for health care for illegal immigrants is merely not to have a universal health care system that can be exploited.
The same argument would shut down public roads, schools, parks, libraries, museums, airports, etc.
The health care system does not exist to be an enforcement mechanism for immigration law.
Also, they will get the same subsidies (e.g.: new taxes per HR3200 to subsidize the exchange) that everyone else does.
The Baucus plans explicitly states “[no] illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits”. New taxes exist to pay for those credits.
The health care system does not exist to be an enforcement mechanism for immigration law.
Right, so he lied. Illegals will be insured. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that Obama lied.
Like I said, moonbat sites.
Glancing through the hits from Jim’s searches: Huff Post, Wonkette, Digg, Yahoo News Feed, random assortment of blogs, Mahalo…
Now, it could be that all of these sites are lying liars making up stuff to annoy you Andrea… or actually these things happened.
In the case of GOP activist Depass, who apparently joked on his facebook about an escaped Gorilla, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors – probably harmless.” – he had to apologize for that one.
But I guess he made up the apology too?
Seriously guys, reading you lot isn’t even funny anymore!
where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race
Jim, in a previous thread you were looking for bigotry in your writing. This is an example.
The birther phenomenon is an effort to question Obama’s legitimacy, and has lead 10 Congressmen to co-sponsor legislation to require additional documentation from Presidential candidates. No such legislation has ever been sought in the aftermath of the election of a white President, even one with a foreign-born parent (e.g. Wilson and Hoover). The birther phenomenon is concentrated in the South, which strongly suggests a connection to that region’s history of race relations.
Neither Wilson or Hoover could have been born overseas. Due to plane travel, Obama is unique in that he could have been born overseas and due to the law of the time not be legally a born US citizen. In addition your bigotry shows in that you assume the birther phenomenon exists to question Obama’s legitimacy and that it is concentrated in the south due to that region’s “history”.
The same argument would shut down public roads, schools, parks, libraries, museums, airports, etc.
Yes, it could, Jim. At least those services provided by government. But many of those services aren’t provided by government and most of the rest, nobody really cares if illegal immigrants use or not. Health care is a different issue because 1) it’s a lot more money, and 2) the risk is unbounded, there’s no limit (aside from a global population of more than six billion people) on either the number of users or the costs they can pull per user.
Incidentally, Jim, when will you get around to proving your assertion that Obama’s legitimacy is “questioned based on little more than his race”? A list of google terms doesn’t count. The burden is on you to prove that you aren’t wasting our time again.
Seriously guys, reading you lot isn’t even funny anymore!
Daveon, let me walk you through Jim’s current argument. Some possibly moderately racist things have been said which might involve Obama or his family. Hence, Jim is right. How does Jim support this controversial argument? He tells us to google it. He can’t even be bothered to link to his supposed evidence. If someone makes a crazy claim and expects me to believe it, then they at least have to do the work of citing supporting evidence for that claim.
If Jim expects me to read his garbage, he’s going to have to do some work. Now maybe he’s doing it as some sort of therapy rather than as an attempt to communicate. In which case there are better places for therapy. Jim could even start his own blog.
Neither Wilson or Hoover could have been born overseas.
Why not? Hoover’s mother was born in Ontario, not far from where Hoover was born in Iowa. She could have had him on a weekend visit to her parents.
Due to plane travel, Obama is unique in that he could have been born overseas and due to the law of the time not be legally a born US citizen.
Travel across U.S. borders did not begin with the invention of the jet airplane.
In addition your bigotry shows in that you assume the birther phenomenon exists to question Obama’s legitimacy
Questioning his legal qualifications for the office is questioning his legitimacy as president. When a woman brandishes her birth certificate at a congressional town hall, and demands her country back, she is saying that Obama is not a legitimate President of the United States.
and that it is concentrated in the south due to that region’s “history”.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
He can’t even be bothered to link to his supposed evidence.
I don’t link because it creates work for Rand, and means the post won’t show up until he gets a chance to moderate it. Is pasting into Google really that hard?
Health care is a different issue because 1) it’s a lot more money, and 2) the risk is unbounded
It does not cost us (i.e. legal residents) anything to let illegals buy insurance; in fact it subsidizes our insurance, and further spreads the risk.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout! Next you’ll object to illegal aliens paying taxes.
Is pasting into Google really that hard?
Don’t bother citing unless you post links. That’s my view. Doesn’t matter how “hard” it is for Rand or the reader.
