The birther movement--the class of right-wingers who suspect President Obama was born abroad and is thus ineligible to be president--has drawn lots of attention in political media in the past few weeks, and a prime reason for this is the notion that establishment Republicans might actually heed the conspiracy cries. Rush Limbaugh fashioned himself as a birther, as Marc pointed out; Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), of moderate policies and mild-mannered demeanor, was hectored by birthers at a town-hall meeting. The Castle video makes birthers look like a vocal, terrifying segment of the GOP base, able to shout down an elected moderate and potentially to rile other conservatives and turn out votes on election day.
Should the GOP take the birthers seriously? Do they already? It's the source from which the birther movement draws its import.
Well, last night most House Republicans voted "yea" to a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood, which included language recognizing Hawaii as Obama's place of birth.
As Greg Sargent noted,
Rep. Neil Abbercrombie's (D-HI) office seemed to take impish glee in
the potential jam this created for birther-fearing Republicans; Rep.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) objected
to the measure on procedural grounds, requesting a quorum, which spawned
many suspicions of her birther inclinations on ThinkProgress's comment
board.
The resolution passed 378-0, with 55 members not voting. Prime suspects of birtherism voted in favor of it.
Of the 55 who didn't vote, 20 were Republicans and 35 were Democrats.
Given that so many Dems didn't vote, it's likely that most of the 20
Republicans sat it out not because they're birthers, but because the
vote happened at 6:56 p.m., and, as a congratulatory resolution, it
wasn't the most urgent piece of legislation in Congress.
Three possible birthers didn't vote: Reps. John Campbell (R-CA), John Carter (R-TX), and Kenny Marchant (R-TX). They were the only suspected House birthers listed today by Salon who didn't support the resolution.
All three are cosponsors of a bill to require future presidential candidates to submit birth certificates to the FEC, sponsored by freshman Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL).
Here are the Republicans who didn't vote. At least some of them,
without having looked too far into it, aren't the birther types: Reps.
Todd Akin (MO), Gresham Barrett (SC), Kevin Brady (TX),
Henry Brown (SC), Dave Camp (MI), John Campbell (CA), John Carter (TX),
Ander Crenshaw (FL), Nathan Deal (GA), Sam Graves (MO), Pete Hoekstra
(MI), Timothy Johnson (IL), Kenny Marchant (TX), Pete Olson (TX), Ron
Paul (TX), Todd Platts (PA), George Radanovich (CA), Dana Rohrabacher
(CA), Patrick Tiberi (OH), and Zach Wamp (TN).
Campbell was the only one verifiably at the Capitol last night, after the time
of the vote, from yesterday's records; seven minutes after the Hawaii vote was recorded, Campbell voted "no"
on a bill to establish a Waco National Monument in Texas. He was the
only of those Republicans to vote on it, or the next bill to come up a few minutes after that (to exchange and acquire land for a parkway in North Carolina). No word from Campbell's office on whether or not the congressman was on or near the floor for the 6:56 vote.
Campbell debated the merits of the birth certificate bill with Chris Matthews recently, arguing that questions of birth and eligibility are legitimate to ask of any presidential candidate.
"Wouldn't you like to put all this to rest? That's what this proposal is about," Campbell said, citing similar questions during the 2008 campaign over John McCain's eligibility (he was born outside the U.S. on a military base, the argument went).
Posey, along with the bill's seven other cosponsors, voted "yea" on the Hawaii resolution, as did Bachmann and members of the House GOP leadership.
Could this mean the birther movement won't catch hold with established
figures in the party? Is it the death of establishment-heeded
birtherism, or at least its prospects? We'll have to wait to find ou
The Birther movement (or "Birfer," as John Cole calls them) is really beginning to take on the proportions of the Hillary-Clinton-Killed-Vince-Foster crowd. Of course, I suspect there's a high correlation of followers in each camp.
As ridiculous as both these movements may be, somehow people seem much more threatened by the Birthers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some grumbling about Cheney's primary residence in 2000, since the Constitution prohibits the election of a President and VP from the same state?
