…and this is a 
The other day, one of those routine, empty resolutions came up in congress: a Hawaiian representative brought up a nice fluffy little resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, which contained a collection of whereas's listing notable features of the state. Bland stuff, nothing controversial, except maybe one line, if you're a kook: one of the points of pride is that Hawaii has now contributed a native son to the White House.
Need a kook? Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann stood up to shoulder the honor. She bravely blocked the vote. (The resolution has since been passed.)
I could accept the occasional wacko, even if they do come from my own state, but it goes deeper than that. A huge chunk of the Republican contingent at the capitol is either buying into this 'birther' nonsense, or is so afraid of losing the far right wing vote that they won't speak out against it. This is a hilarious video of Mike Stark interviewing Republican representatives, asking them if they believe Obama was a natural born citizen who could legitimately serve as president…and most of them dodge the question.
These people are nuts.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 28, 2009 9:41 AM
To quote Ron White: You can't fix stupid.
Posted by: Paul Lamb | July 28, 2009 9:41 AM
We had a contingent on the left who persisted in saying that Dubya (and his henchmen) stole the 2000 election. And while I think there may be some credible basis for that, I wonder if the Right is doing a similar thing now with this whole birther nonsense as a sort of payback.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 28, 2009 9:44 AM
This is surprising how?
JC
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 28, 2009 9:46 AM
"I wonder if the Right is doing a similar thing now with this whole birther nonsense as a sort of payback."
Could very well be. They seem to have regarded legitimate criticism of Bush as "politics as usual", so now they feel obligated to echo back all of the legitimate protests of Bush (stolen election, damage to constitutional rights) at Obama, who hasn't done near the damage that Bush has.
Posted by: Dianne | July 28, 2009 9:46 AM
As this post points out, Bachmann blocked the voice vote and made it necessary to have a roll call vote. This meant that the Republicans who want to play footsie with the birthers can't pretend that it passed over their objections because they are on record as having voted for the resolution. So while I agree with the general principle that Bachmann is a nut, I'm not sure she wasn't essentially right in this example.
Posted by: ckerst | July 28, 2009 9:49 AM
U.S code states that if one parent is a natural born citizen then all the children are. Obama's mother was born is Kansas which makes him a natural born citizen, he could have been born on the moon fathered by a martian, it doesn't matter.
This whole story is why people just point and giggle when they see a conservative.
Posted by: chrisD | July 28, 2009 9:49 AM
Ah yes, the disingenuous disavowal gambit (aka the 'I can't be bothered to argue the real issues, so I'll dismiss any benefit or harm he/she's done in office out of hand' routine.) I can't wait to see how this one plays out. So far the republicans are winning this lunacy - it took the events of 9/11 to spur most radical left whingers into railing ridiculous accusations of the caliber coming from republicans today, in such a shorter time too!Posted by: escherichia | July 28, 2009 9:52 AM
I don't normally like a lot of George Monbiot's stuff but this on the Republicans in today's Guardian is spot on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/27/teenage-pregnancy-syphilis-bush-obama
Posted by: Stefan | July 28, 2009 9:53 AM
I have good friends who actually like Rush Limbaugh and think he speaks for them... If you try hard, you can get into their mindset - but it feels like your being slimed and walking into the land of paranoia and conspiracy. They can't understand how we are being "bamboozled" by the current administration, and we(a.k.a. my mindset...) can't understand how they can be so blind and caught up in the total BS perpetrated by what appears to be a bunch of loons. Michael Shermer has a good article based on a TAM 7 talk about the differences and the mindsets.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 28, 2009 9:54 AM
From seeing the headline, I expected a "Reposted from ..." flag at the top of this entry, and was curious whether it would read "1980", "1968", "1964", or earlier.
To imply that the described event happened more recently is simply wrong!
Posted by: RickK | July 28, 2009 9:54 AM
Jon Stewart did a great bit on this a few days ago, going after Lou Dobbs for claiming that Obama's origins are not yet definite even though Lou's own show had thoroughly debunked the birthers a few days earlier. Worth watching.
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 28, 2009 10:09 AM
But George W. Bush did steal the 2000 election. That's not a nutty conspiracy theory, it's a true fact. What a weird comparison.
BTW -- signing in here is getting difficult.
An error occurred: Can't locate CODE(0x6d9fc40) in @INC (@INC contains: /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/CommunityActionStreams/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/Textile/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/TypePadAntiSpam/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/ActionStreams/extlib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/ActionStreams/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/mixiComment/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/feeds-app-lite/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/StyleCatcher/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/WidgetManager/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/WXRImporter/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/FacebookCommenters/extlib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/FacebookCommenters/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/Motion/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/MultiBlog/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/plugins/spamlookup/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/Bob/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/TemplateExporter/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/SuperCategoryStub/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/telegraph/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/LaTeX/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/BetterFileUploader/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/PQManager/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/asset-tidy/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/Notifier/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/TemplateInstaller/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/reCaptcha/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/BuildTracer/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/feeds/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/layouts/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/addons/Commercial.pack/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/addons/Community.pack/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/extlib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/extlib lib /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.6 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8 . /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Page/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Folder/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Template/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Entry/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Comment/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Asset/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/User/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Blog/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/Category/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/object_types/System/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/Checkbox/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/StarRating/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedFolder/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedBlog/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedTemplate/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/File/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/TextArea/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/SelectMenu/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedUser/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedEntry/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedCategory/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedPage/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedAsset/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/RadioButtons/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/LinkedObject/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/ChoiceList/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/Text/lib /var/www/vhosts/scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/xplugins/FieldDay/field_types/Date/lib) at (eval 15189) line 1.