Questioning his legal qualifications for the office is questioning his legitimacy as president.
Yes, that is true. But that doesn’t mean that the movement exists for the purpose of questioning his legitimacy. It seems more likely to me that it exists for the purpose of upholding US law in this area.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
My theory is that the poll is bogus. There might have been some elevated number of birthers in the South compared to elsewhere, but the poll at the least exaggerates the difference.
It does not cost us (i.e. legal residents) anything to let illegals buy insurance; in fact it subsidizes our insurance, and further spreads the risk.
That depends what kind of “insurance” they are buying. Public insurance, that is actually purchased, will be heavily subsidized. Public health care will be as well. How can I know? There would be no advantage over private insurance otherwise and the program might as well not exist.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout!
It is a handout. Here’s my view on the matter. For all the talk of making health care more efficient, the bottom line is that they’re promising to cap costs while not capping benefits. Only way to do that is to heavily subsidize health care.
They aren’t talking about buying health insurance at market rates. Else there would be no incentive to introduce universal health insurance. You can already buy health insurance at market rate. Just because 40-50 million don’t buy insurance, doesn’t change that aspect. Those people either can’t afford market rates (that is, the people with preexisting conditions) or chose not to (meaning they rather self-insure than pay market rates). Either way, the problem isn’t with insurance costing more than market rate.
Do you have another theory? I’d love to hear it.
The obvious candidate is that the South is far more heavily Republican.
The notion of the “history” — presumably that of the 1850s through 1950s — being suggestive is the kind of repulsive character smear folks used to employ on women who complained of being raped. Oh yeah? Well what kind of…history…do you have? How much cleavage do you show? Let’s judge from that how credible your story is…
Reasonable people will judge a people and a region on what they do now, not their “history” or “natural tendencies” which, like skin color or “social class” pretty much all substitute ignorant and vicious stereotyping mythology for actual experience.
Anyway, argument with the closed mind of a bigot is useless. Anyone who can argue that vast swathes of the country are instinctive racists ten months after they elected a black man President has his head so thoroughly jammed up his ass he could inspect his own tonsils from below.
You act as if the option to buy health insurance at market rates is some sort of handout!
Price fixing by comission != market.
It seems more likely to me that it exists for the purpose of upholding US law in this area.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area? Is there really any good reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm shouldn’t be eligible to run for president? One of the nutty theories is that Anne Dunham snuck out of the country to Kenya, had Obama there, and then rushed back and pretended he’d been born here. Would Obama be a different president if that was the case? How much GOP concern was there for US law when George Romney ran for president?
The birther theory is just a stick to beat Obama with — if the people in question supported Obama their concern for “upholding US law” would be nowhere in sight. The birther idea got its big media break with Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation. Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command, and a truther, is known for hyping politically explosive conspiracy theories. He is not known for his dedication to “upholding US law.”
My theory is that the poll is bogus.
In other words, the facts don’t fit your theory, so you discard the facts.
Public insurance, that is actually purchased, will be heavily subsidized.
It isn’t looking like there will be a public insurance option, but if there is it will not be subsidized — no one on the left is asking that it be subsidized, and it’s easy enough to write the legislation to ensure that it not be.
There would be no advantage over private insurance otherwise and the program might as well not exist.
No. One advantage is that the public plan would be non-profit. Another is that it would spend less on marketing.
You can already buy health insurance at market rate.
Again, no. Individual insurance today costs 40% more than group coverage, for the same benefits. The market for individual health insurance has failed.
Here’s my view on the matter. For all the talk of making health care more efficient, the bottom line is that they’re promising to cap costs while not capping benefits. Only way to do that is to heavily subsidize health care.
Rather than trying to guess how health reform will work, it would help to actually read a description of what is being proposed. Click my name for a high-level description in flowchart form.
The obvious candidate is that the South is far more heavily Republican.
The South has 4x the “birtherism” as the West — do you really think it is 4x as Republican? That would make it more than 100% Republican….
Reasonable people will judge a people and a region on what they do now
The poll was taken in July, not in 1950.
Anyone who can argue that vast swathes of the country are instinctive racists ten months after they elected a black man President
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Individual insurance today costs 40% more than group coverage, for the same benefits.
Pre-paid plans are more expensive. Actual insurance is still cheap.
Also, price distoritions cause by govt intervention and/or failure to act as Jim demans != market failure.
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Jim, do you ever see anything beyond the color of people’s skin?
