Challenging Obama’s Birth Certificate November 23, 2008
Posted by Rethabile in nationality, racism, stupidity.Tags: stupidity
trackback
“A lot of right wing blogs are challenging President elect Obama’s
Birth Certificate. So far there are three lawsuits. One is up before
the Supreme Court. Alan Keyes is doing one in California.The third in
New Jersey by Phillip Berg.With the way they are going at it ,it looks
like they want to start a riot.Some of these right wing blogs SAID
SO.They want his original Birth Certificate. No ONE has their original
copy, only a copy.Check out the right wing blogs They’re having
petition drives to get signatures.It seems like the procedure is what
ever he does, get a lawsuit.”
[continue there...]
This smacks of desperation . Obviously when he was born no one knew he would one day run for president so why would his parents need to get him a fake birth certificate. Since his mum is a US citizen he would have got citizenship anyway so again what would be the point of lying about his birth. Damn these people are fools really
They are fools, Sokari, and, you know, when one’s desperate… This bothers me, though: desperate for what? What do they want to achieve? Why do they feel threatened? This bothers me a lot.
I think many blacks like me, have been uneasy, since Obama entered the race, especially when Sarah Palin started to stir up a certain crowd. There are people that are so bigoted and hateful and with the internet they get more supporters than they would have in past time. These people can not ever conceive of a black person having the job of POTUS. I do take some comfort, that any lynching would not take place and that the are seeking legal remedy instead of a high tech assault weapon. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, many of those same types of people reveled in his murder. His problem, too liberal on civil rights a Catholic. The southern prostetant being none too friendly to Catholics and Jews.
I think there are other aspects derived from slavery as to why Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas are involved. Alan Keyes was a rival for Obama’s senate seat, there may a play of jealousy and revenge. Clarence Thomas appears to want white people to think he is being fair.It was not necessary, because a previous Justice the Supreme Court clerk, David Souter had refused to bring the case up for consideration. One legacy of slavery is that white supremacy promoted envy. It also would favor just a few Negroes, even giving them a few scraps more, to help keep the other Negroes in line. Then you have the self hating Negroes, which get rewarded, when the denigrate other Negroes. The Field Negro has quite a few post about this behavior.
Fools can be dangerous. Desperate not to have a Black man in the White House.
sorry this is off topic but I tagged you “Why I blog about Africa”
http://www.blacklooks.org/2008/12/why_i_blog_about_africa.html
I couldn’t read the rest since I’m not a google member but what on earth are they trying to accomplish with the birth certificate? It has to be something like trying to prove he wasn’t born here or something inane like that.
Good lord.
Not being born in the US is not ‘inane’ in this context, but pertinent, as US law states that only persons born within the United States may be eligible to run for president. So if, as some of these fringe blogs claim, Obama was actually born in Kenya, he would have to withdraw from the presidency.
However, none of the reputable GOP blogs are running with this; in fact blogs like Instapundit, PowerLine Blog and the like have specifically refuted the claim that he was born anywhere other than in Hawaii. So this is a non-story.
And before you all get overly righteous, let’s not forget that a lot of mainstream left-wing blogs were claiming during the campaign that John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone rendered him ineligible to run for president. So to paint this as a tactic of the right when it was so blatantly used by the left as well is disingenuous. Let’s face it, partisans of both sides will try whatever they can to keep their political opponents out of office.
Darren,
I wonder if you’ve actually read the “fringe” blogs you mention, as far as Barack Obama’s birth place is concerned. If you have, then I’m willing to bet that it is incomparable to whatever other fringe blogs may have said about McCain being born elsewhere. The reasons for espousing such denials wouldn’t have been the same for both camps. If the left did say McCain was born in the Panama area, that is. Have you got a link?
I have read some of the blogs, but in general I seek to avoid wasting my time on idiocy from both sides of the political spectrum. And I don’t see why their claims would be ‘incomparable’ to the claims about McCain, unless you’re assuming that all opposition to Obama is automatically racist?
As I said before, partisans on both sides are equally capable of this sort of thing in their efforts to keep their political opponents out of office. By showing outrage at this and not the similar attempts to show that McCain was not eligible makes you selective in your condemnation and part of the problem.
And I really couldn’t be bothered to find the links for you, but you’ll find whatever you seek with a simple Google query. At one point even the NY Times seriously entertained the idea, and there’s no doubt that the claims would’ve become far more strident had McCain won.
Darren: I have read some of the blogs, but in general I seek to avoid wasting my time on idiocy from both sides of the political spectrum.
