As we deal with the double standards today in American politics with Democrats and various left-of-center pundits and editorial boards refusing to condemn rhetoric hurled against their adversaries similar to that they rushed to condemn when uttered by a handful of activists on the right, perhaps we should wonder as well at the fascination some of the same pundits and media figures have with birthers, those who question the place of the president’s birth.
Of course, we could quiet the controversy rather quickly if the president just agrees to have the State of Hawai’i release his long-form birth certificate. That would silence all but those who refuse to let the issue go (as I believe they long ago should have, especially when the then-Republican Governor of the Aloha State Linda Lingle confirmed that the actual certificate shows Obama was indeed born in her jurisdiction, one of the fifty sovereign states).
Last Thursday, Doug Powers reminded us that over the previous weekend NBC’s David Gregory asked the Republican House Speaker and apparently other conservatives “about their beliefs concerning President Obama’s birthplace and faith” as if the topic were “an all-out media fad.” Powers includes Jim Treacher‘s quip, “I don’t recall anybody ever asking Nancy Pelosi if it was her job to correct any of the myths and misinformation that were spread about George Bush.”
Ace offers his own unique and (most) insightful take on the matter:
One may feel that these subjects are beyond dispute and therefore it’s fair game to ask public officials to deny or affirm them. But when did the media ever ask Democrats to explicitly deny Trutherism? Or to demand they stop calling Bush a war criminal, as he’s, you know, provably not, the way they continue demanding that Republicans swear Bam-Bam is not a socialist (which is actually is)?
Why do the media never ask Democrats to “differentiate themselves” from the extremists on their side of the political aisle?
I thought they couldn’t find his birth certificate.
BTW, I think the issue nowadays has more to do with his honesty and the utter lack of information in his background. Not to mention the complete disinterest in his background by the liberals.
And with respect (not that you did it), waving around alleged newspaper clippings was just idiotic.
<iWhy do the media never ask Democrats to “differentiate themselves” from the extremists on their side of the political aisle?
Because the MFM are the PR wing of the Democrat party. This has never been more clear than in the contrast in the way the mob in Madison WI is being covered versus how the Tea Party rallies were covered.
And contrary to what the spazzes will declare, it’s not playing the victim to acknowledge the bias of the MFM, it’s simply acknowledging an undeniable fact.
Also, to the average lefty MFM reporter, the nutjobs at Code Pink or ANSWER are only radical in their techniques, not in their core beliefs that America is always wrong, war is always bad, and politicians should redistribute wealth to the masses. Most of the lefty elitists who work for Big Media believe in the exact same things. So, the lefty fringe doesn’t seem like a fringe to them.
Whereas the beliefs of the Tea Party… particularly smaller Constitutionally-limited Government … seem alien and threatening to them.
Easy.
The “media” assiduously avoid making mountains out of mole hills.
In the case of Republicans, the media are doing deep, investigative journalism. This is necessary, because Republicans hold themselves to a quaint thread of ethics and any hint of slippage is clear carnal sin and a cry for Armageddon.
I think it would be safe to assume that most truthers are liberals/Democratic voters, but that point of view has absolutely no traction among any prominent Democrats or liberals in the country. In contrast, birtherism is viewed as a legitimate opinion by many Republicans and conservative media stars. You’re comparing apples to oranges if you’re talking about the acceptance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories by their respective political parties. One doesn’t even have a toehold, the other is practically a prerequisite.
Sorry guys, but you’ve had too many sitting Republicans flak for the birthers when they’ve had this question put to them. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck talk about it on a daily basis. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen polls that have birtherism in the conservative movement increasing over time. When have Democrats defended or sympathized with the truthers?
This is also a good time to point that the birth certificate stuff is explicitly racist, since conservatives always seem so suprised when they’re labeled as such. But this is what turns out the conservative vote and generates enthusiasm, isn’t it? Nobody wanted to see John Kerry’s or Al Gore’s birth certificates, but all of a sudden (and despite his birth certificate being released and authenticated), we’re questioning wether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen? You’ll excuse me for thinking that’s something other than coincidence.
