Cindy Simpson
The beatings will continue
By Cindy Simpson
Obama finally produced a long-form birth certificate, and as predicted, the media is using a rolled-up copy "to further beat the sizeable percentage of the population with [eligibility] doubts into either embarrassed or apologetic submission." The most popular birther-bashing method: charges of racism.
As the saying goes: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Substitute "morale" with presidential approval ratings, and you get the picture.
Many have suggested that Obama released the certificate to strengthen his sagging poll numbers. "Birthers," however, do not seem placated by the certificate, especially as it was offered with name-calling, not an ounce of humility, nor an appearance of patriotic servitude. The beatings, from the mainstream media and pundits both left and right, will likely continue.
Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart, in his quest to save the world, worried that this "birther thing" "divides the country," but failed to acknowledge that birther polls have fallen consistently and solidly along party lines. If saving the country involves the election of a Republican president in 2012, the effect of the birther issue on Independent voter opinion should be considered. And more importantly, it must be determined whether the "birtherism" divide revealed within the GOP by these polls is a temporary rift or the symptom of a more serious condition.
Some so-called birthers simply wanted Obama to release the certificate. The majority, however, have diligently attempted to present the debate as an issue of constitutional law involving more than just an American birthplace. Those who question whether Presidential eligibility could be affected by dual citizenship or doubt the certificate's authenticity will still find themselves subjected to the floggings.
Others may view the issue in more vague terms and base their poll responses on the president's handling of the controversy or a felt alignment with those having vocal birther opinions. The voters who wavered on the issue will likely be swayed into submission when they recognize it's easier (and safer) to stand alongside the popular kids as they humiliate the class nerd in the hallway.
Although birther polls had begun to enlist a growing percentage of Republicans, prominent conservatives openly joined the bashing. As George Stephanopoulos observed, it was the first time he saw himself, Karl Rove, and a smiling Obama agree on something: the birther controversy hurt the GOP.
A couple of weeks later, however, it seemed Obama found that the pain of his own sinking popularity was not relieved by a weakened GOP, and he officially released the certificate.
The certificate's format, however, has generated more questions than it has answered. The Alinksy-schooled Obama machine seems to have crafted the release to further encourage rifts within the Republican ranks, as American Thinker's Thomas Lifson observed:
Conservatives such as Breitbart want to bury birtherism so we can focus on "winning issues." Mark Steyn doesn't want to see Obama fail because of "rinky-dink technicalities" of eligibility, but rather, the failure of his ideology. Mark Levin worked to insure that the technicality of lying under oath earned Bill Clinton an impeachment, but now Levin, an expert on the Constitution, loudly refuses to address questions of presidential eligibility. Ann Coulter, who objects to the "birthright citizenship" practice, avoided all discussion on the very related issue of natural born citizenship and slammed half her party. Glenn Beck, who challenged viewers to "question with boldness" and ask, "does [the Constitution] matter," never acknowledged "birther" questions and instead insulted those who did.
We even have some in academia who once published papers that would have challenged Obama's eligibility due to his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, academics who later with no explanation other than "a matter of inclusion" revised their opinion.
"Birtherism" began with frustration about the president's lack of transparency. It festered with biased media reporting. It grew with disappointment in elected officials who failed to recognize that serious constitutional questions involved more than just the certificate. It burned with frustration with the courts — not one case was heard on the merits, rather dismissed because of citizens' lack of "standing."
As WorldNetDaily's Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah notes: "The central debate over eligibility remains. The key question has never been where [Obama] was born. The key question has always been whether he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president." Recent polls, even ones that ask the wrong question, suggest that birtherism continues to eat away at the trust in both this administration and the GOP establishment.
It is this division within the Republican Party that Breitbart should be worried about, because he and other prominent conservative voices assisted with the crowbars by standing by and allowing the media to accuse those with eligibility doubts of stupidity or racism.
Rather than jumping on the birther-bashing bandwagon, conservative politicians and pundits should stop and note, as Tea Partiers have, that the bad apples falling from Obama's ideological tree come from the rejection of the very document that is actually the source of his power. Whether Obama is qualified under the Constitution to hold his office in the first place seems more pressing, at least in the symbolic sense, than just a minor technicality. As the GOP establishment argues amongst itself, looking for solid agreement on all the "winning issues" and a candidate without a personality who can articulate them, Obama encourages the elites to hurl the apples at the ranks, while his machine quietly goes about the business of subverting the law he's sworn to uphold and defend.
Of course "winning issues" are important in an election. It's just that when that 3 a.m. call comes, at that moment, nothing matters except the character of the person answering. Authorship questions of one of Obama's major credentials, concern over his transparency, associations, inexperience and divisiveness, combined with this 3-year birth certificate stunt doesn't make us rest any easier.
Technicalities, although they may seem pea-sized to those who would rather debate big ideas, still leave bruises on those who care about the Constitution, and its defense keeps many awake at night.
Morale is not improving. And the beatings continue.