Rethabile: Well, Excuse me, but I tend to read widely, especially people with ideas that I would normally disagree with. This for two reasons. One, you can’t fix it if you don’t know where it’s ailing. Secondly, maybe it isn’t ailing, in which case I need to learn or understand.
Darren: And I don’t see why their claims would be ‘incomparable’ to the claims about McCain, unless you’re assuming that all opposition to Obama is automatically racist?
Rethabile: Not automatically, no. But mostly yes. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that any opposition to McCain would be racist. The claims would therefore be incomparable for this very reason.
Darren: As I said before, partisans on both sides are equally capable of this sort of thing in their efforts to keep their political opponents out of office.
Rethabile: Yes, they are, Darren. But as I said, the reasons behind it would hardly be the same. Any quick visit to the mud on You Tube will convince you that Democrats, black and/or white, thought McCain wasn’t right for the job because he was old, because he sucked on many fronts, including the economy, and because his choice for VP was bad. Now, pop over there and see what Republicans were saying about why Obama wasn’t right for the job. These include the allegation that he wasn’t American, he was the Anti-Christ, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit like Sarah was, his middle name was Hussein, he smoked, etc. And I will be bothered to find links for you on any of these, if you’d like.
Darren: By showing outrage at this and not the similar attempts to show that McCain was not eligible makes you selective in your condemnation and part of the problem.
Rethabile: I really don’t see myself as part of the problem. What problem? I’m outraged at this because it has really been pushed by GOP pundits and supporters, as it is indeed the last straw they’re clutching. I doubt Dems would have gone to these lengths to try and block Mr McCain becoming president. This goes beyond straight politics. It is the first time a non-WASP is elected (except for Kennedy), and guess what? It’s the first time this kind of thing has happened, this verification of birth certificates. It didn’t happen for Kennedy because cathilicism doesn’t matter: blackness does.
Darren: And I really couldn’t be bothered to find the links for you, but you’ll find whatever you seek with a simple Google query. At one point even the NY Times seriously entertained the idea, and there’s no doubt that the claims would’ve become far more strident had McCain won.
Rethabile: Point taken. You could have stayed more polite in your denial to provide links to back your argument. And like I say, I will be bothered, if you should require it. I’ll go find the links myself, and read what I unfortunately did not hear about then.
Rethabile: Well, Excuse me, but I tend to read widely, especially people with ideas that I would normally disagree with. This for two reasons. One, you can’t fix it if you don’t know where it’s ailing. Secondly, maybe it isn’t ailing, in which case I need to learn or understand.
Darren: Oh I read widely enough, and I take special care to read viewpoints in opposition to my own, as my presence here should indicate. But my time is not unlimited and as I place value on it I choose not to indulge the extreme fringes of our political discourse such as the racists, the conspiracy theorists and the generally insane. They’re neither important nor representative, so why bother with them?
Rethabile: Not automatically, no. But mostly yes. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that any opposition to McCain would be racist. The claims would therefore be incomparable for this very reason.
Darren: Sheer nonsense. While some small portion of the opposition to Obama is undoubtedly racist, it’s silly to claim that most of it is so motivated. There are enough valid reasons to oppose Obama based on his policies and political history without having to dip into racism as a possible motive. When the fringe right went nuts about John Kerry being a closet communist or the fringe left went over the top with Bush assassination fantasies was it all racism too?
Rethabile: Yes, they are, Darren. But as I said, the reasons behind it would hardly be the same. Any quick visit to the mud on You Tube will convince you that Democrats, black and/or white, thought McCain wasn’t right for the job because he was old, because he sucked on many fronts, including the economy, and because his choice for VP was bad. Now, pop over there and see what Republicans were saying about why Obama wasn’t right for the job. These include the allegation that he wasn’t American, he was the Anti-Christ, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit like Sarah was, his middle name was Hussein, he smoked, etc. And I will be bothered to find links for you on any of these, if you’d like.
Darren: I suggest you spend a little more time exploring the cesspools of left-wing politics and less time assuming such nonsense occurs only on the right. Over the course of this campaign, we have been exposed to claims that Cindy McCain is a recreational drug user, that John McCain is ineligible to be president, that he was not actually tortured in Vietnam, that he’s stupid, that he wanted the Iraq War to last 100 years and so on. Palin was subject to even crazier claims, such as the claim that her youngest son was actually her daughters, that she actively campaigned to secede Alaska from the US, that she had banned some fictitious list of books and so on. Even you, Rethabile, posted an obviously-faked image of her supposedly standing in a stars & stripes bikini holding a rifle. And that was all the tamer stuff, written about by DKos and others; there was even worse insanity in places like the Democratic Underground. I’m sorry, but I’ve spent too much time exploring the fringes of both sides to believe that they’re anything but equivalent.