Another thing – you can’t lump in accusing the President of masterminding 9-11 with accusing the President of being a war criminal. President Bush is almost certainly a war criminal, and if I were a conservative, I would be thanking President Obama every minute of the day for not having the balls to do anything about it.
Trutherism? A Democratic thing? Think again. Actually, just think. It’s a nutjob thing.
Birtherism on the the other hand, well, it’s clearly a symptom of the crackpot right’s Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS).
ODS? Project much, Auntie Bitter?
Your side has had BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and PMS (Palin Mudslinging Syndrome) for so long that you accept it as being “normal.”
Example – your postings/rantings.
I rest my case.
Lock ‘n load, honey.
Regards,
Peter H.
Ah, poor Granny, so short on facts, again.
Birtherism started in the Clinton Campaign after all…
And as to Levi…
Van Jones, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore to name three.
And were Democrats racist to argue about John McCain’s status to run? Or what about Dick Cheney’s state of residence?
And again, Levi spreads the lie that President Bush was a war criminal. That you believe something, doesn’t make it true. After all Levi believes brown people can’t handle democracy.
Oh look, facts! Quick, scurry like the roaches exposed to light!
Yeah, we know. All criticism of Obama is racist. Yawn.
Off topic but fun. NOAA accepts what we all knew, snowfalls were not caused by Global Warming.
Looksl ike Levi and Al Gore have egg on their faces… again.
Of course, that’s not what I said.
If you’re going to accuse a Presidential candidate of being a foreigner that is legally ineligible from attaining office, you should have a really good reason and lots of supporting evidence. The birthers have this; Obama is black and he has a foreign-sounding name. That’s undeniably racism. No one uses that label if you’re making serious critiques of his economic policies or if you disagree with some of his foreign policy decisions, but if you accuse him of stealing an election based on nothing more than his name and his skin tone, you’re making a racist attack.
Look more Levi lies.
The colour of his skin, and his name aren’t the issue to the birthers.
Again, are you saying that the questioning of John McCain’s birth are racist? I mean he’s awefully pale and has an Irish sounding name.
Gods, can you get any more stupid Levi? you prove Sarah Palin smarter than you with every post.
While they’re at it, how about releasing Obama’s college records? and medical records?
Bush disclosed hundreds of pages of records about him. Obama, not so much. Obama is hiding something. My guess is that with his birth certificate (if it still exists), he might be hiding that his religion was listed as Muslim. And with his college records, he might be hiding that he was a poor student. But he is “hiding something” starting with the fact that he is hiding all those records that Republican Presidents are expected, nay demanded, to disclose.
I’m less interested in Obama’s birth certificate, but more interested in Obama’s mysterious college records which remain sealed. Why? I think his records will not fit the Cult of Personality messiah images & marketing from the MSM & the Obama White House. The records need to be released.
Sorry Dan: because you missed something, the fact that they are not extremists.
According to Wiki, 15% of Americans think the U.S. government was behind the 9-11 attacks, 7% think Israel was, and 25% “don’t know”. That means 47% are Truthers to some degree.
Now, as our good friend Levi has informed us, “it would be safe to assume that most truthers are liberals/Democratic voters”. Other polls show that reliable “liberal/Democratic voters” are maybe 45% of the electorate.
Doing the math, for “most” truthers to be Democrat voters, it must be true that something approaching 80, 90 or even 100% of Democrat voters are Truthers.
(continued) Which is a terrible indictment of “liberals/Democratic voters”, my real point.
ILC and Sebastian, my suspicions about the college records are that they would show both poor grades and a number of courses in Marxist theory. But I am sure this is just because I am a racist. (sarc)
ILC, I’d forgotten, but thank you for reminding me of
So We can add Levi to those who think that President Bush was complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen. Then again if Levi believes ‘Arabians‘ cant understand democracy, he likely thinks they couldn’t have pulled off 9/11 w/o inside help.
oops. Two seperate hyper links there.