Posted by: Susan | July 28, 2009 10:10 AM
They are utterly ridiculous. And folks thought The Daily Show would run out of material after the election!
Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 28, 2009 10:12 AM
@Paul Lamb, #2
Some facts about Florida in the 2000 election"
1) Florida engaged a republican-friendly firm, Database Technologies Inc., to purge voter rolls of any convicted felons (who have no right to vote in Florida). The inaccuracy rate was very high, with nearly all false hits affecting African Americans exclusively. The Salon article by Greg Palast:http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html
2) Had the entire state been recounted, Al Gore won it. The Miami Herald did an ex post facto recount, using Florida election standards, and determined that no matter what standard was applied to the ballot validation, Gore won. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
3) The supreme court in Bush v. Gore essentially reasoned that the recount must be stopped because (paraphrasing now) the result, if it showed Gore to be the winner, might jeopardize the integrity of the institution of elections.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._gore
Posted by: Ephemeriis | July 28, 2009 10:15 AM
RE: #2
The 2000 election was fishy on many levels. I don't know that there was ever a real clear idea of how things turned out in Florida. Especially with the vested interests of some of the people overseeing the Florida election. This made the whole thing a very sore subject for some folks.
Obama, however, was born in the United States. There isn't anything fishy about it. Hawaii is a state, Obama was born there. There's a birth certificate.
I can understand some folks not liking Obama's politics or being unhappy to see the left gain power... But you've really got to come up with something better to complain about than where Obama was born.
Posted by: Andyman | July 28, 2009 10:18 AM
I have to confess something; I'm not a godless liberal but an atheist moderate: socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Sorry for the charade guys. I share about 88% of Obama's views (social and secular side) but also 79% of McCain's views (more fiscal and freedom stuff).
Anyway, my political views would still be considered hardline communist to wackos like Bachmann. Thank the FSM for Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and, dare I say it, John McCain. I just can't believe that a sizeable proportions of GOPers honestly doubt where Obama was born and it is quite frankly it is sickening. Facebook is even worse, there is a popular poll where 80% of its voters demand that Obama be impeached (the alternative is stating that you're a socialist which I am aware a few of the posters are but I'm not). http://www.facebook.com/notifications.php?__a=1#/realpolls/results/nim8c3ati?_fb_q=1&_fb_qsub=apps.facebook.com Some people claim he should've been impeached when he was elected!
Posted by: xebecs | July 28, 2009 10:19 AM
Mouseprint at the bottom of the article:
[ This article not recommended for years before 1960. Side-effects include constipation, cleft-tongue, insanity, banality, and Joe the Plumber*. ]
* Plumbing not included.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 28, 2009 10:24 AM
I vote cervantes to be booted off in the next annoying troll election.
Posted by: Larian LeQuella | July 28, 2009 10:26 AM
I have one of these "birthers" commenting on my blog... Talk about your fundamental wackjobs! Rachel Maddow also did a piece on this resolution. Was humorous.
Anydman, you sound a bit like me there.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2009 10:36 AM
Michelle Bachmann doesn't support far right extremists. She is one and a wacko one at that.
The birther nonsense is just part of it. She supports all the right wing wacko conspiracy/paranoia delusions.
Recently she was on a radio program Alex Jones??? going on about FEMA concentration camps in the USA where the Illuminati and Reptiloid aliens will herd all US citizens or some such. There is plenty of oil left in the US and world and alternative energy is some sort of plot to do something to someone somehow. Obama is a "socialist" which she really means to be "commie". {It is hard to translate these lunatic fringe conspiracies from fruitbat crazy into English}.
Whole web sites are devoted to chronicling her wackiness.
Really, the lunatic fringe once known as the GOP should move onto a more interesting issue. Elves putting mind control chemicals in the water supply, chemtrails, people marrying farm animals and pets, satanic rituals in the catholic church, or whatever their tiny minds can dream up.
Posted by: Andyman | July 28, 2009 10:38 AM
Larian
Fair enough, I came upon pharyngula when I decided to look up discrimination against non-religious people and also the creation/evolution debate around xmas time on wikipedia. I came across PZ Myers there and I decided to visit his blog. Needless to say I found it rather enthralling. I haven;t posted much to begin with, just a few one-liners but now it seems I should now open up hehe. I thank my lucky stars that where I live (NZ and Australia), politicians like Bachmann don't even get 0.05% of the total vote, and even our right-wingers like John Key (who I would've voted for if I was old enough) are still down-to-earth and not overtly religious. Same can't be said for Kevin Rudd though.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 28, 2009 10:40 AM
I was almost feeling a little bad for these guys, getting ambushed by Mike Starks for an unscheduled interview... then I remembered, all they have to say is, "Yes, he's a citizen" and the whole thing ends. WTF?!