Rethabile: I really don’t see myself as part of the problem. What problem? I’m outraged at this because it has really been pushed by GOP pundits and supporters, as it is indeed the last straw they’re clutching. I doubt Dems would have gone to these lengths to try and block Mr McCain becoming president. This goes beyond straight politics. It is the first time a non-WASP is elected (except for Kennedy), and guess what? It’s the first time this kind of thing has happened, this verification of birth certificates. It didn’t happen for Kennedy because cathilicism doesn’t matter: blackness does.
Darren: In your haste to prove racism, you have missed the most important point: That this is the first time either candidate has had any kind of question mark over their location of birth. No previous president has had quite the same varied history as Obama has, with a Hawaiian birth, a Kenyan father and an upbringing that included extensive stays in Indonesia. Nor have we been confronted with a candidate from the Canal Zone, like McCain. With Kennedy’s Massachusetts birth and early years at Edward Devotion School not even the fringe could reasonably have claimed that he wasn’t a natural born citizen of the US.
Rethabile: Point taken. You could have stayed more polite in your denial to provide links to back your argument. And like I say, I will be bothered, if you should require it. I’ll go find the links myself, and read what I unfortunately did not hear about then.
Darren: My refusal to provide links is due to my reluctance to see this become yet another link-trading exercise which inevitably ends up focused more on the biases, contents and flaws of the links themselves than on the general issues being discussed. We’re both capable of using Google, so unless one of us makes a very specific claim that absolutely requires the posting of a link I really don’t see the point in posting any. I’m capable of addressing your points without needing you to post links and I hope the same is true of you.
Rethabile: Well, Excuse me, but I tend to read widely, especially people with ideas that I would normally disagree with. This for two reasons. One, you can’t fix it if you don’t know where it’s ailing. Secondly, maybe it isn’t ailing, in which case I need to learn or understand.
Darren: Oh I read widely enough, and I take special care to read viewpoints in opposition to my own, as my presence here should indicate. But my time is not unlimited and as I place value on it I choose not to indulge the extreme fringes of our political discourse such as the racists, the conspiracy theorists and the generally insane. They’re neither important nor representative, so why bother with them?
Rethabile: The crazy fringe people are the ones suing to get Obama’s status as President-elect removed as I type this. I read them when I can to find out what we’re faced with.
Rethabile: Not automatically, no. But mostly yes. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that any opposition to McCain would be racist. The claims would therefore be incomparable for this very reason.
Darren: Sheer nonsense. While some small portion of the opposition to Obama is undoubtedly racist, it’s silly to claim that most of it is so motivated. There are enough valid reasons to oppose Obama based on his policies and political history without having to dip into racism as a possible motive. When the fringe right went nuts about John Kerry being a closet communist or the fringe left went over the top with Bush assassination fantasies was it all racism too?
Rethabile: Easy enough to say “sheer nonsense.” Most articles and video against Obama centred on origin (He’s from Kenya!), religion (He’s a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! He doesn’t have the holy Spirit in him! He’s the anti-christ!) and experience (He’s inexperienced!). If there are enough valid reasons to oppose Obama, why did GOP supporters play so much on the white American’s fear of blackness? The “he’s not like us” mentality?
Rethabile: Yes, they are, Darren. But as I said, the reasons behind it would hardly be the same. Any quick visit to the mud on You Tube will convince you that Democrats, black and/or white, thought McCain wasn’t right for the job because he was old, because he sucked on many fronts, including the economy, and because his choice for VP was bad. Now, pop over there and see what Republicans were saying about why Obama wasn’t right for the job. These include the allegation that he wasn’t American, he was the Anti-Christ, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit like Sarah was, his middle name was Hussein, he smoked, etc. And I will be bothered to find links for you on any of these, if you’d like.
Darren: I suggest you spend a little more time exploring the cesspools of left-wing politics and less time assuming such nonsense occurs only on the right. Over the course of this campaign, we have been exposed to claims that Cindy McCain is a recreational drug user, that John McCain is ineligible to be president, that he was not actually tortured in Vietnam, that he’s stupid, that he wanted the Iraq War to last 100 years and so on. Palin was subject to even crazier claims, such as the claim that her youngest son was actually her daughters, that she actively campaigned to secede Alaska from the US, that she had banned some fictitious list of books and so on. Even you, Rethabile, posted an obviously-faked image of her supposedly standing in a stars & stripes bikini holding a rifle. And that was all the tamer stuff, written about by DKos and others; there was even worse insanity in places like the Democratic Underground. I’m sorry, but I’ve spent too much time exploring the
fringes of both sides to believe that they’re anything but equivalent.