Truther Levi.
Racist Levi.
Yeah, they all blend after a time.
TL, I had forgotten those.
I have forgotten Saddam’s death toll. But it seems to me that it was in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, all the more incredible as a percentage of Iraq’s population, perhaps 10% or more. And many children were among them, e.g. victims of Saddam’s mass-extermination chemical weapons attacks on his own people.
Levi announced in the 2009 comment that he’s fine with that; that he would take it “in a heartbeat” if it could have meant that instead of President Bush, we could have had President Gore or Kerry. (Who would have been the real disasters – but I digress.)
“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” — Mother Teresa. Levi’s utterance may have been one of the most morally depraved utterances ever made on GayPatriot.
As for Levi the Truther “if you could excise the Bush administration… there would have been no 9-11”, please indulge my repeating my response at the time:
Not that it will make a difference to someone so depraved as Levi, of course.
Finally, I’m remembering how Bush tried to do a couple really wise things that would have mitigated the financial crisis:
– Freddie/Fannie reform
– Social Security reform
He was blocked – mostly by Democrats. And those things still need doing, and Obama still isn’t taking them on – at least not in any serious way. Imagine how much better things would be if, instead of excising the Bush administration from history, we excised the 2003-2008 Congressional Democrats from history.
Every liberal policy position is based on selfishness, so it’s little surprise that Levi embraces all of them.
Or at least, V, the wrong kind of selfishness. 😉 Selfishness can be productive and morally honorable (like when you work harder and better at your job, to get that promotion to feed your family), or it can be destructive and morally blind. I would agree that left-liberalism ignores the good kind, incorporates the bad kind with amazing frequency.
[Citation Demanded]
How about if you voted for him based on nothing more than his skin tone?
Wasn’t there something about his classmates and professors at Columbia not remembering him? Maybe his records show that he tried to bring a horse to water polo or that he has a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving.
You mean states like North Carolina and Virginia and Indiana and Missouri all went for Obama because he was black?
You don’t think it had anything to do with that terribly unpopular idiot of a President that Republicans nominated?
Saddam killed a lot of Iraqis, then Bush came along and killed a lot of Iraqis. One may have killed more than the other, but the massive numbers of casualties that both men inflicted upon the population are inexcusable crimes against humanity. So what are you so proud of? That Bush took over Saddam’s Iraqi-killing responsibilities? You’ll go on and on about all the children that Saddam killed, but when it comes time to take stock of how many kids Bush killed, the best you can offer is that the reports are probably inflated.
It’s absurd for conservatives to be moralizing about wars and dead civilians in the wake of their enthusiastic and blood-thirsty support of Bush’s wars in the Middle East and his archaic torture policies. I didn’t like Saddam any more than I like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il, but that doesn’t mean I think the smart thing to do is haphazardly invade their countries and lie to the world about why I was doing it. The capacity for the United States to solve global political problems is not unlimited and our military is hardly some magical democracy-spreading machine.
Sorry pal, but Bush and Co. are responsible for way too many deaths for you to be quoting Mother Teresa to me.
Maybe, it’s because there wasn’t a small number of Democratic congressman who would neither confirm nor deny that they believed America was behind the attacks.
I haven’t heard of one, tho there could be, congressman who believed America was behind the attacks. If you could show me a number of Democrats who did, then your point make more sense.
How many Democrats said “I think there are questions” or “I’d like to see documents” about whether or not the government planned and executed attacks on 9/11?
They ask Republicans about birtherism because there are congressmen who actually have questions and believe that Obama isn’t a citizen. There is your answer.
No. Once more, Levi, you show your serious case of moral depravity.
Saddam killed a lot of Iraqis. Then, acting in accordance with U.N. resolutions, a coalition that Bush was politically courageous enough to lead, had Saddam removed. Then *Saddam’s die-hards, plus al Qaeda, plus Iran* killed more Iraqis.