© Cindy Simpson
May 19, 2011
Obama finally produced a long-form birth certificate, and as predicted, the media is using a rolled-up copy "to further beat the sizeable percentage of the population with [eligibility] doubts into either embarrassed or apologetic submission." The most popular birther-bashing method: charges of racism.
As the saying goes: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Substitute "morale" with presidential approval ratings, and you get the picture.
Many have suggested that Obama released the certificate to strengthen his sagging poll numbers. "Birthers," however, do not seem placated by the certificate, especially as it was offered with name-calling, not an ounce of humility, nor an appearance of patriotic servitude. The beatings, from the mainstream media and pundits both left and right, will likely continue.
Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart, in his quest to save the world, worried that this "birther thing" "divides the country," but failed to acknowledge that birther polls have fallen consistently and solidly along party lines. If saving the country involves the election of a Republican president in 2012, the effect of the birther issue on Independent voter opinion should be considered. And more importantly, it must be determined whether the "birtherism" divide revealed within the GOP by these polls is a temporary rift or the symptom of a more serious condition.
Some so-called birthers simply wanted Obama to release the certificate. The majority, however, have diligently attempted to present the debate as an issue of constitutional law involving more than just an American birthplace. Those who question whether Presidential eligibility could be affected by dual citizenship or doubt the certificate's authenticity will still find themselves subjected to the floggings.
Others may view the issue in more vague terms and base their poll responses on the president's handling of the controversy or a felt alignment with those having vocal birther opinions. The voters who wavered on the issue will likely be swayed into submission when they recognize it's easier (and safer) to stand alongside the popular kids as they humiliate the class nerd in the hallway.
Although birther polls had begun to enlist a growing percentage of Republicans, prominent conservatives openly joined the bashing. As George Stephanopoulos observed, it was the first time he saw himself, Karl Rove, and a smiling Obama agree on something: the birther controversy hurt the GOP.
A couple of weeks later, however, it seemed Obama found that the pain of his own sinking popularity was not relieved by a weakened GOP, and he officially released the certificate.
The certificate's format, however, has generated more questions than it has answered. The Alinksy-schooled Obama machine seems to have crafted the release to further encourage rifts within the Republican ranks, as American Thinker's Thomas Lifson observed:
-
...[T]he "respectable" conservatives are appalled at those who insist on the trust but verify approach to the [birth certificate]. The conservatives are thereby fractured, with the establishment wing embarrassed by and angry at the grassroots wing that continues to question the provenance of the document released by the White House.
Conservatives such as Breitbart want to bury birtherism so we can focus on "winning issues." Mark Steyn doesn't want to see Obama fail because of "rinky-dink technicalities" of eligibility, but rather, the failure of his ideology. Mark Levin worked to insure that the technicality of lying under oath earned Bill Clinton an impeachment, but now Levin, an expert on the Constitution, loudly refuses to address questions of presidential eligibility. Ann Coulter, who objects to the "birthright citizenship" practice, avoided all discussion on the very related issue of natural born citizenship and slammed half her party. Glenn Beck, who challenged viewers to "question with boldness" and ask, "does [the Constitution] matter," never acknowledged "birther" questions and instead insulted those who did.
We even have some in academia who once published papers that would have challenged Obama's eligibility due to his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, academics who later with no explanation other than "a matter of inclusion" revised their opinion.
"Birtherism" began with frustration about the president's lack of transparency. It festered with biased media reporting. It grew with disappointment in elected officials who failed to recognize that serious constitutional questions involved more than just the certificate. It burned with frustration with the courts — not one case was heard on the merits, rather dismissed because of citizens' lack of "standing."
As WorldNetDaily's Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah notes: "The central debate over eligibility remains. The key question has never been where [Obama] was born. The key question has always been whether he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president." Recent polls, even ones that ask the wrong question, suggest that birtherism continues to eat away at the trust in both this administration and the GOP establishment.
It is this division within the Republican Party that Breitbart should be worried about, because he and other prominent conservative voices assisted with the crowbars by standing by and allowing the media to accuse those with eligibility doubts of stupidity or racism.
Rather than jumping on the birther-bashing bandwagon, conservative politicians and pundits should stop and note, as Tea Partiers have, that the bad apples falling from Obama's ideological tree come from the rejection of the very document that is actually the source of his power. Whether Obama is qualified under the Constitution to hold his office in the first place seems more pressing, at least in the symbolic sense, than just a minor technicality. As the GOP establishment argues amongst itself, looking for solid agreement on all the "winning issues" and a candidate without a personality who can articulate them, Obama encourages the elites to hurl the apples at the ranks, while his machine quietly goes about the business of subverting the law he's sworn to uphold and defend.
Of course "winning issues" are important in an election. It's just that when that 3 a.m. call comes, at that moment, nothing matters except the character of the person answering. Authorship questions of one of Obama's major credentials, concern over his transparency, associations, inexperience and divisiveness, combined with this 3-year birth certificate stunt doesn't make us rest any easier.
Technicalities, although they may seem pea-sized to those who would rather debate big ideas, still leave bruises on those who care about the Constitution, and its defense keeps many awake at night.
Morale is not improving. And the beatings continue.
© Cindy Simpson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