Rethabile: I did publish the likeness of Sarah toting a machine gun. A nice scalpel job. But there was hardly anything unbecoming about my post. I raised questions about her capacity to lead, to unite, to help the world become a safer place. No slander, no racism. And if I advanced anything against Ms Palin I probably used words like “allegedly” or “apparently”. And I really thought it was photoshopped well, contrary to you (“obviously-faked”).
Just for the record, Ms McCain did have an addiction to certain drugs, painkillers, it is said, that she kicked. But she was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the doctor who supplied her with limitless prescriptions did lose his license. There is something there that could incite someone to throw mud. What would incite someone to say the things said against Mr Obama or Ms Obama?
Rethabile: I really don’t see myself as part of the problem. What problem? I’m outraged at this because it has really been pushed by GOP pundits and supporters, as it is indeed the last straw they’re clutching. I doubt Dems would have gone to these lengths to try and block Mr McCain becoming president. This goes beyond straight politics. It is the first time a non-WASP is elected (except for Kennedy), and guess what? It’s the first time this kind of thing has happened, this verification of birth certificates. It didn’t happen for Kennedy because cathilicism doesn’t matter: blackness does.
Darren: In your haste to prove racism, you have missed the most important point: That this is the first time either candidate has had any kind of question mark over their location of birth. No previous president has had quite the same varied history as Obama has, with a Hawaiian birth, a Kenyan father and an upbringing that included extensive stays in Indonesia. Nor have we been confronted with a candidate from the Canal Zone, like McCain. With Kennedy’s Massachusetts birth and early years at Edward Devotion School not even the fringe could reasonably have claimed that he wasn’t a natural born citizen of the US.
Rethabile: That’s not the most important point. There have been candidates born outside the USA before, but two things: they weren’t half-black, and they lost. So that takes care of that. The most important point is that Barack Obama is half-black, and he won.
Rethabile: Point taken. You could have stayed more polite in your denial to provide links to back your argument. And like I say, I will be bothered, if you should require it. I’ll go find the links myself, and read what I unfortunately did not hear about then.
Darren: My refusal to provide links is due to my reluctance to see this become yet another link-trading exercise which inevitably ends up focused more on the biases, contents and flaws of the links themselves than on the general issues being discussed. We’re both capable of using Google, so unless one of us makes a very specific claim that absolutely requires the posting of a link I really don’t see the point in posting any. I’m capable of addressing your points without needing you to post links and I hope the same is true of you.
Rethabile: I’m much older than you, I think, and my ageing brain needs proof. BTW, I went to find the article on McCain and the Panama birth: yes, the NYT carried the story, and the Seattle something or other reproduced it, almost word for word. That hardly represents the movement of the left, clamouring for Mr McCain’s disqualification because of his birthplace.
Rethabile: The crazy fringe people are the ones suing to get Obama’s status as President-elect removed as I type this. I read them when I can to find out what we’re faced with.
Darren: They’re also not experiencing any success and have received zero support from the mainstream Republican party or mainstream Republicans. All of the court actions have been dismissed and they’ve been ridiculed by the GOP and Republican commentators. They are known conspiracy theorists and utterly irrelevant, so your attempt to equate them with mainstream Republican consensus is as wrong-headed as it is amusing.
Rethabile: Easy enough to say “sheer nonsense.” Most articles and video against Obama centred on origin (He’s from Kenya!), religion (He’s a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! He doesn’t have the holy Spirit in him! He’s the anti-christ!) and experience (He’s inexperienced!). If there are enough valid reasons to oppose Obama, why did GOP supporters play so much on the white American’s fear of blackness? The “he’s not like us” mentality?
Darren: “Most”? Again, you’re guilty of reading the fringe and assuming it represents the mainstream. It does not. Mainstream GOP (and other) opposition to Obama was based, inter alia, on his left-wing politics, his incorrect reading of the success of the Surge, his judgement on foreign policy, his political history in Chicago and his inexperience, all of which are perfectly valid reasons to oppose a candidate. Yes, there was some nonsense going around about him being a secret Muslim and whatnot, but it was never as widespread as you seem to think it was and it was never punted by the mainstream GOP. In fact, the *only* allusion to his ethnicity by either party was that stupid picture the Clinton campaign released of him in ethnic dress in Kenya. Lest we forget, it was white people who elected the guy.