Unfortunately, the "Birther" tag is also applied to people like me who are simply telling the truth and requesting that others do the same. I have yet to see the Atlantic point out that many MSM figures and low-level bloggers have lied and misled about this topic. Why is that, Chris Good?
For a clear example of one of those misleading statements, consider my post about Howard Kurtz of CNN.
On Sunday, he claimed that HI officials said BHO was born in HI. Yet, they didn't say he was born there until the next day. Almost everything they'd said up until Sunday was repeat that it would be against the law for them to confirm whether he was born there.
Now, perhaps Chris Good, the Atlantic, and the MSM would like to pretend that Kurtz said what he said after HI had confirmed he was born there, but that's just not the truth. Kurtz made a statement that was misleading at the time he made it; later statements don't absolve him of being misleading.
On the plus side for Chris Good, it's very difficult for me to get that point across to other BHO/MSM opponents and get them to help me discredit the hacks in the MSM. But, if I'm eventually able to do that, then this isn't over.
I know, its sooo hard when even your imbecilic sympathizers lose interest in your irrelevant non-distinctions and non-points. Quibbling over how people phrased things when asked questions does nothing to establish the truth of your primary thesis. But please, by all means, rave on :)
Unfortunately, the "Birther" tag is also applied to people like me who are simply telling the truth and requesting that others do the same. I have yet to see the Atlantic point out that many MSM figures and low-level bloggers have lied and misled about this topic. Why is that, Chris Good?
For a clear example of one of those misleading statements, consider my post about Howard Kurtz of CNN.
On Sunday, he claimed that HI officials said BHO was born in HI. Yet, they didn't say he was born there until the next day. Almost everything they'd said up until Sunday was repeat that it would be against the law for them to confirm whether he was born there.
Now, perhaps Chris Good, the Atlantic, and the MSM would like to pretend that Kurtz said what he said after HI had confirmed he was born there, but that's just not the truth. Kurtz made a statement that was misleading at the time he made it; later statements don't absolve him of being misleading.
On the plus side for Chris Good, it's very difficult for me to get that point across to other BHO/MSM opponents and get them to help me discredit the hacks in the MSM. But, if I'm eventually able to do that, then this isn't over.
"the class of right-wingers who suspect President Obama was born abroad and is thus ineligible to be president"
except you don't have to be born in america to be president of america--you have to be a "natural born citizen." this includes all people who are born overseas to mothers who are american citizens.
even though we know obama was born in hawaii, even if he weren't he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a u.s. citizen at the time of his birth.
mccain ran for president despite having been born in panama, because he was born to parents who were u.s. citizens at the time of his birth.
"natural born citizen" eliminates only those people who were not u.s. citizens at the time of their births. one way to be born a citizen is to be born here--but it is not the only way.
that puts an end to all of the silliness.
Does any publication/site/press organ (or subset/member thereof) that publishes Andrew Sullivan really have any ground for complaint about preposterous childbirth-related conspiracy theories?
@mwhitesf: "the Constitution prohibits the election of a President and VP from the same state"
Not quite. The Constitution requires each member of the Electoral College to cast at least one of his/her Prez/VP votes for a candidate who resides in a different state from the elector's state. So if both of a party's candidates were from, say, Texas, it wouldn't be an issue for the other 49 states' electors, but each Texas elector could only vote for one or the other.
As a practical matter, the parties make sure to have candidates from different states because this could have ramifications in a close election, but no, the Constitution doesn't prohibit the Prez and VP from being from the same state.
God, I love these guys. The last thing I want is for this issue to go away. The more people like 24aheaddotcom talk, the more college educated folk flee the Republican party out of sheer embarassment. The best part is that they think they are making SUCH clever arguments but they convince only other likeminded simpletons and scare off the independents and moderate Republicans. First the Repubs had W to make them look kinda dumb. Then Palin made even the Bushies look like mammals. Now we have the Birthers :) Thank you all SO much for your efforts. Please, KEEP TALKING!! And GO Palin 2012!! The rebirth of the Know-Nothing party is nigh!
Oh, and don't forget, he's really an Arab too!