Part of your depravity is your (evident) inability to assign moral responsibility where it belongs. Saddam had no right to be in power. As such he had no right to resist the U.N. coalition; no sovereignty. After he was removed, his die-hards – plus agents of al Qaeda and of Iran – conducted a campaign of terrorism against the Iraqi people. Coalition forces continued to protect the Iraqi people. You look at the deaths in that conflict and say, it was the protectors’ fault. No. *It was the terrorists’ fault*, you morally perverted and disgusting pig.
So, Mother Teresa stands: “It is a poverty [for you, Levi] to decide that a child must die [in Iraq] so that you [Levi] may live [in America] as you wish.”
i’m sure others have made this point, but “birthers” are hardly “extremists” within the republican ranks. according to this poll, they constitute a 51% majority of republican voters.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html
this poll puts you in quite a bind, eh? you’ve grossly underestimated the prevalence of birthers in the republican party, and you’ve implicitly admitted that your party is dominated by “extremists”. ha.
32,
Yes, that’s the point. Nationally elected Republicans have said they have doubts about his citizenship, and I think a couple may have even outright said they don’t think he was born here, I could be wrong on that though. That’s the reason people are bringing it up, because it’s not a fringe movement. More and more republican voters are believing it and a number of nationally elected officials “aren’t sure” if he’s a citizen. Are there a similar number of nationally elected democrats that “weren’t sure” if America had nothing to do with 9/11?
Well, AJ, Obama could end the controversy by just opening his records to the public… as every Republican has. But he refuses to, and has in fact spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to keep the public from his records. (Which, given how Obama destroyed the career of Jim Ryan by getting a corrupt Chicago judge to open his sealed divorce records, makes the president, if nothing else, a major asshole). Anyway, he is obviously hiding something, which is obvious to all but the most pathetic party hacks.
Chad, shall we cite polls showing that upwards of one-third of Democrats believe Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?
I am aware that a similar percentage of Republicans hold similar “birther” sympathies, but we shouldn’t trust the numbers of a Democratic polling firm. Such firms tend not to do a very good job polling Republicans.
And even of those who claim to have doubts about Obama’s citizenship, how many of them make it a passion. Remember this question was asked of them. (They did not volunteer the information.)
If it were such a pressing issue, you’d see rank-and-file Republicans bringing it up on a regular basis at precinct and local meetings and putting it into state party platforms (or numerous people hefting placards questioning the president’s birth at Tea Parties and other such rallies.) Maybe one or two have done it, but that doesn’t make it a burning issue nationwide. And should just one do it, it becomes a national issue, but when multiple union protesters wave banners linking an elected Republican governor to Hitler, for some reason, the media miss those.
That said, I only bring up the poll on Democrats and “truthers” as a point of comparison. The issue here is the prejudiced view of elected Republicans prevalent among our mainstream media.
and my point is that you don’t make a convincing argument for media “prejudice.” is it now “prejudice” to ask republicans about dominant viewpoints within their party? this is the fundamental difference between the truthers and the birthers: i’ll take your word for it and assume that upwards of one-third of dems were (at some point) truthers, but that’s not a majority. nor were the truther views ever indulged by democrats. there’s no disparate treatment by the media here, because trutherism was never a dominant viewpoint.
on the other hand, birther bills are circulating through at least 10 different state legislatures.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49444.html
i suppose you’ll now tell me that the media is showing its prejudice by audaciously asking republicans about the legislation they’re sponsoring?
Whoops, I misunderstood the Wiki link that I posted at #16, having read it too quickly. The numbers I quoted were “World Average”, not U.S.-specific.
For U.S. polls, the link says stuff like this:
Now granted that that poll is probably biased given its origins; still, the overall numbers are roughly in line with what I said at #16. My larger point stands: given the scale of Trutherism and given that “most truthers are liberals/Democratic voters” as Levi helpfully volunteered, then Trutherism would have to be part of the Democrat mainstream.
The title should read ‘…Democrat Interest Group.’
Perhaps the most amusing thing about Levi’s shouting to hte roof tops about ‘dead Iraqis’ is that he doesn’t care about them unless as a cudgel to bash President Bush (who did more for the environment than Obama or Gore).