More data is available. Another polling group has also been doing “birther” polls. I don’t know anything about the group. I’m not making claims about what the following links prove or don’t prove.
Here are some links:
Commentary on a poll taken in North Carolina
“publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/birthers-strong-in-nc-too.html”
Here’s the complete North Carolina report:
“www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_811424.pdf”
Commentary on a National poll
“publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html”
Here’s the complete National Report.
“www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf”
I suppoe you could compare the national numbers with the north carolina numbers.
There seems to be more by this group regarding birthers – they polled in Virginia, for example.
I wonder if other groups have done “birther” polls? An intial query to google to answer that question gave ambiguous results.
I don’t know anything about the group.
Too bad.
So we should ignore poll results if the pollster donates to Democrats, because obviously the polls are bogus? Should we do the same if the pollster donates to Republicans?
The South has 4x the “birtherism” as the West — do you really think it is 4x as Republican? That would make it more than 100% Republican….
Oh of course! Silly me! I forgot the rule that if the percentages don’t match, there must be no correlation at all. For example, we know there’s no correlation between having sex and getting pregnant, because the percentage of women who have sex in a given month is far higher than the percentage who get pregnant.
I srtuggle with whether to conclude you’re just really stupid, or at least really ignorant of quantitative subjects, or whether you write these posts with about 4 seconds thought, while simultaneously watching ESPN or Barney.
The poll was taken in July, not in 1950.
So? The problem is your attitude, your ample prejudices on display here, the way you assume you know the causes behind the numbers. You’re very like those who, in the 1950s, said that the cause of the much higher incarceration rates for blacks is because blacks are naturally criminal. It’s just that in your case you think the “obvious” reason for the higher rates of “birther” beliefs in the South is because Southerners are naturally racist, based on their “history” 50 to 150 years old. I see zero difference in the “logic” (or lack thereof). You’re just as much a bigot, you’re just a more fashionable bigot, at best.
Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. That particular swath of the country emphatically did not elect a black man President.
Really, Jim? In the first place, did you just pull this number out of your ass? It sure seems like it. In 2002 Alabama had a population of 3,193,888 whites. (No doubt there were more in 2008, but that just makes it worse for you.) If they turned out to vote at the national rate in 2008 (63.6%) and, as you claim, cast 85% of their ballots for McCain/Palin, then that would be 1,726,615 votes. Alas, back here in reality there were only 1,266,546 McCain/Palin votes in Alabama. Looks like about half a million (or one third) more whites voted for Obama than you think. Oops! I can assume the rest of your numbers are also fantasy, I expect.
But more to the point, every vote counts just as much as every other vote as a signal of the voter’s intention and beliefs. The first vote Obama got identifies an Obama supporter no less than the last, and votes he got in states he won identify Obama supporters just as surely as votes he got in states he lost. Obama got millions of votes in the South. Not enough to win those states, but clear evidence — for someone not blinded by prejudice — that he enjoys (or perhaps enjoyed at one time) widespread support, even though he’s a Chicago Democrat, and the last time the South voted for a northern Democrat is back when the Democratic Party was the party of open racism.
Hey, what about that “history,” Jim? The Democratic Party was openly racist until far more recently than the South as a whole. Would it be reasonable for me to infer that because you’re a Democratic Party supporter — a supporter of a traditionally racist party — then I can conclude you’re by nature a racist? Or should I judge you by your actual statements and actions? Either way, I think you lose.
Should we do the same if the pollster donates to Republicans?
At your peril.
But like people who use the term “tea-baggers”; when the Democratic pollster, who donates routinely to Democratic candidates, discusses their poll regarding “birthers”; I’ll consider that their poll more than likely achieved the results that they set out to find. So, I don’t see any reason to put much credibility in Dean Debnam’s opinions.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area? Is there really any good reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm shouldn’t be eligible to run for president?
The theory is that these people could have divided loyalties between the US and another country. Requiring that a presidential candidate be born in the US is intended to eliminate some of these conflicts of interest. For example, suppose the president has to war or make some other serious decision that would kill people in their native land?
One of the nutty theories is that Anne Dunham snuck out of the country to Kenya, had Obama there, and then rushed back and pretended he’d been born here.
