Plowing through my email this morning that comment caught my attention: “Obama is making a birther out of me.”
The remark came from reader D. S.,someone who emails every few months, usually send me some obscure or amusing news tidbit, or sometimes writing about something military. He’s a well-educated and most sensible chap who has never mentioned the birther bunch before, but apparently Congress passing a resolution proclaiming that Obama was born in Hawaii bothered him.
I never gave credence to far-right extremists anymore than I bought the truthers but why this end run around it by congress? Why was this necessary when producing the birth certificate would shut them up? I’m more interested in the college transcripts. We got to see all of Bush’s grades, why can’t we know Obama’s? Why won’t the press simply ask for release of transcripts? It’s not the birthers but Obama’s coverup that makes me wonder what he is hiding?
The press and the Democrats may have made a miscalculation. As near as I can tell, the birther movement was more or less “under the radar.” It was an idea flying around the internets, and the province of the far right. Now, the press and the Dems, in an effort to discredit the birthers (or maybe simply because they needed a “focus of hate” for the week, or they desired a distraction) have spent the past week or so deriding them in the mainstream. If their intention was to sneer and mock the question into complete irrelevance, it seems to have backfired. Instead, they simply made people like D.S., who were not especially interested in the story to begin with, start to ask, “well, why not” just show the papers and be done with this?
I’m not a birther, myself, but it’s not a bad or unfair question. Why, instead of simply producing the paper, does Obama fight inquiry about it? Why can’t we see his transcripts?
I remember, during the 2004 Presidential Campaign, reading that reporters had gone so far as to track down the dentist who filled one of Bush’s teeth while he was in the TANG, to try to find some dirt on the “incurious” president. On Obama’s background, no curiosity within the press. It does seem odd.
Then again, when one remembers that the press has invested all of its credibility into Obama’s presidency and his “story,” which they adore, you realize why they do not ask any questions. It’s all “too good to check,” and they really don’t want to know what part of it might cause discomfort.
The incuriosity of the press and the White House’s own dance feeds the birther movement more than the rhetoric of the far right. But really, there’s nothing to be done about it now. The guy is in the oval office, the press – which did check out John McCain’s eligibility to run for president – did not check Obama’s. They did not give much of his story due diligence (or ask him a difficult question) during the campaign. I can tell you that even if we were to find out that some part of the “story” is a fabrication, it won’t change anything.
And, maybe it’s not supposed to. I’ve often said that some things need to happen in order that other things must happen. As I wrote here last week, things are continually evolving and we can’t always see the purpose of a thing until things play out a bit. I’ve found that to be true in my life, haven’t you in yours? You look back and say, “ah…that other road I had always wished I had taken, if I had, I would not now have this other person in my life, or these children…” And then, with some hindsight, things that didn’t make sense, or that even caused great pain, they make a little more sense.
Not a poll lover, but this one was a little unsettling. If we start thinking our best days are behind us, we’ll just lay down, take the red pill and turn out the lights. Not good.
Another pal emailed me on that congressional resolution, too, sending the whole proclamation, highlighting the line, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;” and merely remarking, “they’re terrified of something.”
Well, I don’t know. Salon says this resolution was introduced a month ago and only just reached the floor for a vote.
The resolution wasn’t really intended to jam up the House Republicans, or to rebuke the birthers, though. (The implied slam at the birthers was a side benefit, but not the primary purpose by any means.) Besides, the resolution was actually introduced last month — it just happened to be brought to the floor on Monday. And one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., is to be a co-sponsor of the “birther bill” that would require future presidential candidates to furnish a birth certificate.
The way the resolution was brought to the floor, under a procedure known as suspension of the rules, also indicated that it wasn’t meant as a political maneuver. The procedure is generally used for measures unlikely to cause any controversy, and means that the amount of debate on the bill is limited, as is the number of amendments that can be added, but means that two-thirds of the House must vote in favor in order for the legislation to pass. Fifteen other measures were brought to the House floor under the same procedure Monday.
It would seem the resolution was not the “end run” that my correspondent thought it was. But a quick search-engine survey indicates this issue is not going away.