I had started to wonder if Starks just edited it in a sneaky way, and that if any of them said they thought Obama was a citizen, that he pushed them with nasty follow-up questions. But the interview with Trent Franks showed anything but.
It's a sad sad day for the former "party of Lincoln" when the most sane Republican one can find to interview is a global warming denialist. Wow.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 28, 2009 10:41 AM
Gee, I don't know. I heard he's not even a US citizen. /jk
Seriously, what kind of tortured logic are they using to get around the point (as #6 pointed out) that if one of your parents is a US citizen, then you, at birth are a US citizen? Which doesn't even matter, because he was born in Hawaii. It goes to show you the lengths that idealogues will go to deny facts. Teach the controversy.
Posted by: Glen Martin | July 28, 2009 10:43 AM
Regarding the title: you've just noticed this?
Posted by: Gregory Gadow | July 28, 2009 10:48 AM
Republicans have become certifiably insane
You make it sound like this is a recent development.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2009 10:49 AM
Polls show that the GOP only has the support of 25% of the population. If that translates into elections, they are going to lose a lot of them.
Got to admit that the USA is a world leader in a lot of things. We have a major political party just for our {enormous} lunatic fringe. And the largest lunatic fringe in the world.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 28, 2009 10:51 AM
Stefan @ # 9 - thanks for the link to the Shermer talk.
It confirms, in Shermer's own words, why I don't pay much attention to what Shermer ("I share similar political and economic beliefs as the conservatives and libertarians at FreedomFest") says about sociopolitical issues. Note particularly the ridiculously pro-libertarian diagram he uses (borrowed, sans attribution, from the Libbies) to move "beyond the traditional left — right spectrum", & comments # 30 & 31 on same.
Posted by: WadeF | July 28, 2009 10:55 AM
I literally loled about the dude looking at pens for 20 minutes just to avoid talking to that guy and the other guy who ran a marathon to get away from him but just couldn't seem to lose him.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | July 28, 2009 10:56 AM
Just for balance, here's a right wing anti-birfer editorial from National Review.
Born in the U.S.A.
Posted by: Midwifetoad | July 28, 2009 10:57 AM
Odd, when I go to the Wikipedia article referenced above, I get:
Posted by: GAZZA | July 28, 2009 11:03 AM
Andyman@21: You live in NZ and Australia? That's one big house. :)
As a (fellow?) Aussie, I more or less agree - the worst we had in recent memory was Ms Hanson, and her influence was purely at a State level. However, as a West Australian, it would be remiss of me not to point out that my state has an unfortunate history of finding many of its ex Premiers are guilty of fraud. ;)
But the religious nuttery - yes, largely absent. I realise Kevin Rudd isn't exactly an atheist, but frankly he pretty much would be by the standards of the US Republican party.
OK, perhaps a little harsh there, I guess.
Posted by: Randy | July 28, 2009 11:15 AM
Great... My Congresswoman is included in that interview (5th District Washington State). Good old' Cathy. Crazier than even I thought. I guess at least she isn't Bachmann. I will be so glad when she goes back to private crazy... of course in my district they will probably pick someone worse to replace her. I miss Tom Foley.
Posted by: Watchman | July 28, 2009 11:21 AM
I love how all this shit comes from all the yahoos who, for the eight years of the Bush regime, cried that it was treasonous not to blindly support the office of the President.
Posted by: Andyman | July 28, 2009 11:24 AM
Gazza #31
Hehe well I am slightly obese, I live in Mandurah (in WA) but I am a New Zealander through and through. Although I do admit you're better cricketers.
Posted by: Watchman | July 28, 2009 11:27 AM
Well hey, I read that NZ is almost on Australia's doorstep now after that undersea earthquake the other day!
Posted by: TonyC | July 28, 2009 11:28 AM
Regarding the Birthers:
Obama caint be a citizen, 'cos his daddy weren't amurican!
And besides, doncha know that boy ain't even white?
[/snark]
Posted by: GAZZA | July 28, 2009 11:34 AM
Andyman@34 - yeah, we thought we were decent cricketers too, but the Poms seem intent on proving otherwise.
Mandurah, huh? I grew up in Rockingham, back in the days when Mandurah was the nearest city. Small world.
Watchman@35: You've misinterpreted things slightly; it isn't the country that is on our doorstep, it's the people (mostly after our sheep). ;)
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 28, 2009 11:38 AM
When Ann Coulter abandons and idea, you can be pretty certain that whatever remains is pretty fringe.What I find interesting is mainstream Democrats who, despite recounts by two major news organizations, continue to maintain that Gore could have won.
I'll grant that if God had counted people's intentions rather than the ballots, Gore might have won, but the only thing on the table was Gore's recount request, and no one has found a way to turn that into a win for Gore.
Posted by: tsg | July 28, 2009 11:40 AM
I'd love to know how many of these birthers are also in support of removing the natural born citizen requirement in the Constitution so that Ahnold can run.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 28, 2009 11:44 AM
Too bloody right.
Still England were lucky to get the draw in Cardiff.
