Yesterday, while watching Eliot Spitzer’s “In the Arena” from my perch on the new cardio machine at my gym, I took note of a visibly irate Jeffrey Toobin, fulminating about Donald Trump and the “part of the Republican Party that hates Barack Obama beyond any level of rationality.” I wonder if that “legal expert” (as Spitzer billed him) ever bemoaned about how Howard Dean appealed to that part of the Democratic Party that hates George W. Bush beyond all level of rationality.
It seems that the Donald has drawn the fire not just of left-of-center pundits, but also of a number of conservatives, including some very principled conservatives ones. Yet, I couldn’t help but wonder yesterday if some of those liberal critics were upset not that Trump was talking about Obama’s birth certificate, but that he had drawn attention to the issue, causing people to ask questions about gaps in the president’s biography. And whereas, it’s supposedly a good and wise thing to ask questions about Republicans, when when Democratic politicians fail to be forthcoming, the less asked the better.
As Glenn Reynolds opined (albeit a different matter) “when it comes to criticisms of Obama, Bush’s critics are acting like they’re on Xanax.” Those who spent days, weeks, months, years even studying W’s National Guard experience seem indifferent to Obama’s educational experience.
For the record, on the birth certificate issue, I’m closer to Peter Wehner than to Donald Trump, aware, as he is, of the “partisan cost to all this“:
Mr. Trump is succumbing to a pernicious temptation in American politics: not simply to disagree with political opponents, but to try to delegitimize them. The argument isn’t simply that Mr. Obama is wrong on almost every public policy matter (which I believe he is). Rather, the argument is that his presidency is unconstitutional and that he is alien.
The president’s failure to produce his long-form birth certificate should not be the focus of conservative critiques of the incumbent (even “Tea Party darling Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)” dismisses the issue.) What this issue does raise is the many documents not forthcoming from this supposedly transparent politician. He won’t, for example, release his college transcripts so the American people won’t have a window into the nature of his undergraduate studies.
Yet, as Trump raises the issue, he draws the fire of Democrats and their allies in the MSM, leaving other, more serious candidates unscathed, making me wonder not only about his real intentions, but about his possible benefit to the GOP.
ADDENDUM: Wehner also raises another important issue:
He’s not just throwing stones from the sidelines, he’s digging in, he’s paying for researchers to find out why President Obama would have spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate.” (Ms. Palin has refused journalists’ requests to explain where the $2 million figure comes from.)
If the president has not spent this much trying to keep the long-form certificate under wraps, then there is much less to the story than Donald Trump alleges.
*NB: Please note that I changed the title of this post as the original title didn’t work as I had intended.
I think the issue on the birth certificate has to do with his religion. I would bet next month’s salary that his religion is “Muslim”. Coupled with the lack of a baptism document, it would be very hard for mainstream America to vote for him. I am not saying he is Muslim, being born Muslim and being Muslim are two different things. He is too arrogant to believe in God not matter the religion.
Going after Obama on the “birther” issue is a certain way to get yourself Palinized by the liberal press and therefore all candidates are scared of it. Except Trump, who has the power to give anyone in the press a sound drubbing if the spirit moved him. Therefore, he has immunity and his entrance into the fray with the birther theme has catapulted him to top notice.
What is so difficult about that to understand? Everyone gets to “arise above” the “distasteful” stench of “birtherism” and Trump gets to yuk it up with no damage.
Trump is using this as an clear “Chicago” warning that he has only just begun if Obama is even considering of turning the dogs loose on him. The more Trump talks, the more reasonable it seems for Obama to just release the long form and stop the noise. The longer Obama balks, the higher the percentage of people who think there is something phony about Obama’s citizenship.
It could be reasonably argued that Obama is feeding this himself.
As I understand the “stalking horse” concept, I doubt that trump is taking his commands from anyone. It is highly unlikely he is performing for anyone other than himself. He is floating an issue and it has taken wings and is doing very well for him.
In terms of externalities, Trump is doing all of the GOP pack a favor by taking the heat for them on this issue.
Others, I understand, feel that this acting like a typical Democrat will redound badly for the GOP. (Hillary created the “birther” nestlings.)
quick question. . .when when,
>> And whereas, it’s supposedly a good and wise thing to ask questions about Republicans, when when Democratic politicians fail to be forthcoming, the less asked the better. <<
but then I looked up: A stalking horse is a person who tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against them on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable and/or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare their interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association and can either drop the idea completely or bide their time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.