UPDATE: Mary Katharine Ham notes an irony
UPDATE II: “Nixonian Secrecy”: You’d think by now they’d know the rule, that cover-ups always make things worse than they need to be. I thought we ALL learned that after the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. I guess I was wrong.
UPDATE III: Oy, already!
July 29th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #1
The Birth Certificate controversy is a subject of endless fascination to me. I don’t believe there is anything to it, chiefly because I do not believe government is capable of carrying off a big task like this, much less covering it up.
That being said, I must point out that my wife believes that there is indeed something to all the rumors. This is amazing, since my wife is the sweetest, kindest, least cynical person I have ever met. She just cannot shake the conviction that Obama is covering something up.
Let me tell you–when you’ve lost my wife, you’ve lost.
[I tend to think there is nothing to it, also, and I've seen newspaper clips announcing the birth of Obama, etc. But there does seem to be something counter-intuitive about hiding or fighting the release of a document that should be uncontroversial. D.S. has piqued my curiosity about the college transcripts. Why would the Obama team keep those hidden? They can't possibly harm him. -admin]
July 29th, 2009 | 12:57 pm | #2
He did provide the papers, last year. The originals which the WND crowd keep demanding were destroyed in 2001 when the state of Hawaii went over to an all-digital system. Which is a strong argument for why we SHOULDN’T do just that, but that’s another conversation entirely. The Republican governor confirmed the veracity of the certificate, as did the Sec State of Hawaii.
I don’t know why he won’t produce the transcripts, and it is fairly annoying. But what does that have to do with his place of birth?
[Perhaps that's the thing - his refusal to release his transcripts reminds people of the birth certificate controversy and brings it back up? Then again, maybe, as Mary Katharine Ham notes, here, the birthers are just as caught up in things as Andrew Sullivan was about Trig Palin? admin]
July 29th, 2009 | 1:04 pm | #3
Maybe, but there should have been no birth cert. controversy to begin with. He released it, and then the birther crowd spend the next 18 months “proving” that the document was false. At that point, I myself would not be inclined to cooperate with any more “demands” for proof. Or as I put it to someone else: “Why doesn’t he provide MORE proof? I dunno… why didn’t Sarah Palin just release Trig’s birth certificate and PROVE that Andrew Sullivan was barking mad? Probably because it was so insulting to be asked, and wrapped in such an obnoxious package, they both decided not to cooperate?”
July 29th, 2009 | 1:05 pm | #4
LOL! Great minds think alike, Anchoress… I wrote that while you edited your own comment!
July 29th, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #5
Since Obama was born of an American mother, I accept the fact that he is a citizen. What I find disturbing – if it is true – is that they say he is spending millions not to show his birth certificate. And he still won’t allow release of his college transcripts…no other candidate has come to the Presidency with so much in his life still remaining hidden. Something is off, but, he is President now…let the chips fall where they may.
["something is off..." Yeah, that's pretty much how I think many feel. yeah, he's a citizen...but something is "off." -admin]
July 29th, 2009 | 1:19 pm | #6
It doesn’t matter if he was born in Timbuktu or Kenya or Panama (like John McCain) or Hawaii or California, as long as his MOTHER was an American citizen — and she was — so is HE.
The transcripts not being released bothers me, but only because it’s yet another example of something John Doe, D. is allowed to get away with that John Doe, R. is not.
Having fasted and prayed days weeks and months before the election last year, I am now waiting to see what God is planning to do with this. Because, in the end, I trust God to be up to something much better than what Barack Obama is up to and much surer to turn out for good.
July 29th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #7
What won’t Obama release? The article says the campaign released a certified version of the certificate, the state of Hawaii says he was born there, and so do the Hawaii papers. What is Obama supposed to do?
July 29th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #8
Factcheck.org reports that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”
July 29th, 2009 | 1:54 pm | #9
Perhaps the reluctance to voluntarily release papers released by other candidates has more to do with a kind of sense of being ‘above the law’ than it has to do with whether he is actually a citizen or not.