Posted by: Mark Vignati | July 28, 2009 11:53 AM
The funny thing is Bachmann actually ended up voting for it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 28, 2009 11:54 AM
Midwifetoad @ # 30 - you did, of course, read a bit further down where that Wikipedia article lists four different methodologies for a "Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)" under which, in each case, Gore would have won... didn't you?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 28, 2009 12:11 PM
Do they? I back away warily, one hand on my wallet, the other on my pepper spray. It could be that I've just forgotten to announce my presence as I've come around a bend and startled one, or it could be that I've come across one with her cubs, and she's ready to defend. In the worst case scenario, I've encountered one just after its long hibernation (hibernation usually happens during the years K-12 and any post-secondary), and it's looking to my brains to make its breakfast meal.
They are majestic beasts to be sure, and best enjoyed in their natural habitat, but I'd never make the mistake of assuming one is tame or friendly.
Posted by: lurker | July 28, 2009 12:12 PM
so, doesn't the fbi and/or secret service do background checks on a president? they do for each and every lowly federal civil servant. wouldn't that investigation have determined that Obama met the statutory requirements including being a natural born citizen? so do the "birthers" think the fbi and/or secret service are part of the "conspiracy"?
Posted by: tsg | July 28, 2009 12:23 PM
Birthers will believe whatever they can if it means they can contest Obama's presidency. That all they've got is questioning his citizenship (and ignoring the answers) is very telling.
Posted by: Midwifetoad | July 28, 2009 12:26 PM
Of course I did, and I even admitted that more people may have intended to cast votes for Gore. But intentions aren't countable ballots. Florida does not count ballots with overvotes. The law is not ambiguous. Perhaps if the Democrats had not instructed their voters to vote on every page, things might have been different.
More importantly, Gore didn't request recounts in counties where this might have made a difference.
Irrationality is irrationality, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you inhabit. There is no way Gore could have won the election, given the laws of Florida and the legal steps he took. If the Supreme Court had ruled differently, the recount that Gore requested would have given the same results that the newspaper consortiums obtained.
There are other ironies coming out of that election. Following the election, Florida changes its ballots. Some folks noted that the optically scanned ballots had essentially zero errors, regardless of who did the recounting. All but three Florida counties adopted this kind of ballot. Guess which counties adopted the controversial Diebold electronic machines?
No points if you guessed the same three heavily Democratic counties that had all the trouble in 2001.
Again, irrationality is irrationality.
Posted by: mcmillan | July 28, 2009 12:32 PM
But the poster said "that no matter what standard was applied to the ballot validation, Gore won." which seems to be pretty much contradicted by the the sections saying "the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party".
Looking at it a little more carefully, I think the original poster was saying all statewide counting methods led to a Gore victory. But I think that muddies things considering the methods that were actually being suggested to be used would have led to a Bush victory.
Posted by: JMk2 | July 28, 2009 12:42 PM
Abdul Alhazred quotes at #29:
Off-topic, but related: Has this news - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change ("Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor") - appeared in the US? The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind, with US conservatives starring as the righteous priest and the Levite.
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 28, 2009 12:45 PM
That's clearly wrong, as would be the opposite, that Bush won by any standard.
The only standard that matters is the one disputed in the courts, namely Gore's recount request. By that standard, after several official recounts and after two independent newspaper recounts, Bush won.
I'm sure that somewhere in imagination land there is a standard by which ID could have won the Dover case. This is all magical thinking.
As is the irrational conviction that somehow Hawaii will reverse its declaration that Obama is a natural born citizen.
Posted by: JLA | July 28, 2009 12:53 PM
These idiot birthers say that they can't be convinced of Barack Obama's birth until they see his original birth certificate. Well, I've never seen Abraham Lincoln's original death certificate, but I'm pretty convinced that he's dead.
Posted by: Lambert | July 28, 2009 12:57 PM
Re the stolen 2000 election.
Does no one remember that a major factor in stopping the recount was Tom Delay? Don't you remember all those rabid Delay PAC members who were shipped down from Washington so they could lay siege to the Broward County and Dade election officials and volunteers who wry trying to do a recount?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html
The Delay mob were to be seen on national TV pounding on the walls and windows of the recount office to intimidate the people inside.
If that's not stealing an election what it?
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 28, 2009 1:10 PM
I suppose they also intimidated the independent recounts conducted by two newspaper consortiums.
You're making the birthers look rational by comparison.
Posted by: Canuck | July 28, 2009 1:13 PM
They prevaricate almost as well as that useless fuckwit Condi.
Posted by: Bunk | July 28, 2009 1:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILmqq_4QyhI
This was a related video. The birthers are really nutty, aren't they?
Posted by: Bob L | July 28, 2009 1:34 PM
Were is the surprise here? They think their belief in creationism trumps the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and evolution. Even if Obama had a document that said "birth certificate" they would only claim it opens two more gaps in the evidence.
Obama's election means they are wrong, and they can't accept being wrong. They're whole self worth collapses if they are wrong so they are going grab at any straw they can find to invalidate Obama's election in their own mind.