Rethabile: I did publish the likeness of Sarah toting a machine gun. A nice scalpel job. But there was hardly anything unbecoming about my post. I raised questions about her capacity to lead, to unite, to help the world become a safer place. No slander, no racism. And if I advanced anything against Ms Palin I probably used words like “allegedly” or “apparently”. And I really thought it was photoshopped well, contrary to you (”obviously-faked”).
Just for the record, Ms McCain did have an addiction to certain drugs, painkillers, it is said, that she kicked. But she was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the doctor who supplied her with limitless prescriptions did lose his license. There is something there that could incite someone to throw mud. What would incite someone to say the things said against Mr Obama or Ms Obama?
Darren: You posted it as fact, without mentioning that it was photoshopped, thus profoundly misleading your readers. Further, you did not know it was photoshopped until I proved it to you, after which you were still qualifying its status as a photoshopped picture by prefacing it with the word “apparently”. That you can now claim that there was nothing ‘unbecoming’ about all that and that you knew it was photoshopped is, frankly, a little mind-boggling.
You also made the claim that she pushed for Alaska to secede from the Union, without using the terms ‘allegedly’ and ‘apparently’ and made no attempt to retract the claim once I had provided a link proving it was not so, while uncritically posting claims from Le Point that had been distorted or based in partial information (such as her supposed banning of books). Let’s face it, you had her pinned in your head as a right-wing fundie Christian gun-toting hick and you uncritically accepted every piece of arrant nonsense that seemed to confirm that without even considering the possibility that your analysis was wrong. I was no fan of Palin’s candidacy myself for a multitude of reasons, but in my case those reasons were rational, valid and fair.
And to be pedantic, that’s a hunting rifle, not a machine gun.
Rethabile: That’s not the most important point. There have been candidates born outside the USA before, but two things: they weren’t half-black, and they lost. So that takes care of that. The most important point is that Barack Obama is half-black, and he won.
Darren: There has only been one serious candidate in a similar position, and that was Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona before it technically joined the Union. There were questions raised over his eligibility too and no doubt it would have been tested in a court case had he won.
But there has never been a candidate with the precise set of circumstances of Obama. Nor does questioning his natural born status imply racism, in the same way that questioning Goldwater or McCain’s status wasn’t racist. It is stupid, but then the individuals bringing these actions to court are known crackpots who nobody takes seriously anyway.
Rethabile: I’m much older than you, I think, and my ageing brain needs proof. BTW, I went to find the article on McCain and the Panama birth: yes, the NYT carried the story, and the Seattle something or other reproduced it, almost word for word. That hardly represents the movement of the left, clamouring for Mr McCain’s disqualification because of his birthplace.
Darren: I am in no mood to go back and trawl the internet to find all that stuff again. You may choose to believe me or not, or go and find it yourself.
But I did say that such viewpoints would have gained far more currency had McCain won, in the same way the claims about Obama’s citizenship were virtually non-existent during the campaign and were only brought to the fore by one or two fringe groups after he had won. Also note how a major Democratic-leaning paper (the NY Times) ran a hit piece on McCain’s citizenship but none of the major right-leaning papers questioned Obama’s status in a similar manner.
Rethabile: The crazy fringe people are the ones suing to get Obama’s status as President-elect removed as I type this. I read them when I can to find out what we’re faced with.
Darren: They’re also not experiencing any success and have received zero support from the mainstream Republican party or mainstream Republicans. All of the court actions have been dismissed and they’ve been ridiculed by the GOP and Republican commentators. They are known conspiracy theorists and utterly irrelevant, so your attempt to equate them with mainstream Republican consensus is as wrong-headed as it is amusing.
Rethabile: Darren, why would you think I equate them with mainstream when I call them “crazy fringe people”? I’m glad the court actions have been dismissed. It’s still a surprise to me that there was any court action at all.
———-
Rethabile: Easy enough to say “sheer nonsense.” Most articles and video against Obama centred on origin (He’s from Kenya!), religion (He’s a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! He doesn’t have the holy Spirit in him! He’s the anti-christ!) and experience (He’s inexperienced!). If there are enough valid reasons to oppose Obama, why did GOP supporters play so much on the white American’s fear of blackness? The “he’s not like us” mentality?