It seems to me that doing things ‘above the law’ is a pattern here. His choices for various cabinets, for example, who failed to pay taxes, were permitted to be ‘above the law’, an ‘oversight’ that you and I would lose everything and go to jail for committing. His administration’s taking over GM, forcing shareholders to lose ownership so it can be passed onto individuals in the union & taking control of various banks is ‘above the law’. Firing people at GM, and setting pay limits is NOT the job of the President, it is ‘above the law’ in what the executive branch is Constitutionally permitted to do. Indeed this attempt to take over health care and end so much of our autonomy and privacy (as the HC bill is now written; i.e. Gov’t being able to access our finances for election fund transfers; see any citizen’s financial information ‘live time’; make hospitals apply to the gov’t for permission to expand; fine hospitals for readmissions of patients the gov’t deems unnecessary etc) is unconstitutional in what powers the Constitution grants the branches of government – ‘above the law’. It appears to be a fairly consistant pattern here, just in the last 6 months.
Perhaps, being consistant, he feels that he does not need to answer to anyone, especially now that, as he has said in reply to various hard or challenging questions, “I am the President of the United States.”
July 29th, 2009 | 1:59 pm | #10
I think there is a bit of a cover up, but it’s of the more banal sort.
College is really expensive. BHO didn’t have a lot of money. I can see a young kid talking with the college advisor who says “yeah just check the box that says foreign, since you’ll get a bunch of extra aid and your dad was from a different country. You’ve got an Indonesian passport from when you were a teen that your parents got for you? All the better. Enjoy your free college.”
I don’t like BHO, and I think he does bad things, but I don’t think this is one of them. I can’t figure out anything else that rationally explains all the evidence.
July 29th, 2009 | 1:59 pm | #11
This is an interesting story of Catholic conversion of a science fiction writer.
H/T: Dan Collins for finding this one.
July 29th, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #12
I suspect Obama won’t come clean because his parents weren’t married at the time or just plain orneriness. He probably feels that he shouldn’t have to prove his status. In the end, it doesn’t matter. Obama is president and he’s going to stay president or there will be civil unrest.
July 29th, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #13
I am not at all buying the birther arguments and I suspect Obama wants to make it an issue in an attempt to make conservatives look like nut jobs. That attempt, however, may backfire.
And if it focuses attention on Obama’s college transcripts and college applications, it may especially backfire. I wonder what Obama said when he applied to college? Do you think there might be some gold in them dar hills?
July 29th, 2009 | 2:16 pm | #14
Well, every University I’ve worked for / attended charges many times the going rate for foreign citizens, so I doubt its that… (The school where I grew up used international students, who found their business school very desirable, to subsidize in-state students.)
July 29th, 2009 | 3:19 pm | #15
Like most people I did think the whole birther thing was a particularly desperate attempt to derail the Obama juggernaut, but, as my sweet old grandma used to say, “If someone’s hiding something, they’ve got something to hide.”
Too bad we no longer have an independent press.
July 29th, 2009 | 3:28 pm | #16
What annoys me about the “birther” controversy, and the tin foil hat image associated with it, is that it makes it too easy to lump together and dismiss more legitimate questions about Obama’s utter lack of a college/law school/legal practice paper trail.
I understand that newspaper clippings announcing Obama’s birth in Hawaii are not too hard to locate, and it’s certainly common to request a copy of one’s birth certificate (that’s what I did when I got a passport…the original was long gone). That’s good enough for me.
But why did I hear endless commentary about Bush’s “gentleman’s C” at Yale and virtually nothing about Obama’s grades, school records, student activities etc. at Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, etc.? THAT’S what I want to know about, and frankly feel like I have a right to know about.
It’s beyond bizzare how media commentators can continue to suggest that Sarah Palin is “incurious” (just heard Arianna Huffington say this on Morning Joe this morning, although she actually called Palin, “uncurious”) when no one did even the most basic journalistic digging regarding Obama’s academic past. Talk about “incurious.”
July 29th, 2009 | 3:35 pm | #17
I think there is a nose thumbing aspect on the birth certificate and the transcripts. The rules others have to play by don’t apply to him.