Or she might have never set foot in the US for some time around Obama’s birth. I find it utterly mystifying how little we know of her whereabouts at this time. Was she working? Where did she live? Why can’t anyone find some neighbors who helped her out around the time of Obama’s birth? This sort of uncertainty forms the seeds of conspiracy especially combined with Obama’s time overseas as a youth exposed to an unpopular religion (yes, that does fuel bigots biased against Islam) and the premature deaths of both parents.
For example, I was born to a couple right after they graduated from from college. There would be plenty of people at the time who were aware that my mother was pregnant (she worked in a college department for a few months as a secretary while pregnant and had been a student in that department for four years prior to that). If someone questioned whether I was born in Bangor, Maine (after all, I could have been smuggled across the border), could question surviving people who remembered my parents and get backing of that story.
A birth is a notable event. How does it become so invisible that only a little documentation exists?
Glancing around, I see evidence that they stayed in Hawaii (the university still enrolled Obama’s mother at least through the start of the 1961-1962 year and his father was enrolled in the school through to mid 1962). She also apparently visited friends in Washington state after the birth in 1961.
Not sure how the birthers spin that, but doesn’t look like anyone had the time to be in Kenya unless as Jim says, Obama’s mom flew down to Kenya just to give birth.
I’ll say that my criticism of Jim’s position just isn’t that strong. But it still remains that there are a number of people who believe that its right to enforce laws even if the laws are considered unjust now and have been overturned. I consider Jim’s characterization of the South especially on the basis of a single lousy poll (and presumably a lifetime of cringing at his fellow Northern bigots’ remarks) extremely biased and offensive.
In other words, the facts don’t fit your theory, so you discard the facts.
I didn’t discard the facts because they didn’t fit my theory. I discarded them because they’re grossly unreliable.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area?
This goes again to the concept of a Republic. A government of the people ought to have a leader that comes from the people. Monarchs maintained authority in Europe at the time of the revolution and to this day by maintaining a line of royalty that distinguished themselves from the people. The US Constitution was written to prevent this from occurring here. Just like the 1st Amendment was written to prevent government from taking away the freedom of the people to say “liar” in a crowded room.
I forgot the rule that if the percentages don’t match, there must be no correlation at all.
Okay, Carl, I’ll walk you through it. Here are the numbers:
Yes No or Not Sure
All 77 23
Dem 93 7
Rep 42 58
Ind 83 17
Northeast 93 7
South 47 53
Midwest 90 10
West 87 13
Sample breakdowns
Dem 31
Rep 22
Ind 25
Other 5
Non-voter 17
Northeast 21
South 30
Midwest 27
West 22
If we assume, as you contend, that there’s no regional variation in the chance that a Republican (or non-Republican) is a birther, and try to explain this difference in terms of regional variations in party affiliation, we get:
SRP = Republican percentage of Southerners polled
(Birther percentage of Southerners polled) = (Birther percentage of Republican respondents) x SRP + (Birther percentage of non-Republican respondents) x (1 – SRP)
53% = 58% x SRP + 13% x (1 – SRP)
Solving for SRP, we get:
SRP = 89%
So for GOP birtherism to be as prevalent in the South as elsewhere, as you contend, 89% of the Southern respondents would have to be Republicans.
Since Southerners were 30% of those polled, this would imply that 27% of those polled were Southern Republicans. But we know that only 22% of the national sample were Republicans! And obviously there are some Republicans outside the South.
Clearly the Southern GOP must be more prone to birtherism than the GOP elsewhere. The question is why.
I can assume the rest of your numbers are also fantasy, I expect.
No, they come from the exit poll data. Click my name for the source.
Obama got millions of votes in the South.
Yes, but he got a lower percentage of the Southern white vote than John Kerry, despite doing better than Kerry with whites nationally.
I find it utterly mystifying how little we know of her whereabouts at this time. Was she working? Where did she live? Why can’t anyone find some neighbors who helped her out around the time of Obama’s birth?
Neil Abercrombie, currently one of Hawaii’s congressmen, was a friend of Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. at the University of Hawaii. Click my name for some of his recollections of the period around Obama’s birth.
There’s information out there if you look, but it isn’t that surprising that Obama’s parents kept a low profile. Obama Sr. was (unbeknownst to Dunham) still married to a woman in Kenya, Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African she had just met, and their inter-racial marriage happened at a time when such unions were illegal in much of the U.S.
And what is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in this area?
What is the advantage, exactly, of upholding US law in any area?
Do you think that we should simply ignore that pesky Constitution if Jim and Dear Leader Obama find it inconvenient?
Quite the fascist notion, that.