Darren: “Most”? Again, you’re guilty of reading the fringe and assuming it represents the mainstream. It does not. Mainstream GOP (and other) opposition to Obama was based, inter alia, on his left-wing politics, his incorrect reading of the success of the Surge, his judgement on foreign policy, his political history in Chicago and his inexperience, all of which are perfectly valid reasons to oppose a candidate. Yes, there was some nonsense going around about him being a secret Muslim and whatnot, but it was never as widespread as you seem to think it was and it was never punted by the mainstream GOP. In fact, the *only* allusion to his ethnicity by either party was that stupid picture the Clinton campaign released of him in ethnic dress in Kenya. Lest we forget, it was white people who elected the guy.
Rethabile: White people didn’t elect Obama, Americans did. Most, yes. There were attacks on Obama’s person about things that could never have a bearing on his capacity to lead. There were other attacks, to be sure, on Obama’s politics, his ‘inexperience’, and so on. Which do you think most religious conservatives from along the Bible belt will cling to and propagate? Which did Fox push? Yes, most written and filmed attacks on Obama did centre on his person, as opposed to his leadership skills.
———-
Rethabile: I did publish the likeness of Sarah toting a machine gun. A nice scalpel job. But there was hardly anything unbecoming about my post. I raised questions about her capacity to lead, to unite, to help the world become a safer place. No slander, no racism. And if I advanced anything against Ms Palin I probably used words like “allegedly” or “apparently”. And I really thought it was photoshopped well, contrary to you (”obviously-faked”).
Just for the record, Ms McCain did have an addiction to certain drugs, painkillers, it is said, that she kicked. But she was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the doctor who supplied her with limitless prescriptions did lose his license. There is something there that could incite someone to throw mud. What would incite someone to say the things said against Mr Obama or Ms Obama?
Darren: You posted it as fact, without mentioning that it was photoshopped, thus profoundly misleading your readers. Further, you did not know it was photoshopped until I proved it to you, after which you were still qualifying its status as a photoshopped picture by prefacing it with the word “apparently”. That you can now claim that there was nothing ‘unbecoming’ about all that and that you knew it was photoshopped is, frankly, a little mind-boggling.
You also made the claim that she pushed for Alaska to secede from the Union, without using the terms ‘allegedly’ and ‘apparently’ and made no attempt to retract the claim once I had provided a link proving it was not so, while uncritically posting claims from Le Point that had been distorted or based in partial information (such as her supposed banning of books). Let’s face it, you had her pinned in your head as a right-wing fundie Christian gun-toting hick and you uncritically accepted every piece of arrant nonsense that seemed to confirm that without even considering the possibility that your analysis was wrong. I was no fan of Palin’s candidacy myself for a multitude of reasons, but in my case those reasons were rational, valid and fair.
And to be pedantic, that’s a hunting rifle, not a machine gun.
Rethabile: Thank you for the clarification, Darren. A hunting rifle, and not a machine gun. What would I do without you? And no, I did not post it “as fact, without mentioning that it was photoshopped.” As soon as I discovered it was photoshopped I added an explanatory caption. But then you knew that, didn’t you? And yes, I “had her pinned in [my] head as a right-wing fundie Christian gun-toting hick.” I still do and she still is. Isn’t she? Is she not the last person most people would want to see that close to leading a country?
———-
Rethabile: That’s not the most important point. There have been candidates born outside the USA before, but two things: they weren’t half-black, and they lost. So that takes care of that. The most important point is that Barack Obama is half-black, and he won.
Darren: There has only been one serious candidate in a similar position, and that was Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona before it technically joined the Union. There were questions raised over his eligibility too and no doubt it would have been tested in a court case had he won.
But there has never been a candidate with the precise set of circumstances of Obama. Nor does questioning his natural born status imply racism, in the same way that questioning Goldwater or McCain’s status wasn’t racist. It is stupid, but then the individuals bringing these actions to court are known crackpots who nobody takes seriously anyway.
Rethabile: No, there has never and may never be another candidate with a situation similar to Obama’s. I do not say it is racism because they’re questioning the authenticity of his citizenship, I say it is racism because it is done with several other overtly racist attacks, and is part of a whole. I’m curious and would like to know where you place Fox on your political spectrum.
———-
Rethabile: I’m much older than you, I think, and my ageing brain needs proof. BTW, I went to find the article on McCain and the Panama birth: yes, the NYT carried the story, and the Seattle something or other reproduced it, almost word for word. That hardly represents the movement of the left, clamouring for Mr McCain’s disqualification because of his birthplace.
Darren: I am in no mood to go back and trawl the internet to find all that stuff again. You may choose to believe me or not, or go and find it yourself.