A 2007 story reported Obama was just then paying Cambridge for a bunch of parking tickets dating from 1988 when he was at Harvard because he didn’t want such distractions to come up in his Presidential campaign. I found that interesting as all my law school friends who had accumulated parking tickets moaned about having to pay their accumulated parking tickets before completing the Character & Fitness questionnaire for admission to the Illinois Bar. It’s a formidable questionnaire-every address you ever lived at, every job you ever held, multiple academic references from both law school and undergrad. When filling it out you get the impression that if you were called into the principal’s office one to many times in high school, you probably want to disclose it. One question specifically asks if the applicant has any outstanding parking tickets. It is understood that you better answer that question “no” by paying off such tickets and any other outstanding fines.
Did Obama gamble the Illinois Bar examiners weren’t going to check for out of state parking tickets on a Harvard law grad? Apparently so.
July 29th, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #18
Uh, CV, what gives you a “right” to see Obama’s transcripts? And we may not know Obama’s grades, but we know he wasn’t a legacy, we know he was president of the Harvard Law Review, and we know he taught constitutional law at U of C.
[Actually, what we don't know is how he got from Occidental college to Harvard, who recommended him (given his friendship with some very radical people, that's worth knowing) and how a co-editor of the Harvard Law Review can have written so very, very little (only one so-so article has been found) during his tenure. We don't know how he applied to those schools - did he apply as a foreign student? Is it a passport issue? These would be interesting things to know about our president. Given how very, very, very curious the press was about Bush's grades (although they were incurious about John Kerry's, too - disclosing only after the 2004 election that his grades were worse than Bush's) it seems entirely reasonable to ask for the same inquiries into the presidential candidate they carried into the White House and still slobber over. If there is nothing so awful there, if his grades were C average or better, why hide these things? The huge double-standard about which president's paperwork is important, and which president's is not doesn't bother you at all? And of course, you would be consistent on that point if some politician with an R after his/her name also simply couldn't be bothered - in the face of a "one of the most brilliant people ever born" narrative - to show the college records? -admin]
July 29th, 2009 | 4:03 pm | #19
This is what happens when the media does not do its job…vetting all candidates equally.
I have been following presidential campaigns since 1956…and I have never seen such a campaign as we just had. Not only did our “watchdog” press not vett Obama…they mostly led cheers for him.
Even in 1960 when the press was pretty clearly for Kennedy over Nixon, they at least outwardly attempted to play it down the middle to the public…2008 was quite different.
There was no doubt last year where the major media types votes were going.
Not sure the MSM will recover from this.
July 29th, 2009 | 4:43 pm | #20
Ken asks what right we have to ask for Obama’s college transcripts. Well, here’s one–Fresh out of college, I applied for a temporary position as a National Park Ranger, GS-4, paid the princely sum of $6 an hour. What did I have to provide to even be considered?
Did you guess “A college transcript”? If so, is it unreasonable to expect the President to meet at least the minimum requirement set for the lowliest member of the US Government?
July 29th, 2009 | 5:08 pm | #21
Anchoress, briefly because I have to run, I don’t entirely agree, but I see your point. Andrew, do we need to see Obama’s transcripts to tell if she should remain president? I mean, what’s your point? Your problem is with the Constitution.
He probably did say something that could be used against him, and the right, including the religious right, would love to do just that.
July 29th, 2009 | 5:19 pm | #22
The President not actually releasing his birth certificate makes good sense. Let a bunch of people spend time on a subject that makes them look foolish. There is so much in his administration that needs light shined on it because of the evils intended by it.
Information on his transcripts would be nice, but again it is the work of his administration that needs to be stopped.
July 29th, 2009 | 5:29 pm | #23
I have tried to pin down the known facts in this controversy and it’s very frustrating. Even looking through this thread we see a lot of different versions.
Here’s what I can best gather: there appears to be no “original” birth certificate available, period. Hawaii no longer has a 47 year old sealed document on file, prepared at the hospital etc. at the time of birth. They have some sort of factual archive, and when anyone submits a request for a Hawaiian birth certificate, the clerks look at their database and issue exactly what has been obtained and released to the media, the certificate of live birth.
What I can’t figure out is why there are so many hypothesis flying around out there. If I’m correct in what I’ve distilled from reading about this in various places, then there simply IS no “real” or “original” birth certificate out there and that is the case for anyone born in Hawaii when Obama was.