Posted by: Michael | July 28, 2009 1:36 PM
Although in general Bachmann is a wacko I think in this instance too much is being read into this. She simply objected because a quorum wasn't present which is needed for a vote (it is in the Constitution). This is a somewhat common objection and if I remember correctly they just make an announcement to have the members get their asses in there.
I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say it wasn't because of that one line in the resolution.
Posted by: Randy | July 28, 2009 1:51 PM
Michael at #56... You are a better man than I for even typing the words 'Bachmann' and 'benefit of the doubt' in the same post. She is bat shit crazy and does not deserve that consideration. After her stunningly stupid performance a Chris Matthews a month or two back I no longer put anything past her. She is no less than a national embarassment.
But I suppose you may be right. It would really hurt my brain though to find out she did the right thing for the right reason. Not like her at all.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | July 28, 2009 2:05 PM
They're not insane. They're just cynical.
Their big problem is that they've spent so long cultivating the fringe lunatics that they're now totally in their thrall and just can't bring themselves to ditch them. That's why you see so many GOP congresscritters freaking out when asked to specify what their position is on the issue; they don't want to give the game away but know that if they go all in with the loonies then they're screwed with everybody else.
Posted by: tsg | July 28, 2009 2:07 PM
Okay, new rule: birthers must provide proof of citizenship, and thus standing, to challenge Obama's citizenship.
Posted by: tsg | July 28, 2009 2:12 PM
Their big problem is that they're starting to believe their own bullshit.
Posted by: joe | July 28, 2009 2:26 PM
As much as I loathe HuffPo, they can occasionally get things right. Like this one, and the whole "religion in the military" situation.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 28, 2009 2:30 PM
I'm going to be charitable and assume "don't" was typed by mistake.
Posted by: Rick R | July 28, 2009 2:39 PM
Yesterday at Dispatches, Ed Brayton had a post about Ann Coulter, who came out on Fox News against the birfers. "When You're Too Nuts For Ann Coulter..."
I'm reposting a comment from "Art", who I think gave a pretty good summation of what the problem is these days for anyone even trying to hold up the GOP as anything even remotely sane or relevant...
"The right has spent thirty years imagining red-meat propaganda scenarios and presenting them to the credulous, slavering masses of shock-addicted wingnuts through a fire hose. Over time the body of taken-on-faith 'truths' has become a mighty river of lies, misrepresentation and toxic waste. Even though she (Coulter) has made a career of helping to create the river she is starting think the river has gotten too deep and is running too fast. The river of lies they could use to wash away the truth and channel through the opponents districts has broken through its banks.
Coulter has always been a GOP pol, hack and mouthpiece for hire. But, as with so many of the ilk, the lies and distortion were just means to an end. They really didn't drink from the river of Koolaide they hosed the gullible masses with. It was all a performance piece done to gain tactical advantage.
Coulter has seen the lunatic right rise up and over the dikes of GOP party control. She can see where this is going and has suddenly understood that this is the GOP's 'burn the village, to save the village' moment. The point at which the rhetorical commentary on political events becomes so absurd it becomes glossolalia applied to pareidolia. The point where people hear the words and know the speaker is nuts. She senses that becoming a birther is a level of self parody that can't be recovered from. She was willing to help create the river of lies, she is happy to use its flow to her advantage. She may even swim in the river. But she now sees that the river is out of control and that it now threatens her cause. She blanches at drowning herself in it."
Posted by: sir eccles | July 28, 2009 2:46 PM
I am still yet to see John SYDNEY McCain's Australian birth certificate. Why does he deny it exists? Why does he not prove it doesn't exist?
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 28, 2009 3:09 PM
He doesn't have to. He's not the president. (YAY!)Posted by: Wayfarer | July 28, 2009 4:06 PM
Tell a lie loud enough long enough it will serve as the the truth.
Posted by: Walton | July 28, 2009 4:34 PM
The birthers are complete wingnuts. It's embarrassing that these people are seen as part of the public face of mainstream opposition to Obama.
Personally I don't give a fuck where Obama was born; the "natural born citizen" requirement is a pointless, arbitrary rule in any case. And I think it's extremely unlikely that there's some giant conspiracy to cover up his true place of birth. There are much more important issues to address, such as healthcare and the economy, where Obama's policy leaves a lot to be desired; that, and not some loony conspiracy theory, is what the Republicans should be focusing on.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD | July 28, 2009 4:39 PM
Hey Paul Lamb (#2), how many of those "on the left who persisted in saying that Dubya (and his henchmen) stole the 2000 election" were senators or congressmen? Any attempt to compare the two fails.
No, it's not "payback". It's very simple: they're afraid of their own base.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD | July 28, 2009 4:43 PM
I would just like to add that as a current resident of the State of Georgia (though not in Rep. Tom Price's district) that Tom Price is a FUCKING COWARD!
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Posted by: RobertDW | July 28, 2009 5:14 PM
At least Bachmann used a valid excuse (the lack of a quorum), rather than objecting outright to the resolution. Maybe - just maybe - she's starting to grow up?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 28, 2009 5:29 PM
Well hey, I read that NZ is almost on Australia's doorstep now after that undersea earthquake the other day!
2cm closer, baby!
It's been said that NZ is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica, but that's just for cover.