No, I don’t think Jim had a fascist notion. I think that in a Republic, and especially in a free democratic republic like this one, it is good to at least question the advantage of upholding the law, while continuing to actually uphold it unless and until it is lawfully changed. Jim questioned, Karl answered, long live our Republic!
The particular part of the natural born citizen law that discriminated against young mothers who were US citizens seemed to have no advantage for anyone, and I’m glad Congress changed it.
Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African
Is that so? It’s probably not because they knew little of the 23 year old man and figured their 18 year old daughter didn’t either. Or that their daughter got married to the man after knowing him for a semester. Oh no… to Jim, who apparently hasn’t read any actual history on the subject, it was because the white parents objected to an interracial marriage to an African. After all, it was outlawed in some parts of America, right?
Surely, the Dunham’s objection wasn’t because they received a letter from Kenya on which Obama Sr’s. father wrote: “He didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman.“
Oh no… to Jim, who apparently hasn’t read any actual history on the subject, it was because the white parents objected to an interracial marriage to an African.
I wrote no such thing.
Really, then what did you mean by suggesting it was Dunham’s parents that objected, followed by
and their inter-racial marriage happened at a time when such unions were illegal in much of the U.S.
Dunham’s objection had nothing to do with the comment you added. Technically, Obama’s paternal grandfather’s objection has nothing to do with the comment you added. In fact, your comment has no function in the issue of Dunham-Obama marriage at all, because indeed, the marriage occurred legally in the US.
So Jim, why did you feel the need to make the comment? We all know there existed racial issues in America’s past. Apparently there were racial issues in Kenya’s past. Most of us have moved past it. Why do you feel the need to keep bringing it up as if it is relevent? It certainly wasn’t relevant in the words you wrote about the Dunhams, but yet you wrote it. And now we are suppose to pretend you didn’t write it?
Yes, but he got a lower percentage of the Southern white vote than John Kerry, despite doing better than Kerry with whites nationally.
You base this on exit poll data from 2004?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
So Jim, why did you feel the need to make the comment?
Jim was speculating on multiple reasons why Obama’s birth might not be as celebrated in public as Karl initially expected.
Jim was speculating on multiple reasons why Obama’s birth might not be as celebrated in public as Karl initially expected.
Perhaps not stateside, but Hawaii never had miscegenation laws. Karl was discussing neighbors. Bob, are you claiming that the Lovings in Virginia were neighbors to Obama’s in Hawaii? Seriously, the legality of the marrigae in Hawaii was never at question, and as such, had no reason not be celebrated along those lines.
Now a graduate student knocking up a freshman girl in her first semester is usually not celebrated in public, but that point isn’t being made by Bob or Jim. Instead, they rather discuss the racial issue, even though it only seemed to matter to paternal grandparents.
1) Don’t put words in my mouth. I was showing reading comprehension, not discussing racial issues.
2) Karl mentioned that Obama’s parents visited friends in Washington State, where “miscegenation” bills were repeatedly introduced to the state legislature and fought back with difficulty. The absence of such a law does not show an absence of widespread social disapproval.
3) Jim mentioned two other reasons why Obama’s parents might have kept quiet – that Obama Sr. was secretly married back home, perhaps prompting him to stay low-profile, and that “Dunham’s parents were not enthusiastic about their 18-year old marrying an African she had just met” – which raises three issues: the youth of Obama’s mother, the shortness of the relationship, and the foreign nature of Obama Sr. Now, maybe you read “African” and thought only about race, but I think the issue is “Africa, a distant land” – most American parents would want their daughter to marry someone who is likely to stay in America or at least not live an ocean away. If the Dunham’s feared Obama Sr. would permanently leave the country, they would have been right. “African” also implies cultural differences which might have worried them, just as they might have worried if Obama Sr. had been from a “white” guy from Minsk. This seems like a waste of time. If you know what was really going on in the Obama-Dunham household, good for you, but I don’t think Jim’s speculations were unreasonable or overly race-conscious.
which raises three issues: the youth of Obama’s mother, the shortness of the relationship, and the foreign nature of Obama Sr. Now, maybe you read “African” and thought only about race, but I think the issue is “Africa, a distant land” – most American parents would want their daughter to marry someone who is likely to stay in America or at least not live an ocean away.
No. What I did was actually research, which Jim suggested we do, and found nothing to why the Dunham’s opposed the marriage in regards to Obama’s African status. My question is to why it was assumed the issue was because he was African?