July 29th, 2009 | 6:11 pm | #24
It seems to me that it is mostly hubris. He’s been able to skate under the radar despite all the radical associations, radical statements, etc. Somehow, people have been willing to not only give him a pass but cover for him. Meanwhile, not even the DMV would accept the birth certificate I’ve used all my life because it wasn’t an “original.”
July 29th, 2009 | 6:47 pm | #25
whats so hard to understand? they do have the original bc- but obama has it sealed– the certificate of live birth everyone has seen is NOT the birth certificate which has the information obama does not want world to see information that is not put on colb– colb was not until this year (changed for obama) in hawaii official and could not be used for passport or anything—
questioning the right to see obama record now seems to some of you wrong- but these request was submitted since 2007 before the election also- not getting one thing of his life is unimportant- but no info/records ever have been released NONE! how does a man become president when his whole life is sealed and he is a complete unknown! Finally there is the total lack of commentary on the fact that even obama stated his father was governed and a citizen of uk- which makes obama not a natural born citizen even if he is a citizen and therefor not qualified to be president! read this about the colb
July 29th, 2009 | 9:43 pm | #26
It would certainly be interesting to know who recommended Obama to Harvard, or why he wrote so little. I don’t really care how he applied. Sure, the press has a double standard, but while they relished the chance to make Bush look bad, there was a further point to looking at his grades, and that was to shed light on a much disputed point, namely how smart he was. No one disputes Obama’s intelligence except for political purposes.
July 29th, 2009 | 9:51 pm | #27
Obama’s radical associations have been very much exaggerated by people who love to throw around the word radical. He had a very passing association with Ayers, and it was because Ayers offered _him_ help, not the other way around. He spent 20 years in Wright’s church but has never spoken or sounded a bit like Wright, and has repudiated Wright’s excesses. He worked for a time for a group that helps the poor. If that’s radical, I guess Jesus was a dangerous radical too.
July 29th, 2009 | 10:00 pm | #28
I can only hope that congress creates some mechanism to make sure that future presidents prove their eligibility to be president. Otherwise we’ll be doing this again for another president.
As an aside, the comparison to Trig Palin is fatuous. Trig Palin didn’t run for president.
July 29th, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #29
“Trig Palin didn’t run for president.”
The target of the scrutiny was Trig Palin’s mother, who ran for Vice President with a guy in his late 70’s with a history of cancer.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:38 am | #30
Not a poll lover, but this one was a little unsettling. If we start thinking our best days are behind us, we’ll just lay down, take the red pill and turn out the lights. Not good.
No, you are wrong. Just because I believe America’s best days are behind her, doesn’t mean I’m giving up or that my children will.
I know that my redeemer lives, and he lives on after America and the English Speaking Peoples are no longer the empire of note on this planet. There have been other empires, and there will be other empires. It doesn’t mean I’m giving up. I might give up on Congress. I might give up on the belief that this particular Republic is the Shining Light on the hill, but it doesn’t mean that I’m giving up on my faith or my children or how to raise them as Catholics.
It might mean that I tell my children to move elsewhere. The current problem is “which elsewhere?” but I’m sure the Puritans wanting religious freedom in England under King James thought the same thing. Hard to imagine what would come of that choice, but in God, all things are possible!
July 30th, 2009 | 7:12 am | #31
The document his campaign posted does not seem all that credible to me. What kind of “birth certificate” does not list the hospital in which you were born? Mine does. His is the equivalent ofa certificate stating that someone was born in “New York, New York.” Also, in 1961, his father’s race would not have been classified as “African” but “Negro.” That is the word they used back then.
The whole thing is fishy, the grades, etc. I tend to think he was born here but is hiding something. Maybe the long-form document states that his religion was Islam or that he was
caucasian, something that would interfere with what someone has called his “meta-narrative.”
July 30th, 2009 | 8:21 am | #32
The birth ceritificate states that he’s a Muslim? The certificate was good enough for the state of Hawaii to authenticate. And what about the birth announcements in the papers?