In reality, we're slowly building up to ramming speed, and intend to crack OZ in half!
muhahahahaha!
any millenia now, you just watch!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 28, 2009 5:33 PM
is what the Republicans should be focusing on.
Walton, if the reps had ANY good ideas regarding any of these things, they had their chances over the last 25 years to do something about it.
They have NEVER EVER produced a comprehensive package to even vote on. Not even one for a committee review.
What does that tell you?
What it tells me is that the vast majority of them don't really give a shit, or are simply too ignorant to even begin to formulate a workable proposal.
Your heroes are ghosts.
Posted by: frog | July 28, 2009 6:09 PM
@Daveau: Seriously, what kind of tortured logic are they using to get around the point (as #6 pointed out) that if one of your parents is a US citizen, then you, at birth are a US citizen?
That under some 16th century legal theories you are a natural-born citizen if and only if your father (not your mother) is a natural-born citizen; then the claim goes on to say that the FF's were following that well-known theory rather than the even better known theory in the colonies of British common law that defines "natural" citizenship as where you were born or who either of your parents were, without any evidence either way about exactly what they meant.
And then they ignore the fact that Arthur Chester's father was Irish -- so the precedent of what it means under US law is clearly set, in addition to how it's been defined by statute and regulation (which of course are the correct interpretations by definition if the basic rule is ambiguous).
So, they're crazy xenophobes -- but some are highly-educated crazy xenophobes who have pulled up every legalistic trick in the book to support their craziness.
Posted by: frog | July 28, 2009 6:19 PM
The only standard that matters is the one disputed in the courts, namely Gore's recount request. By that standard, after several official recounts and after two independent newspaper recounts, Bush won.
That's incredibly stupid. An election is not a purely formal process -- it must be a substantive reflection of the will of the electorate. It's not a private contest between two individuals, it should never hang on a technicality, the law should be a means of clarifying an election, not playing legalistic games.
What matters in 2000 is that Gore had a majority of the support of the population, both at a national level and via the silly electoral college. By any standards of meaningful legitimacy, Gore won.
Now, practically speaking, since Gore was too much of a wuss to fight it seriously, and the nation didn't give a crap enough to dispute it, what happened depended on the legal technicality that there were more Repub supporters on SCOTUS than Dem supporters.
Their legal findings were pure sophistry. Anyone who defends them is either self-deluded or a liar. Clear rationalization for who they wanted to win, not who clearly had the support of the citizenry.
What matters is the damn objective truth -- this isn't an argument about private contract matters, where it's more practical to focus on technical, legalistic matters to save time & money and move on with a contract. Anyone who approaches both with the same manner has a large tumor between their ears.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 28, 2009 6:38 PM
That's Chester Arthur.
Posted by: Nick | July 28, 2009 6:54 PM
Forget the birth certificate. The real issue is that regardless of where he was born, Obama is ineligible simply because he possessed Kenyan/British citizenship at birth thru his father. Read what Vattel said in "The Law of Nations." Vattel was very influential in the early United States, and he makes clear that if someone's father is not a citizen then the child cannot be natural born. Also see the U.S. Supreme Court discussions in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814) and also Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874).
This isn't a matter of conspiracy or speculation; it's simply a matter of historical legal fact.
Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are good sources on this particular argument.
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 28, 2009 7:54 PM
Nick,
Minor v. Happersett does not support Vattel's interpretation. It says that children of citizens are definitely citizens and that children not of citizen but born here might be. It explicitly punts on that call (emphasis is mine):
The later statement of children of fathers refers only to those "that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States". That doesn't apply here because Hawaii was a state in 1961.
In The Venus, Marshall's quotation of Vattels is in a concurring opinion, not the main opinion. It's an opinion that not even Minor v. Happersett views as precedent; it does not hold force.
IANAL, but I can read enough to see that your strongest point has no validity.
Posted by: DLC | July 28, 2009 8:16 PM
You gotta be kiddin me.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 28, 2009 8:21 PM
Ultimately, facts don't matter to these people. If you call Bachmann crazy, then they get mad that you insulted someone on her side. Whether she's crazy or not is immaterial to them. Same with calling Bush a liar. You can document all his lies and it won't matter to them. What mattered to them is that you attacked someone on their side.
It works the other way too. They don't care about the facts behind Obama's citizenship. They just see their allegations as an effective attack.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 28, 2009 8:24 PM
It's amazing to me how Obama's eligibility fail was only detected by the lunatic fringe on the far right. How could the lawyers in the employ of the RNC (with its virtually limitless funds) have missed it?
The mind boggles.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 28, 2009 9:07 PM
That jogging guy, he was freaking hilarious, running away from a journalist?????? America is a strange country. I'm not kidding, politicians don't physically flee when they see a reporter...
" Is that as fast as you can go?"
Hilarious!
Posted by: ginckgo | July 28, 2009 9:11 PM
Wasn't it exactly these Republicans that wanted to change the constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to run for resident?
Posted by: echidna | July 28, 2009 9:36 PM
The whole point of the birther exercise is to paint Obama as "other", usurping the presidency. Stir up the wackos, and the stage is set.