But I did say that such viewpoints would have gained far more currency had McCain won, in the same way the claims about Obama’s citizenship were virtually non-existent during the campaign and were only brought to the fore by one or two fringe groups after he had won. Also note how a major Democratic-leaning paper (the NY Times) ran a hit piece on McCain’s citizenship but none of the major right-leaning papers questioned Obama’s status in a similar manner.
Rethabile: I’m sorry you’re in no mood for much tonight. I did go and trawl myself. The NY Times did not run a hit piece on the question of Mr McCain’s citizenship: it discussed the issue and exposed all view-points. Perhaps if he had won there would have been more of an uproar about it, who knows?
Rethabile: Darren, why would you think I equate them with mainstream when I call them “crazy fringe people”? I’m glad the court actions have been dismissed. It’s still a surprise to me that there was any court action at all.
Darren: Some quotes:
You: “A lot of right-wing blogs are challenging Obama’s birth certificate”
–
You: “I wonder if you’ve actually read the “fringe” blogs you mention”
–
Me: “…unless you’re assuming that all opposition to Obama is automatically racist?”
You: “Not automatically, no. But mostly yes.”
–
You: “see what Republicans were saying about why Obama wasn’t right for the job. These include the allegation that he wasn’t American, he was the Anti-Christ, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit like Sarah was, his middle name was Hussein, he smoked, etc.”
–
You: “I’m outraged at this because it has really been pushed by GOP pundits and supporters, as it is indeed the last straw they’re clutching.”
–
I’m sorry Rethabile, but your claim that you regarded these guys as the crazy fringe rings rather hollow. It was only after I had pointed out just what a small and isolated group of people this is that you even began to use the word fringe without scare quotes. Until then, your comments equated them with mainstream Republicans and GOP supporters.
And how can it be a surprise that there was court action? There’s court action any time somebody files a lawsuit of this sort, even when done so by known conspiracy nuts. And petitions to two separate Supreme Court justices automatically get referred to the full court according to protocol. Yet none of the lawsuits were actually granted a hearing by any of the petitioned courts.
———-
Rethabile: White people didn’t elect Obama, Americans did. Most, yes. There were attacks on Obama’s person about things that could never have a bearing on his capacity to lead. There were other attacks, to be sure, on Obama’s politics, his ‘inexperience’, and so on. Which do you think most religious conservatives from along the Bible belt will cling to and propagate? Which did Fox push? Yes, most written and filmed attacks on Obama did centre on his person, as opposed to his leadership skills.
Darren: You missed the nuance of my post, which is that the majority of Obama’s supporters were white, he was voted for by many registered Republicans and McCain’s poll numbers did not go up when he went negative, all of which would’ve been unusual if a racist message had the kind of purchase you’re alleging.
And character attacks are not evidence of racism, they’re a staple of political campaigns. There was nothing racist in highlighting Obama’s relationship with Rezko, Ayers and Wright. As for Fox, aside from one incident which the network itself repudiated, I did not see any coverage from them that was racially disparaging at all.
———-
Rethabile: Thank you for the clarification, Darren. A hunting rifle, and not a machine gun. What would I do without you? And no, I did not post it “as fact, without mentioning that it was photoshopped.” As soon as I discovered it was photoshopped I added an explanatory caption. But then you knew that, didn’t you? And yes, I “had her pinned in [my] head as a right-wing fundie Christian gun-toting hick.” I still do and she still is. Isn’t she? Is she not the last person most people would want to see that close to leading a country?
Darren: Sarcasm doesn’t suit you, you’re not good at it. And you did post it as fact, since you posted it as “Palin toting a rifle. Click her” under a post title of “Golby Throws Light on GOP Convention and Palin”, with the image linking to Golby’s own incorrect post. When I showed that it was photoshopped, your response was: “It’s a fake? Darn. I liked it. But seriously, it is true that I did not know the photo to be a fake (if it is).” And then, even though the link I had provided proved beyond reasonable doubt that the photo was faked, you altered the photo caption with the following: “An (apparently) photoshopped Palin toting a rifle. Click her…” I guess it was too much to ask for you to admit outright that it was a definite fake, right?
And no, she’s not. Her religious views as evinced in public are a lot more moderate than they were portrayed during the campaign, as are her political views. She never did push to have evolution taught in Alaskan schools, nor did she take any action to ban any books. As governor, she gained a reputation for being a bi-partisan and fair politician and her outwitting and defeat of far more senior, more entrenched and corrupt Democrats and Republicans in the state government earned her the respect of voters from both parties. That’s the reason she had the highest approval rating of any American governor and why many saw her as an ideal candidate to reach out to Democrats.
