Palin and the birthers: “it’s a fair question”
The blogs are all over the fact that, when pressed about Obama’s birth certificate, Sarah Palin said that it’s a fair question. You know what? It is. But to the Palin-haters (and their numbers are legion), this is just another example of her dimwitted nutjobby flat-earther mentality.
Let’s hear what else Palin had to say:
Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son — ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.”
Palin doesn’t sound so crazy to me—especially as compared to certain British-born journalists who write for the Atlantic. And saying it’s a fair question hardly means she thinks the answer would be that Obama is not a citizen. It means that she thinks the papers Obama has produced are still insufficient to completely disprove the accusations, and so he therefore needs to provide the long form of the birth certificate to lay suspicions at rest.
Palin has also made it clear that she puts the birth certificate question in the category of a “stupid conspiracy,” and that she herself isn’t interested in asking it. But she thinks it fair that since some voters want the proof, Obama should have to respond:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point ”“ not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews ”“ have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
Clear enough? Palin isn’t a birther. But she defends their right to ask the question, and the duty of candidates to respond fully. Of course, that won’t stop her critics—but what will?
And let’s see, what else would be a fair question about Obama? One that springs to mind is “how about producing those college and law school transcripts?” The issue, as with the birth certificate, is transparency; I have gone on record as saying that I think Obama was born in Hawaii and did well at Harvard Law, although I’m not all that sure about his undergraduate grades.
Why is Obama holding back? Because yes, he can.
Bill O’Reilly on Fox News reported that his investigation showed that both Honolulu newspapers reported Obama’s birth on the proper day. He avers that that is proof enough for him that Obama was probably born in Honolulu.
My opinion mirrors Palin’s. I think he was born in Honolulu, but until he produces the absolute proof, people who doubt him are entitled to ask the question.
But the question remains. Why doesn’t he just produce the birth certificate and put an end to the speculation? Just another of those questions about Obama that make you wonder about his honesty, competence, and awareness of public opinion.
Maybe we’ll have all our questions answered when he publishes his memoirs. (Suggested title – “I Did It My Way.” Or possibly, “I Did It Their[Ayers, Wright, Emmanuel, Soros, or???] Way.”)
Palin’s critics don’t care what she said. They care what they can make it sound like.
Re: “Voters have every right to ask candidates for information”
Notice the word candidates. She does not say that voters have the right to ask those questions of elected officials. Obama is the elected president.
I think he was born in Honolulu too, and either he doesn’t have a birth certificate at all, or it contains some embarrassing little nugget, such as listing his father as “unknown,” or something of that sort.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
“But the question remains. Why doesn’t he just produce the birth certificate and put an end to the speculation?”
It’s as clear as day. He thinks he can make the people asking the questions look dumb… ie, he gets a benifit for not releasing it.
J.J., sorry, I don’t think so. First, the lack of birth certificate is just the kind of issue that resonates with some people. Second, he’s spent over $1 MM fighting the issue. That’s a lot for a mind tweak on opponents. Third, it’s a distraction for him.
So I doubt very much that he’s keeping it quiet for any strategic purpose.
And what about people asking after his various transcripts and documents from his legal practice? They certainly don’t look stupid, and yet he’s stonewalled them as well.
All of this makes him look as though he’s got something to hide – hardly a desirable or worthwhile state of affairs for someone who doesn’t have anything to hide.
Re: ““But the question remains. Why doesn’t he just produce the birth certificate and put an end to the speculation?”
Obama HAS produced the birth certificate. He has posted and shown to both Politifact and FactCheck, the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out.
So Obama cannot post or show the original because he does not have it. His family probably had the original at one time, but it was lost. In ay case, in 2007 Obama asked Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate, and Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth, which is what it sends to everyone. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
It’s an issue of the company you keep. The birthers just don’t come across as sober conservatives.
And who really gives a shit anyway? C’mon.
She does not say that voters have the right to ask those questions of elected officials.
So are you saying (or imputing to Palin as having said) that voters don’t have the right to ask such questions of elected officials?
I think her point applies a forteriori to elected officials. She probably specified “candidates” because she took the corresponding statement re “elected officials” as self-evident.
nice post. Palin deserves defending re this interview. Palin’s interview response was reasonable, though not as clean and precise as it ought have been. Her Facebook response was clarifying, and was consistent with her interview response. Smearing her over this is either misguided or dishonest. I look closely at her expanded remarks here. AVI, above, has the correct take on the criticism.