There is a reason Obama relates to Lincoln, and it's not all about Illinois. It's about making change against the will of some with strong financial interests in the status quo.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | July 28, 2009 9:52 PM
I voted for Obama, and I sneer and roll my eyes at the "birther" conspiracy theorists.
All the same, these members of Congress are being ambushed, and they have no idea where the confrontation is going. They have to worry the guy chasing them down is an Ali G wannabe. Maybe the Obama citizenship question is just a hook to put them into an embarrassing situation and humiliate them.
O'Reilly loves the ambush "interview." I loathe it, and I don't blame the target legislators for being evasive.
Posted by: Brandon P. | July 28, 2009 10:17 PM
A lot of these conservative attacks on Obama are comical. These people honestly believe Obama is a socialist, an Islamic terrorist, a black supremacist, and a non-American based only on the fact that he's a biracial Democrat born in Hawaii whose name sounds somewhat Southwest Asian.
The right is only shooting itself in the foot with these crude, borderline xenophobic attacks.
Posted by: Brian X | July 28, 2009 10:54 PM
Nick:
What the hell use is a book with no legal force in a legal discussion? The law is not a constant under a common law system, and a historical precedent has no meaning if it's not currently accepted by the courts. (Which, by the way, are far more likely to start with the 14th amendment as a definition of US citizenship than a book no one but a historian of law has ever heard of.)
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 29, 2009 12:12 AM
Yeah, gosh, how unfair to expect politicians to be prepared to be confronted by actual citizens asking actual questions whether sensible or crazy...
...much more democratic for representatives to only have to face the "confrontation" of the corporate media and David Gregory letting them "frame the conversation" in the way they want.
Posted by: Dan W | July 29, 2009 12:59 AM
Wow, of all those Republicans Mike Stark asked, only one actually looked at the facts and accepted reality about President Obama's citizenship? Now that is just sad. While I'm not surprised to see politicians dodging questions like so many did, that wasn't a hard question he was asking. It required a yes or no answer. Yep, the Republicans are, with a few exceptions, idiots and lunatics.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 29, 2009 1:12 AM
I have to say when I heard of right wing "Birthers" I though this was just another nutty campaign like "Quiverful" for wingnutters to have more kids. I now see it's a conspiracy to make Obama out to be some kind of ferner. Maybe we can adopt this strategy. Whenever you encounter a fundy just claim they we born in Australia or whatever and should be thrown out of the country.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 29, 2009 9:25 AM
What I find interesting, from an... astrobiology point of view, is that you are at all capable of claiming that what matters is which particular mode of recount Gore wanted. Hello? Democracy. Every single vote must be counted.. The guy who wins the electoral votes of Florida is not the one who got the biggest percentage of valid votes out of some subset of the votes of a couple of counties, it's the one who got the biggest number of valid votes in all of Florida together. Period. What can there possibly be unclear about this principle?
Are you a fucking postmodernist who simply denies that there is a true number of votes, someone who believes it's physically possible to keep counting for so long till you get whichever result you might want?
Anyway. When we go from the abstract principle to the practical implementation, Gore won.
And so, it appears, did Kerry, while I am at it (though of course for different reasons).
Also, every single of the Reptilian mobsters who tried to stop any recount physically or by intimidation should be charged with mounting a coup. (If you're poetically inclined, call it "high treason" or suchlike.) And yes, of course this includes the survivors of the majority in Bush v Gore. Trying to mess with the counting of votes is the biggest imaginable crime in a democracy, because it removes people's ability to get rid of incompetent politicians.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 29, 2009 9:30 AM
...without even telling them. In an old-fashioned coup where the military comes in, starts making terror, and shoots at the presidential palace, you notice it, and you might, say, resist, flee, stage a revolution later, or something. When an election is successfully stolen, you don't know about it, and you believe everything is fine except for the higher-than-expected stupidity of your fellow citizens. That's worse.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 29, 2009 11:16 AM
And how is "I don't know who you are, but there's no doubt in my mind that the president was born in Hawaii. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get to an appointment" not a sufficient response, even if the questioner is some sort of prankster?
The only people who have anything to fear from such an "ambush" are those who either actually believe crazy things or are so craven that they're unwilling to alienate the craziest of their potential voters.
In general, I'm no fan of ambush journalism, either... but that's no excuse for those who can't find it in themselves to simply speak truth to crazy.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | July 29, 2009 12:48 PM
Jafafa and Bill, I get your points. These are elected representatives of the people, responsible for governing the nation, and they should be able to show a modicum of common sense and courage. Just the same, and although I'm not comfortable defending Republicans these days, I do understand how anyone would try to avoid ambushes. I wish I had access to YouTube at work so I could offer a sample of what Sacha Baron Cohen or Bill O'Reilly can do to someone when they "simply speak truth to crazy."
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2009 12:58 PM
Well played red herring, Paul Lamb. The cretin asshole and incredibly irrational mindwifetoad's hypocritical and hyperbolic comment "You're making the birthers look rational by comparison" is quite the capper. Of course, by any rational measure, pointing out the fact that election officials were intimidated by Republican congressional staffers bussed to Florida does not make birthers look rational by comparison.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | July 29, 2009 1:00 PM
I just thought of a worthy comparison. Many of us consider it legitimate to decline to engage in a confrontation under certain circumstances. I consider an ambush to be one of those circumstances.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2009 1:04 PM
I do understand how anyone would try to avoid ambushes.