After all they aren’t real people to him. They can’t even understand advancd concepts like freedom and democracy.
I understand – you want to give Bush credit for the good things (Yay no Saddam! Yay elections!) and blame anybody else for all the bad things. That’s certainly a position that I would expect from the party of personal responsibility….
The war was conducted with too much incompetence, short-sightedness, and viciousness for any sensible person to believe that the plight of the common Iraqi was anywhere near the minds of the wars’ conductors. Abu Graihb puts you in a difficult position here – why were we torturing innocent Iraqis by the thousands if we were there to protect them? Don’t you think that instituting an international torture program might have inflamed Islamic fanaticism and galvanized Arab opposition to the United States and its mission in Iraq? How gullible can you be?
And again Levi has to lie to try to make his (talking) points.
Abu Grahb was investigated and punished. Bush is the one responsible for the terrorists, per Levi.
The more he posts, the more delusional our Truther gets.
I’m a known Bush critic. It’s really more like this. When I see a gang member shooting at the policewoman whom the city council sent in to protect people, I possess the modicum of moral competence and decency needed to comprehend that the gang member, not the policewoman, is at fault and bears the moral responsibility.
You’ve made it clear that you don’t, you morally perverted and disgusting pig.
Yes, and so I rest my case.
Of course, that’s a terrible analogy that doesn’t relate in any way to the situation in Iraq, unless you’re setting out to make Bush seem completely innocent and faultless – something I certainly would expect of a Bush critic!
Because you ignored it the last time, I will reiterate: Bush and Co. instituted a widespread torture program in Iraq and around the world that has done more harm to our image and credibility in the Arab world than anything else in the last decade. And they’re ‘a policewoman’ in your analogy? Bush was helping to radicalize people, and he helped fuel the insurgency with terrible programs like this.
It should go without saying that when you’re invading another country, even when you’re doing it with the noblest and most selfless of intentions, you have to be extremely concerend with being portrayed by your enemies as outsiders and occupiers that are trying to steal resources or somehow subjugate the civilian population. It should also go without saying that if you start rounding up people indiscriminately to torture them, you’re only helping your enemies by generating distrust, fear, and anger among the people you’re supposed to be helping.
And that’s just the torture issue – virtually everything that the Bush administration did during the invasion was a catastrophic tactical blunder that fueled the insurgency and made our mission there more difficult. From not sending in enough troops, to making dangerous assumptions about how long it would take and how we’d be received, appointing incompetent yes-men to positions of importance, not securing munitions dumps, handing out reconstruction contracts to American companies instead of Iraqis, not having enough linguists, not knowing enough about the culture, etc., etc. But oh, let’s make up pretty little analogies comparing them to goodhearted policewomen that deserve absolutely no fault for their actions… and then call ourselves Bush critics! That should be taken seriously!
end blockquote. (oops)
It’s pretty clear that our racist Truther makes up sh*t that never happened. (Or, eagerly believes others who do .)
Abu Graihb never happened? This is one of the biggest disasters of the invasion, and it never happened? This is what being a Bush critic means to you?
Or, after years and years of disclosures about people at the highest levels approving these kinds of torture techniques, are we still pretending that Abu Graihb was ‘a few bad apples?’ It kind of seems like your idea of being a Bush critic is always giving him the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time!
Republicans have less than nothing when it comes to the Iraq war. You guys talk about it like it’s some glorious victory when it’s one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the world.
And again… no sources, just the paranoid rantings of a delusional Truther.
Abu Grahb was a single instance not “a widespread torture program in Iraq” Bill Clinton and Al Gore started Rendition which is “around the world”. Oh, I forgot, Karl Rove beat up The Doctor, stole the TARDIS, went back in time and instituted the program without them knowing.
(Side note, Levi blames GWB for the very program his sainted AL Gore was involved in starting)
Besides, Levi doesn’t really care. I mean they’re Arabians. They can’t even understand democracy!