July 30th, 2009 | 9:38 am | #33
We don’t know what the original, long-form certificate says; that’s the whole point. He won’t release it. I don’t know what it says, but I do know that it’s strange that he won’t release it, won’t release his college application, transcripts, law school records, etc. Every other candidate in the recent past, including Kerry, Bush, Clinton, released those records. I’ve also never seen any original birth certificate (original document or certified or internet copy) that does not state at which hospital the person was born. This is basic information.
July 30th, 2009 | 10:50 am | #34
Per an article at WND – with actual quotes from a HI official, no records were destroyed. That’s what is most bothersome to me. Now there are 2 versions to the same story. But the MSM is ignoring this. If it was about John McCain, it would be news, even if only to take 30 seconds to show a retraction by the above official.
I almost think that Obama is yanking the chains of the hard right in these actions, with the loving help of the press. It keeps a certain percentage of our natural born watchdogs focused on something that will ultimately turn out to be nothing.
July 30th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #35
Possibly and I know this is the new theory. But it doesn’t seem to be helping him pass health care if it’s a misdirection strategy. It also predates the health care initiative and everything else for many months. I think it either states that he is “caucasian” because his mother was white, or “islamic” for religion. He thinks that this will hurt him with the public, although there’s no reason why really. These would be understandable entries under the circumstances. He’d better hope the state-run media types like Chris Matthews don’t start asking him hard questions about this instead of yukking it up over how oh so hilarious it all is; hundreds of thousands of citizens are just “crazy,” he has “already produced it”, etc.
July 30th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #36
Would one of you birthers please explain why Hawaii newspapers reported Obama’s birth if he wasn’t born there? And as to the complaint that the birth certificate doesn’t state what hospital he was born at, is that supposed to be Obama’s fault? Go to factcheck.org or politifact.com, or ask the stae of Hawaii, which just two days ago reasserted that they are satisfied the released certificate is real.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #37
Wrong….the president is refusing to release the original. We don’t know what it says (including whether it lists the hospital), even though Hawaii officials say that they have seen it. Why can’t he release it to the American people? What is the big secret?
It makes no sense to release a copy of a certificate that he was born in HI instead of a copy of his birth certificate.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #38
Jim, are you calling Hawaiian officials liars?
“”I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”"
Also from the AP: “Obama’s birth certificate along with birth notices from the two Honolulu newspapers were brought forward even before he took office.”
Again I challenge you to explain why these papers reported what they did. As to why Obama won’t release his copy, I think JuilB might be on to something. In which case, you guys are playing right into his hand.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:35 pm | #39
You continue to recast the issue. I don’t doubt that he was born in Hawaii (although some do), but the easiest and most permanent way to put an end to the speculation is to release a copy of the original document which gives much more specific information (including the hospital in which he was born) to the public. Why on earth would he withhold this document, but have his people post a copy of a different document with far less information on the internet? What normal person wants to hide at which hospital he or she was born??? I know exactly which hospital brought me into this world. Why is he withholding his Occidental College records, his law school records also, when Kerry, Bush, Clinton et al. all released them. he is supposed to be Mr. Transparency, Hope and Change we can believe in. Instead, he’s acting like Cheney, fomenting secrecy and needless questions.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #40
Also, how stupid does Mr. Havard think we are, having his people hold up a document that is not his original of his birth certificate, or a certified copy thereof?
July 30th, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #41
Ken, why did the Erie Times have an obituary for my grandmother when she didn’t die in Erie? Because someone submitted it to the paper. The newspaper annoucements prove nothing in and of themselves. For all we know, the grandparents could have submitted it. I don’t know if the birth certificate is real or not, but Obama is going to an awful lot of trouble to hide a lot of details about his past, details that John McCain and George W. Bush were certainly expected to provide.
In fact, I recall the press making a big deal about the fact that John McCain graduated near the bottom of his college class, which really means nothing when you are graduating from one of the most exclusive colleges in the world, where approximately 20% of the freshman class doesn’t even make it the four years to graduation.