So simply asking a Congressman whether he believes that Obama is a U.S. citizen is an "ambush"?
I could offer a sample of what Sacha Baron Cohen or Bill O'Reilly can do to someone when they "simply speak truth to crazy."
O'Reilly's crew tries to browbeat people into admitting that they haven't stopped beating their wifes; there's no comparison -- or, rather, a comparison goes against you.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2009 1:06 PM
I just thought of a worthy comparison.
Another comparison that shows how wrong you are.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 29, 2009 1:22 PM
Wicked Lad:
Even if you had YouTube access at work, I don't... but I've seen Borat and some of SBC's other work, and I have some idea what he's about. My observation is that the people who end up looking crazy or stupid or hateful are the ones who are crazy or stupid or hateful, or are too willing to suffer the crazy and stupid and hateful. Who knows how many people told "Borat" (or "Bruno," for that matter, though I haven't seen that film) "I don't know what your problem is, but I don't have time for crazy people"? These people would have ended up on the cutting room floor (perfectly correctly, because they wouldn't have been as entertaining as what we ended up seeing), but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
So I still don't understand why a member of Congress approached on the street, whether by anti-Birther guerilla journalists or by the Birthers themselves, can't just say "that's crazy talk; the president is the president and that's all there is to it," and then just move on. Where's the downside? Unless, of course, they actually care about catering to the crazy Birthers.
This is not similar to being "ambushed" over something where there's a real potential for embarrassment (i.e., something controversial in one's personal life) or where the issue is complex. This question is easily disposed of by anyone who's sane... and so it's reasonable to question at least the judgment, if not the sanity, of anyone who fails to dispose of it easily.
BTW, I'm strongly considering myself a t-shirt that says Speak Truth to Crazy!
Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2009 8:13 PM
What I find the most shocking about this video is that the majority of these "elected representatives of the people" are running and hiding instead of saying yes or no. Could these people give less of a shit about us? (rhetorical) They won't take a stand on anything at all unless it's 100% guaranteed to be politically advantageous for them. Seriously, WTF? How much you wanna bet that lobbyist don't have to run after them and play hide and seek to get a yes or no on something. Oh, how I weep for this country and what it has become.
Some of these puppets in DC should check and see if there insurance would cover a procedure to surgically remove corporate America's hand from their asses.
Posted by: AZ Geo | July 30, 2009 4:22 AM
You've gotta hand it to Franks. I completely disagree with his positions on just about everything, but he's always shown himself to be honest and forthright. He's the only Republican from my state that I have any respect for. I like him as a human being, but I wish he wasn't making decisions for us in DC.
Posted by: memyselfi | July 30, 2009 9:28 AM
So Bachmann blocked the vote by rightfully and properly citing a procedural issue. What's the problem? Oh, right. You want to make it seem as if she blocked it because she hates Hawaii because she hate Obama because she hates "dem cullured peepulz." Got it.
You're a dishonest jackass, PZ.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 9:44 AM
memyselfi:
The problem is manifest in the second word of the quote above: Bachmann. In case you haven't been paying attention, Michelle Bachmann has a nearly unblemished personal history of outstanding crazed wingnuttery — often embarrassing even the most conservative mainstream members of her own party — by which she has long-since forfeited any presumption of good faith.
If a Democrat had blocked this resolution on procedural grounds, you'd have to take that action as honestly intended, as it would be against the member's larger political interests (isn't there a similar principle in criminal testimony? is there a lawyer in the crowd who can help me out?); if a relatively sane, mainstream Republican had pulled the same move, it would be fair to consider it petty politics, but probably not crazy or racist; but this is Michelle Bachmann, and that's really all you need to know about it.
Posted by: memyselfi | July 30, 2009 10:13 AM
Yeah, I think you've made it very, very obvious exactly where the "outstanding crazed wingnuttery" truly is coming from. Thank you, Bill.
Posted by: Coryat | July 30, 2009 10:29 AM
re No. 89 "Whenever you encounter a fundy just claim they were born in Australia or whatever and should be thrown out of the country."
Genius! the campaign to deport Ray Comfort starts here.
Posted by: memyselfi | July 30, 2009 12:35 PM
Except, you know, Ray was born in New Zealand... But hey, Australia is close enough! Facts and geography be damned! We're getting rid of a "fundy" we hate!
Posted by: Coryat | July 31, 2009 3:58 AM
10 points to Hufflepuff for knowledge of fundy Geography!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 31, 2009 4:19 AM
Genius! the campaign to deport Ray Comfort starts here.
Just don't try to fucking send him back HERE to NZ, 'K?
seriously, I watched his "debate" with thunderfoot yesterday...
he actually said that "up is down where he is from in NZ".
the man literally defines the phrase: Demented Fuckwit
It's no surprise he's found a home in the US. After all, it's Kirk Cameron sitting next to him in the banana vid.
Posted by: Coryat | July 31, 2009 4:47 AM
You could always send him here to England, he could keep Stephen Green company! : )