Anderson Cooper Demolishes Texas State Rep's Birther Claims

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Range Rover, Dec 2, 2010.

  1. Now all Cooper needs to do is to take on the Truthers but that won't further the agenda...

    Birthers? Why didn't the Truthers get all this attention?
    By: David Freddoso 07/30/09 11:00 PM

    Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are "not sure," according to this poll.

    But before liberals begin to smirk, here's a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.

    So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It's a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they're out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier -- which is probably within the margin of error.

    I bring this up because I did a short mid-afternoon segment today on MSNBC with Tamryn Hall and Donnie Deutsch, in which I was asked about the Birther poll. I brought up the Truther poll and wondered aloud whether MSNBC had ever brought as much attention to the Truthers.

    The Birthers are getting an awful lot of coverage right now, and that's great news for a White House desperate for distractions. President Obama is losing the public opinion battle over health care and putting his foot in his mouth over Henry Gates. His only major legislative accomplishment so far -- the stimulus package -- is widely perceived as a costly and ineffective boondoggle.

    I was also asked about a video shot by the thoroughly disreputable Mike Stark, whose selective editing and misidentification of members of Congress contributes to the appearance, at least, that a significant number of Republican members of Congress are "Birthers" -- or at least that they won't say they're not Birthers. Stark, you may recall, is the man who made a scene during a 2006 Senate race by shouting repeatedly while cameras were rolling in order to start an unsubstantiated rumor that then-Sen. George Allen, R-Va., spat on his first wife.

    Tamryn then asked a good question: Back in the Bush Era, did any Democratic members of Congress avoid questions about whether "Bush Knew?" On the spot, I couldn't remember. But the truth is, they didn't just avoid the question -- they stoked the flames of conspiracy theories and in some cases embraced them.

    A few names: Hillary Clinton (the famous Bush Knew" speech of May 16, 2002), Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, Ga.). When I covered Congress for Human Events, I asked Rep. William Lacy Clay, D,Mo., about McKinney's suggestion that Bush might have withheld knowledge of the attack. His reply: "I'm curious as to whether it will reveal what Congresswoman McKinney has stated. I'm interested. I'm interested in an investigation."
     
    #11     Dec 3, 2010
  2. So we can't afford the cost of ensuring that a presidential candidate is actually qualified to be president? Maybe we can take the money that is needed from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    The question remains: if these questions about Obama are so absurd on their face, why the frenzied attacks on proposals to require candidates to prove they meet the qualifications?
     
    #12     Dec 3, 2010
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    We can afford to spend reasonably. And we've said that "reasonable" is when the guys in charge of maintaining state records attest that those records are legit. But you keep going, have right at it. As I pointed out before, you could start challenging the seal that was impressed, the security of the vault doors, the poliitical motives of the clerks in the office, ad nauseum.

    Edit: oh, and if they are "frenzied", it would be because of the birther's (and other conspiracy fruitcakes') deconstruction of Order and good faith. Wtf are these people, anarchists?
     
    #13     Dec 3, 2010
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Apparently there are those afraid of the potentially embarrassing results of such requirements.
     
    #14     Dec 3, 2010
  5. bighorn

    bighorn

    What seems to be missed or ignored by both sides of the argument, is someone can be born on US soil and still not be eligible to hold POTUS from a technically legal standpoint on several counts. This issue keeps coming up because there is no clear cut definition or precident to distinguish the legal difference between a natural born and a naturalized citizen as it pertains to eligibility for POTUS. Furthermore, place of birth is not the only requirement to be met; allegience to the US being another.

    People are acquitted or convicted everyday in the US on legal technicallities, and the outcome usually has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence, but rather the letter of the law. Technically, from a purely legal standpoint, in my opinion Obama probably doesn't meet the requirements given the information available. Regardless, those on the left will continue to hide from the issue by trying to marginalize anyone who brings up the issue rather than address it head on as shown in the interview. Those on the right tip toe around the issue due to the race factor involved. As for the poll regarding whether or not Obama was born in the US or not, if the question had been worded in the form of describing the letter and intent of the law as written regarding eligibility, and then whether or not Obama is eligible per the letter of the law, the results would be no doubt very different.

    As for who won the debate, I would say neither, as they each relied on talking points taken from their own camps rather than arguing the issue head on from a legal aspect. Those seeing a winner are merely mirroring their own beliefs based on ideology and not law.

    Key points in the debate;

    1. Using Bush as an argument is flawed in the fact there there was never any question as to who Bushes parents are, his birthplace, religous beliefs, or family history. Furthermore, Bush's school records were never relevent to prove or disprove legal citizenship at anytime during his life.

    2. The fact Obama traveled to Pakistan is irrelevent; which country issued the passport he used to enter the country is quite relevent considering his parental history and childhood residencies and the eligibility question of concern.

    3. Quoting an anomynous blogger was idiotic, countering with hearsay evidence was moronic.

    4. A certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth are not one and the same. Although both may or may not be acceptable for obtaining a passport, the legal issue is whether or not it is acceptable to meet the eligibility requirements of POTUS.

    5. There is no known documented evidence that Obama ever held a US passport before being issued one upon joining the Senate, yet neither side brought this up in the debate. Therefore, the debate was nothing more than protecting ideology than good journalism or seeking truth.

    In summary, those who push the birth issue are being distracted from the real necessary work; those who dismiss the birth issue are being distracted from the real necessary work. Both sides are feeding the frenzie and ignoring the legalities. In the end, the courts will continue to not address eligibility for the "good of the country" which has nothing to do with the legality of the issue. This alone should be the issue being debated, as it asks why Americans have become such cowards as to allow the court system to be used as political pawns who now decide elections and deny US citizens standing to question a persons eligibility for office.
     
    #15     Dec 3, 2010
  6. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    The voice of reason, well done.
     
    #16     Dec 3, 2010
  7. Yes, I agree.
     
    #17     Dec 3, 2010
  8. You are 100% correct.
    Cooper lost the rest of credibility he had left. He never let the old dude finish the sentence, twisted facts and was very unprofessional imo.
    I have no idea why Obama just doesn't show his birth certificate to shut up every doubter. Seems very simple to me.
     
    #18     Dec 3, 2010
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    It's simpler than you think: try google.
     
    #19     Dec 3, 2010
  10. Lucrum

    Lucrum

     
    #20     Dec 3, 2010