A couple of unremarked things:
— Was her response really a political mistake? She didn’t intend it to be a stealth attack on Pres. Obama. However, if these accusations against her continue long-term, Palin will be protected by the “boy who cried wolf” dynamic of past smears against her. Meanwhile, the hysteria will remind voters that Pres. Obama still hasn’t proven he is legally qualified to hold office.
— If you listen to the interview, you realize Palin has little interest in this issue. She knows little of the minutia of the issue – just as everyone who has little interest in the issue knows little of the minutia. If she had interest, she would have educated herself about the issue.
Why is Obama holding back? Because yes, he can.
and
Why doesn’t he just produce the birth certificate and put an end to the speculation?
Because it benefits Obama to hold back. The birthers are seen as kooks by the public at large. It benefits Obama to have Chris Matthews get GOP politicians on Matthew’s MSNBC primetime show and grill them about whether they support the birthers or not. If they do the hapless GOP pols are immediately discredited in the minds of many viewers — if they don’t the GOP pols risk alienating a substantial portion of their birther-supporting base. Either way, it’s a VERY uncomfortable situation for the Republican victims and helps to get them off-message.
It’s a win/win situation for Matthews and other Obama-loving Progressive-leaning MSM figures who can then report on the results of Matthew’s confrontations, put it on YouTube, etc., and of course, Obama himself.
… the lack of birth certificate is just the kind of issue that resonates with some people.
Yes, but so far those “some people” are folks that don’t like him to begin with and who will never have a positive opinion about him anyway. The issue “resonates” NOT at all with the general public.
Second, he’s spent over $1 MM fighting the issue.
I’ve seen this claim before but have never seen the claim substantiated.
Third, it’s a distraction for him.
I don’t think the birther issue is a distraction as much as it’s a political and public relations ‘cash cow’ – for the reasons given above.
Why didn’t Palin also hold back?
Perhaps Sarah released her info because to have continued to hold back would not have benefited her. She would have been seen as trying to hide something. Regrettably, a certain British-born journalist who writes for the Atlantic, her main nemesis, has a large readership and can sway opinion, indeed, already has.
If it would have benefited her to hold back, as it does for Obama to hold back, would she have held back? I think so. Because yes, then she could. I think transparency, per se, has little to do with anything anybody does. It is just a catchword that each side can accuse the other of not having.
Sure, folks have the right to ask questions but other folks have the right to IGNORE questions — if they can get away with it — and Obama can easily get away with it.
The only way that the birthers can hurt Obama is if they can turn public opinion around to where the general public begins to agree with the birthers. I just don’t see that happening. I would bet, if there were a way to formulate and insure such a wager, all I have that it will NEVER happen. And I am not a gambler, have never been a gambler.
Re: “Second, he’s spent over $1 MM fighting the issue.
I’ve seen this claim before but have never seen the claim substantiated. ”
The claim is not true. There has never been a lawsuit against Obama that just asked for the birth certificate. None of the lawsuits were for information. All of them were to prevent Obama being president.
Before the election all the lawsuits were to stop the election. None of them (and I read them all) even asked that the court direct Obama to provide a copy of his birth cerificate to the court. The cases just asked to stop the election. After the election, virtually all the cases were to stop the Electoral College, stop the certification of the election or stop the Inauguration. Again, no lawsuit actually asked that the court direct Obama to provide a copy of his birth certificate to the court.
So Obama did not fight the birth certificate issue. He fought cases that tried to stop the election or the Inauguration. If there had been a lawsuit against him that simply asked for the birth certificate, adn he fought it, then someone could say that he fought it, but there has not been such a case.
Re: “So are you saying (or imputing to Palin as having said) that voters don’t have the right to ask such questions of elected officials?”
No, I am merely pointing out the quotation said “candidates.” Of course citizens have the right to ask elected officials anything. However, elected officials do not have to answer.
If you ask a candidate something and she or he does not answer, then you can vote against her. If an official does not answer, then all you can do is wait until the next election to vote against.
That is what she seems to be saying.
The Constitution says that only “natural born citizens” are eligible to run for or become President. The Constitution does not say who should verify that all candidates are such natural born citizens, but it appears that the ultimate election officials in each state–usually the Secretary of State for each State, the Democratic and Republican National Committees, the Speaker of the House, and the Federal Election Committee (FEC) all have some responsibility for this verification.
You seen any of these Secretaries of State stepping forward to certify in ringing tones —with documented proof–that Obama fulfilled this requirement? I haven’t.
You see the DNC or the Speaker say anything much or, especially, present proof that Obama met this requirement? I haven’t
See any such verification by the FEC?
Well, in fact, both the DNC and the FEC have been involved in the various citizen plaintiff’s lawsuits against Obama & Co.–sometimes as co-defendants, and always on Obama’s side–denying that either organization has any responsibility to verify his citizenship status, and arguing that plaintiffs did not have the standing to petition courts to require Obama to produce his original birth certificate; all these suits were won on the threshold issue of “standing” and, thus, neither Obama, the DNC or the FEC ever had to move on to argue anything about Obama’s actual citizenship status. So, it would seem like there is a major and important question about Obama’s citizenship status to be answered here.
Ordinary citizens who have sued to force Obama to produce his original birth certificate have been told by numerous courts in various states, and the U.S. Supreme court, that either their petition for a hearing was ludicrous and unworthy of any consideration, or that the 30 or so day window to ask for such verification had closed, or, most often–and most ludicrously–that as U.S. citizens and voters, they just did not have the “standing,” the “skin in the game, ” could not prove that they would be sufficiently harmed were Obama not to be eligible to run for or become President, to justify a court inquiring into Obama’s citizenship status by requiring him to produce his original birth certificate.
Translation of the last paragraph: All the cited courts, faced with an immanent and very obvious “Constitutional crisis” that would be an impossible, unprecedented, chaotic and very dangerous mess, that could set the precedent of possibly invalidating and unraveling the entire Obama administration, from Obama on down–all appointments, all legislation, all rules and regulatory actions, all decisions, and all foreign agreements–possibly tear our country apart and lead to violence and, conceivably, civil war, decided to punt, look the other way, and decline to investigate this issue at all.
Right off the bat, I’m going to say that simply asking the question does not require one to believe he was born in Hawaii or in Anarctica.
It is a valid question, as I’ll show in a moment, and it is a question he’s chosen to answer ineffectively or dodge entirely.
Whether $1 or $1 million – Obama and his minions have been engaged in legal activity fighting against release of any pertinent birth documents that the state of Hawaii may hold.
Why fight such a disclosure?
Unlike some, I don’t give Obama credit for any Rovian like strategy to make his political opposition look bad.
(As a matter of fact, I don’t think Rove was all that brilliant either, but that’s another subject.)
Obama’s looking like such an amature at the moment that I think any such Machiavellian moves are well beyond his capabilities.
As with the fraudulant AGW “scientists”, much of Obama’s success can be traced to a media that want’s to portray a certain angle that furthers their own agenda.
As for the document he provided, it is of little use.
Even Hawaii won’t accept that document for various uses/reasons – and they issued the damn thing.
On the other hand, there are – or at least are supposed to be – relevant documents on file with the state of Hawaii regarding his birth.
Legally, Obama need only request they release the information, and Hawaii will release it.
Obama, to date, has elected instead to fight through the court system the release of any documents.
Again, why?
When John McCain was a candidate and his own birth circumstances were raised as an issue (by democrats of all people – what hypocrits!), he was forthcoming with the pertinent documentation.
So, McCain considered it a valid issue and took steps to address it – steps which if he had won would have pre-empted such an issue from following his administration like a rotting albatross.
Obama, on the other hand, chose to leave it a lingering doubt.
Doubt is not something a nation should have about it’s leadership.
A link to an article that includes purported images of two different documents, apparently signed within minutes of each other by Pelosi, one of which includes the certification that Obama and Biden “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” and another in which this language is now missing; this article asserts that it was this second document, the one minus the “legally qualified to serve” language, that was sent to all the States certifying Obama, see (http://bidenobama.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-does-pelosi-know-about-obamas.html)
If genuine, these documents signed by Pelosi, like Hawaiian officials very careful statements that they had viewed, and say that they do have Obama’s birth record in their custody as prescribed by law, both seem to me to be anticipatory efforts to arrange things so that—if, somehow, the shit hits the fan—they both have some way to deny that they actually certified that Obama was, in one case, born in Hawaii, and in the other case, a “natural born citizen” who met the Constitution’s requirement.
As I point out above, the courts can also argue that, since none of the plaintiffs could prove that they had the “standing” to sue, the courts were not negligent in never actually getting to the issue of Obama’s citizenship status. I believe another anticipatory action was Senator Obama’s very uncharacteristic and interesting co-sponsorship of S. Res 511, the “sense of the Senate Resolution” that gave the Senate’s opinion that, even though Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal, i.e. technically “born overseas,” Senator McCain was a “natural born citizen” and eligible to both run for and become President.
As Obama’s policies and he become more and more unpopular—a Democratic controlled Congress not being willing to consider Impeachment—look for all sorts of people to clamor and look for some other way to remove Obama from office, and when things get to this state, whether or not Obama was a legitimate candidate for President, who met the Constitution’s “natural born citizenship requirement” may well be a question of supreme importance to many citizens that requires the most searching and scrupulous investigation.
Neo said:
As I remember The Won said his would be the most transparent admin yet. Did not quite turn out that way did it? The same for all of his records, college etc. We all made a ‘Gentlemans “C”‘ here and there, I would bet.
Re: “So, it would seem like there is a major and important question about Obama’s citizenship status to be answered here.”
There is no question whatsoever. First, no president has ever proven that he was a natural born citizen. In this case some people have manufactured the allegation that he was born in Kenya. Only if he were born in Kenya would any of this crap about the birth certificate mean anything, and it is as likely that he was born on the moon as in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii–and it is on tape for anyone to hear. (Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-)
As the National Review points out, it is crazy to believe the Kenya myth. A child born in Kenya requires a US visa or a change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya to allow him to get to the USA. If such a thing had happened, there would be records of it, which would have been found by now.
The McCain campaign checked out all the allegations, and found there was nothing to any of them.
Then there is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed.
Re: “The Constitution does not say who should verify that all candidates are such natural born citizens…”
The obvious candidates are (1) the voters; (2) the electors of the electoral college; (3) the members of Congress who confirmed the election.
All these points were raised with all three of these groups, and they elected or approved the election of Obama. It is interesting to note that in past elections it has been fairly frequent that one or two electors did not vote the way that the were supposed to. But in this case all 365 electoral votes that Obama won went the way that was decided on Nov. 4.
smrstrauss said:
“The McCain campaign checked out all the allegations, and found there was nothing to any of them.”
Oh please, McCain looked like he did practically everything he could to lose. I have never heard that his people looked into the birth certificate issue.
It was just…ah…*beneath* McCain to do so, apparently.
The only air that came into McCain’s campaign was when Palin came onto the ticket – which I guess explains why McCain’s staffers have done everything they could to diminish her both during the election and since.
These things only matter if you are a Republican canidate. If you are Democrat, you don’t need no stinkin transparency.
If you are Al Gore you can live in a mansion, own a yacht, fly all over the world in a jet- all the while lecturing people that they need to live more simply, and the msm doesn’t call you on it.
The same media that does not care about the birth certificate.
Back when I worked in human services, there was an old joke that circulated about the office now and again. It went like this:
Q- “What’s the definition of confusion?”
A- “Father’s Day in Roxbury”
In Obama’s community (or adopted community) details such as a birth certificate, actual names, dates of birth etc. are secrets that are held in the tightest regard. It’s not unusual at all for an individual to be known by three different names. You’ve got the name you give to the police, the name you use in the street, and what you’re called at the house. Obfuscation is the rule, pressing for details will get you a dirty look, or much worse.
There are a set of stated and unstated assumptions by pro-Birthers that don’t seem to be based in reality:
That Obama has devoted a lot of time, effort and/or money toward the prevention of the release of the Hawaiian records.
I see this opinion asserted all the time. I’ve never seen it substantiated. I believe it to be a myth, one of those memes that are repeated over and over by those susceptible to mere allegation(as opposed to documented fact) until they come to believe it.
The corollary assumption to the example above is that Obama has to actively fight to prevent the Hawaiian records from being released. No, to the contrary, all he has to do is nothing — and the records will not be released.
That Obama is somehow injuring his reputation with the public at large or creating doubt in a significant portion of the public by not directing Hawaii to release his records. Here too, substantiation is never offered.
I would have to see results from a reputable pollster asking pertinent questions about the Birther issue before I would believe that Obama is creating doubt or is hurt by it. This is not to say that other, legitimate issues, such as national healthcare, government spending, the national debt, a weak foreign policy, etc., aren’t taking their toll on Obama’s popularity.
The Birther issue is that jewel all politicians love to have handed to them — a political ‘tar baby’ for opponents to keep sticking to. Rather than hurting Obama it only serves to damage the credibility of his opposition. I take solace in the fact that it is a minor issue and, so far, seems to give only a slight or no advantage to Obama — certainly not enough to stop his slide downward in the polls.
Re: “The same media that does not care about the birth certificate.”
Some newspapers that are considered part of the MSM do care about the birth certificate. This is what the Wall Street Journal said about it:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”