July 30th, 2009 | 12:58 pm | #42
Jim, why not answer your own question? Just what sort of scandal could Obama’s certificate reveal? In other words, what in the world is your point? I’ve already told you I think he may be refusing to release it just to keep you guys stirred up and — no offense intended, but I’ll be blunt — looking less than quite sane and serious. That’s of obvious political benefit to him.
And supposing there is less than flattering info somewhere in his college transcripts, which may well be the case, A) why is he obliged to release them, and B) how does not releasing them in any was affect his performance as president (beyond withholding info you guys can use and twist to attack his character and weaken his ability to enact the changes he was elected to enact? Should he come out and make a public confession every time he has too much ice cream? How much “transparency” do you need?
Now you’re slandering the guy Hawaii has charged to certify the certificate. What grounds do you have to question his honesty?
July 30th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #43
You are obviously in the tank for Obama and like calling anyone who disagrees with you on this issue “crazy.” That is slanderous in itself and it would apply to about 1 million Americans. Why don’t you answer my question – - why doesn’t he release it? and please spare us the inane analogies to ice cream. This deals with his eligibility to be president.
July 30th, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #44
I’ve answered your question and I told you why I suspect he doesn’t release them. You won’t answer mine.
And here’s another question. Let’s say that on his college application we find this sentence: “I worship at the temples of Allah and Karl Marx”? How would that affect his “eligibility” to be prez? What exactly is this “eligibility” you’re talking about? He was constitutionally elected for four years.
As for being “in the tank” for Obama, I voted for him and on balance I’m satisfied and hopeful, but I’m hardly without criticism of his policies or performance so far. But yes, birthers do look desperate and less than levelheaded, especially at this late date.
July 30th, 2009 | 3:04 pm | #45
Ken,
You’re proving my point that the “birther” controversy (which I consider to be unsubstantiated) and its air of wacky conspiracy theories overshadows many other legitimate questions about Obama’s lack of a paper trail regarding his college grades and activities, legal opinions, etc. And I’m sure that works to his advantage on many levels.
It’s fair to question why President Transparency seems to be hiding so much about his own past. He’s obviously bright: you can’t fake your way to a degree (especially an advanced one) in the Ivy League. I suspect he was at best a very average student, which doesn’t exactly match up with the narrative about his “brilliance” that we’ve been hearing about for so long. I also suspect he leaned pretty far left in his student activities (if any). And don’t you find it odd that the president of the Harvard Law Review didn’t produce any legal writings of his own?
As a previous commentor pointed out, he had to produce a college transcript for a low level government position. Why is Obama exempt from that at the highest levels? And why didn’t the press pursue more investigative reporting on this issue before the election? That’s their job, and they failed miserably.
Yes, he was elected fair and square and nothing we might find out now (about his college records) would have any impact on that, nor should it. But it could have an impact on public opinion about Obama, which in turn might have an impact on his ability to advance his domestic agenda, which I believe to be dangerous and destructive. So that would be a good thing, in my view.
The emperor has no clothes, Ken.
July 30th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #46
His lack of candor is the real problem. Americans don’t like a furtive or sneaky president. We proved that with Nixon.
July 30th, 2009 | 3:31 pm | #47
CV, I think you’re making my point as well. You guys want this information not because it has any bearing on his ability or eligibility to do his job, but because you want something to embarass and hinder him with. You ask why Obama is exempt from producing transcripts. But Obama isn’t exempt. Political candidates are exempt. All of them. Asuming/presuming there is some embarrasing or at least potentially politically damaging info about his past as yet unknown, he is in no way and for no reason obliged to give it to you.
July 30th, 2009 | 3:34 pm | #48
Yeah, Jim, Obama’s unwillingness to release his college transcripts is a second Watergate.
And you’re still insulted I say you guys are looking crazy?
July 30th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #49
Ken,
Silly me, when people sing the praises of transparency (such as being open about one’s own records, or say, making extensive legislation available for public review before rushing it through Congress, and so on) I think that means they’ll actually behave accordingly.
I’ll just leave you with the words of African American economist Thomas Sowell regarding those “who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama’s [expedient behavior]:
“..[Obama] found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things — about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied — all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he has actually done after getting elected. Those who were shocked at President Obama’s cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being “stupid” in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama’s 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything….”