But why are there Folk in the Conservatives circles shaking there heads, urging caution and dumping on Trump?
and with the Donald pushing for Barry to come clean and open up the 'transparency', does that open the door for such transparency for other 2012 (and future elections) candidates. Do folk really want that standard? I know that voter's appreciate transparency.
rusty, good point on stalking horse. Not sure I used the right term here. Meant it as a kind of ruse used to draw enemy fire.
(which sorts of works with some of the definitions I found when I looked it up before posting)
the only semi legit reason for suppressing is the religion issue, and the only good excuse is if he is listed as muslim, he now claims to be christian, and therefor is in a state of Apostasy to the muslims and it could make foreign relations strained.
It is a lousy excuse, but it is the only one I see as being mostly non-embarrassing to 0bama.
I personally do not think that is the excuse, and if he is listed as muslim it may be the “Folks wont vote for a muslim” (explaining Ellison in office in some other way) excuse being used. It contains something really embarrassing or is a red herring.
0bma’s religion is Marxism (with god added, aka Black Liberation Theology) and if he had not gone to Wright’s hate church, I think we’d be known for electing the first true atheist to the office.
Trump might be a stalking horse, but for who? He is actually a lib, not even all the conservative on fiscal stuff.
pro kelo, pro gun control, pro choice while claiming personally pro life, pro asset taxes, pro single payer health care, pro crony capitalism. Wat’s to like? His attacks on the birth cert? Keyes has been doing that, and LaRouche is just as bad as trump on the attacks too, and is only a little to trump’s left on too many issues
Neither Keyes or LaRouche are seen as “serious” people by the majority of Americans. The Donald, otoh, has some street creds with his business successes (and failures…very successful people in history have rarely succeeded without a failure or two in their background) and he is as “street fighting man”. We need more people like him to take it right to the left. So far, no serious GOP male contender seems to have any cojones to be a “street fighting man”. I’m still waiting for one to show up who can be a serious contender.
Every Republican that has been designated a potential presidential candidate has baggage whether it is Huck, Newt, Sarah, or Tim. Despite his baggage the Donald is saying what I think and possibly many more Americans, we should put the squeeze on Iraq for oil. This past October the GAO revealed tha Iraq has a 52.1 dollar budget surplus from which 92% was derived from oil. Think about! We´re paying them top dollar for oil and we´re ¨gifting´¨ them billions to to fight their war to Iran and or Al Quaida from taking over. China´s economy is moving along nicely, GE even closed its electric bulb division to let the chinese manufacture our light bulbs. As of Donald has my vote. Sarah is saying the right things about oil but but resigning after only two years as Governor disqualifies her in my mind.
I just wish the liberal candidate got the pelvic exam Palin got and the prostate exam Joe the Plumber got. No more of this “But he’s black” bullshit.
DAn, with respect, your post has some contradictions in it. This part makes good sense:
And this doesn’t:
I mean, it’s true, but it contradicts the first quotation’s tendency. Obama’s qualifications to be President simply do not matter anymore. They may provide a fascinating window into who he really is. On the other hand: We already know who he really is. From his policies. Which are the real problem.
Obama is already President. Worrying about his undergraduate studies (or whatever) is backward-looking. As such (i.e., *as backward-looking*), it may be fascinating but it is not the kind of message that can carry the 2010 election’s momentum forward to a win in 2012.
I disagree. I think the liberal press *wants* Republicans to be sidetracked on this issue, as it serves to either drown out or delegitimize the Tea Party (fiscal discussion).
Trump’s birtherism is, above all, a threat to the success of the Tea Party.
I disagree. The more Trump talks, the more he makes Obama a kind of martyr for decency and common sense. Obama’s natural-born qualification (for the Presidency) was settled as a legal question when the State of Hawaii chose, in an official act, to certify him as born in Hawaii.
No, he’s doing them a disfavor by making them look like backward-looking people who want to delegitimize (i.e., who don’t accept) Obama’s victory in the 2008 election.
Exactly. Didn’t work for her, did it?
Donald Trump is an opportunist; therefore, I don’t trust him. I will not support in any Republican primary.
My bet was it says his name is really Barry Dunham with above possibility for religion. I think that’s also the reason for hiding the school records…
Kevin, those items come up when my friends and I discuss the certificate. All of us agree he was born in Hawai’i, with most of us speculating there is something potentially “embarrassing” on the certificate.