She was, unfortunately, pigeonholed in the campaign to some extent, both by McCain’s handlers and the media, and she was used mostly to rouse up the religious conservative base while leaving the bi-partisan reaching out to McCain. Of course, that was silly as it played to her weaknesses, not her strengths, and made it easier to attack her (far more personally than either Obama or McCain were attacked, incidentally). Now I didn’t like her candidacy myself, since I think she’s still far too inexperienced, she didn’t complement McCain and I don’t really like that aw shucks persona. But I did at least spend the time to put together a proper judgement of her.
———-
Rethabile: No, there has never and may never be another candidate with a situation similar to Obama’s. I do not say it is racism because they’re questioning the authenticity of his citizenship, I say it is racism because it is done with several other overtly racist attacks, and is part of a whole. I’m curious and would like to know where you place Fox on your political spectrum.
Darren: I saw no such overtly racist attacks from anybody mainstream in the election; in fact Obama’s opponents were mostly bending over backwards to avoid even the perception that they were going in that direction. As for Fox, having finally had the opportunity to actually watch its coverage I honestly can’t see what the big deal is. Sure, they’ve got a few noisy and offensive commentators, but they’re no worse than their pro-Democrat counterparts at NBC and CNN. I don’t much like them, but then I don’t like any of the cable news networks since I think they have too much of an incentive to turn news into entertainment. But most fear and hatred of Fox seems to be based on misperceptions.
———-
Rethabile: I’m sorry you’re in no mood for much tonight. I did go and trawl myself. The NY Times did not run a hit piece on the question of Mr McCain’s citizenship: it discussed the issue and exposed all view-points. Perhaps if he had won there would have been more of an uproar about it, who knows?
Darren: The NYT, in the exact same manner as their unsupported story on an alleged McCain affair, ran a story that was not backed up with sufficient research, had little basis in fact and was designed to cast doubt on McCain’s candidacy in the minds of voters. None of the legal scholars, left wing or right, who have examined the issue have shown much respect for the NYT’s approach. I’m afraid the paper didn’t exactly cover itself in glory during this campaign.
Darren: I saw no such overtly racist attacks from anybody mainstream in the election; in fact Obama’s opponents were mostly bending over backwards to avoid even the perception that they were going in that direction. As for Fox, having finally had the opportunity to actually watch its coverage I honestly can’t see what the big deal is. Sure, they’ve got a few noisy and offensive commentators, but they’re no worse than their pro-Democrat counterparts at NBC and CNN. I don’t much like them, but then I don’t like any of the cable news networks since I think they have too much of an incentive to turn news into entertainment. But most fear and hatred of Fox seems to be based on misperceptions.
Rethabile: You can’t see what the big deal about Fox’s attacks on Obama was? Those few noisy and offensive commentators are the big deal. They’re the ones who repeatedly use Mr Obama’s middle name, calling him Barack Hussein Obama. I don’t recall hearing any of them, not once, say Sarah Louise Heath Palin or John Sidney McCain, or even Joseph Robinette Biden. The latter three are white, and using the Islamic sounding ‘Hussein’ repeatedly, the middle name of a black candidate, has the effect, on the American populace, of evoking you-know-what.
The Times reports that:
And you, Darren, saw no overtly racist attacks from anybody mainstream? Mrs Palin, Mr McCain, and the people who attended their rallies, are mainstream.
Fox has repeatedly said : that Michelle’s and Barack’s fist bump was a terrorist jab
that Michelle was Barack’s baby mama (a baby mama is a mother who isn’t married to her child’s father, and is a term associated with the gangster world)
that Mr Obama’s work as a community organizer in Chicago was ‘training for a radical overthrow of the government.’
that Mr Obama is secretly a Muslim (the statement was made by Andy Martin, a conservative writer)
that Mr Obama was educated at a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia, “a madrassa,” they kept saying, not knowing that madrassa just means school. Yeah, accuse the guy of going to school, skool, école.
that Mrs Obama didn’t love America enough.
We’re not talking about elections in Sweden or Botswana, but in The US of A, with its centuries of slavery and discrimination; and its uneducated masses who’re ready to believe anything they see on the telly. Take my word for it, Darren, these were overtly racist.
———-
Darren, I’m hard pressed for time, so I can only reply to your latest comments one by one. I will reply to all of them, and to any new ones. This is an important discussion and I would like to come back asap.
Darren,
This particular case Donofrio vs. Wells, that was denied, also questioned McCain’s citizenship