July 30th, 2009 | 4:54 pm | #50
CV, I agree that Obama broke his promise to be transparent when he pushed the stimulus bill through, although I think that, like Bush with the Patriot Act, his intentions were good. So I have mixed feelings on that one.
In regards to health care, though, if you were referring to that, his bill isn’t even formulated yet, and he gave notice way back during the campaign that he would push health care reform, so everyone has had the chance to get up to speed on the various options.
I’m familiar with Thomas Sowell, but I’m not so cynical about Obama as to think his post-racial angle was merely expedient, nor do I think wanting to get beyond race as a dividing issue requires him to stay quiet on racial issues. I think this “beer summit,” as politically expedient as _it_ is after he foolishly spoke the truth about Gates’ being arrested for having the temerity to get mad in his own home, is a fine symbolic gesture, at least if it comes off as intended: an example of people of different races who still disagree being willing to bury the hatchet and show mutual respect.
And Obama didn’t say he didn’t understand Wright’s racist rants, he repudiated them when challenged. Obama was likely first attracted to that church because it was the happening church in the neighborhood, the church of his black professional peers. And for all his bigoted nonsense, Wright did a lot of good in his community, and brought Obama to Christ as well. I can understand Obama overlooking his rants.
July 30th, 2009 | 5:29 pm | #51
1. Define “release.” According to the Hawaii Department of Health, they don’t give out “long form” birth certificates anymore. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.” Born Identity, Star Bulletin, 6/6/09
2. Who would it convince? Only those narrow segment of birthers who believe that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. There are also flavors of birthers who believe he lost his citizenship by being adopted in Indonesia, by traveling to Pakistan, and by applying to college as a foreign-student. My personal favorite are those, like Markcon and, now, Orly Taitz, who think that he could never be eligible because his dad was never a citizen.
3. Even if he “releases” this information, he should fight the lawsuits. Look at what Phil Berg requested in his lawsuit. You can find it by looking at the DNC’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing. He didn’t want just Obama’s birth certificate, he wanted every piece of paper that the DNC had that mentioned Obama. Discovery is expensive. You shouldn’t have to submit to such an expensive and time-consuming ordeal simply because some crank has misread American history and thinks that obscure Swiss philosophers determined that children born to an alien father shouldn’t be eligible for the Presidency.
4. Many of the things that are alleged to have been “sealed” aren’t really that sealed. His senior thesis, apparently, has simply disappeared into the mists of time. There’s no cover-up, and journalists (and oppo-researchers) did search for it.
July 30th, 2009 | 6:10 pm | #52
No Ken you still don’t get it. It is Obama who has brought his candor into question by producing a short form document that seems to imply that there is something to be hidden regarding the more detailed form. To accept your argument, he didn’t have to produce ANY document regarding where he was born, because he wasn’t legally obliged to. Why then has every other recent presidential candidate been so forthcoming with records such as educational transcripts, but not Obama. Combine this with the fact that he had a Kenyan father and the American people start asking some very reasonable questions about why he can’t or won’t show us a copy of a document that all of us have. His popularity is plummeting like a rock and his lack of candor and dissembling with documents is his own fault. And did you call Dan Rather “crazy” when he hounded Bush 43 on those National Guard documents??? I highly doubt it. Those truly had nothing to do with his eligibility, but origin of birth does.
July 30th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #53
Yes, Jim, I thought Rather was quite over the top in regards to Bush’s National Guard records. BTW, remember that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and as such was technically ineligible to be elected president? If he’d been elected, I would have called him my president and laughed at Democratic birthers if there had been any. Remember too that the Obama camp dismissed talk of McCain’s ineligibility. It’s a shame more Republicans haven’t shown the same class.
You ask why Obama won’t do what other candidates have done, but I’ve answered that question 2 or 3 times, and anyhow, factcheck.org reports that he’s done just that, that they’ve seen the birth certificate and that it’s authentic. And I must note that you still won’t answer me why Hawaii papers report his birth if it didn’t happen there. Finally, any president’s popularity is going to plummet when he tries to address difficult and intractable problems. It’s far too early to assess the Obama presidency.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact