The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This seems to me to be a great chance for us all to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and admit that both Birthers and Truthers are fucking crazy.

It is kind of odd that the debate is whether there's more birthers or truthers, when there's no birthers or truthers here.

It's just something about the Democrats' superority complex that annoys me. Maybe it's because I'm closer to them than Republicans in demographics and some views. So goofy Republicans are just goofy. Goofy liberals should know better, and then are thus somehow worse.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Everyone has to think their side is better than the other side.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It is kind of odd that the debate is whether there's more birthers or truthers, when there's no birthers or truthers here.

It's just something about the Democrats' superority complex that annoys me. Maybe it's because I'm closer to them than Republicans in demographics and some views. So goofy Republicans are just goofy. Goofy liberals should know better, and then are thus somehow worse.

Here is the primary difference in my mind. Both sides have a lot of fucking loons. Birthers, truthers, nazis, anarchists, etc. I think the difference though is that the Republican Party in this era has given some of those loons more credibility over the last few years.

We've seen many top Republican politicians give the birther movement legs. The top voices in the party have been pushing the argument as well. While the truthers was always a retarded movement pushed on crappy blogs and forums, the birther movement seems much more mainstream.

It used to be the other way around with the parties. Can you imagine the party giving any credibility to the birther movement in Reagan's days? He would have shut that shit down fast.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the difference though is that the Republican Party in this era has given some of those loons more credibility over the last few years.

Exhibit B, Cindy Sheehan.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Exhibit B, Cindy Sheehan.

You really think she's mainstream Democrat once she went crazy? I mean she ran against Nancy Pelosi for her House seat.

[JPhillips]

I think the big difference is the number of sponsors for the so-called Birther bill as well as the number of reps and Senators that have publicly stated they think the birthers have a point. I'm not as interested in the number of birthers as I am the effect of those birthers on elected officials.

[albionmoonlight]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are lots of problems with the Democrats.

I STILL DON'T GET WHY THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO FIX THEIR PARTY.

Birthers are stupid and wrong. Birthers are bad for this country. Birthers keep people with the ability to apply logic to facts and reach conclusions from taking the GOP seriously.

So, even assuming that there are lots of Truthers and Michael Moore worshipers on the Democratic side, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? Why wouldn't the GOP still want to get its own house in order for the good of the party?

It's like a team with a horrible defensive line refusing to improve it "because the other team has a horrible WR core." It makes no sense.

If you want to win arguments on FOFC, then spend your time attacking Democrats. OK. You win the great FOFC debates of 2009. Our grandkids are still going to live under socialized medicine because FOFC isn't part of the electoral college.

If you want to win elections and actually let your ideas become law, then spend your time attacking the assholes and nutjobs in your party and getting confidence in your brand back.

Tell the Birthers to shut-the-fuck-up. Demand that your elected officials put out a comprehensive health care plan so we can all get behind it instead of just falling into the "party of NO" stereotype.

I'm a liberal, and even I'm getting a bit tired of what the Dems are doing and what they are failing to do. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO GO TO. Unless I want to rant along with Sarah about the Media, or Glenn about Obama's racism, or the Birthers about how far up my own ass my head can go, I see no place for me at the GOP table.

Why, I guess this all comes down to, don't you want my vote?

[albionmoonlight]

Dola:

Like, why won't a smart guy with some clout--thinking here of maybe Newt--just flatly say that the Birthers are wrong, that they are bad for Democracy, and that he sees no place for them when the country has so many real problems to confront.

Start leading the country instead of following the rump.

[larrymcg421]

I think there's probably some fear of running into a Gingrey/Steele vs. Limbaugh situation where they'd be forced to apologize later.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think there's probably some fear of running into a Gingrey/Steele vs. Limbaugh situation where they'd be forced to apologize later.

Well, maybe that needs to happen. A guy with nothing could not stand up to Rush. But Gingrich? Its not like he lacks conservative bona fides.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So, even assuming that there are lots of Truthers and Michael Moore worshipers on the Democratic side, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? Why wouldn't the GOP still want to get its own house in order for the good of the party?

It's like a team with a horrible defensive line refusing to improve it "because the other team has a horrible WR core." It makes no sense.

I don't think there's any Republicans that use that as justifications. The reason Republicans don't speak out more against the extreme is not because that Democrats don't. It's the same reasons that Democrats don't speak out against their fringes - they need the votes and money.

The comparison with Democrats come more, I think, from people in the middle seeing the Democrats bitch about the other party while ignoring their own failings. Why don't they speak out on Michael Moore? That fringe is why I don't want to associate with Democrats or vote for them. (Same with Republicans). Both parties have pretty horrible associations in my mind.

[larrymcg421]

Seriously molson, do you have anything else to say? It seems like 90% of your posts in political threads are about how "oh, but the Democrats did that too", "you liberals were criticizing Bush/Palin/xxxx for doing the same thing", "where were you guys when Bush....".

Let's just assume that you will post that in response to every comment made by a liberal, so you won't have to waste your time actually typing it out anymore. Hopefully, the time saved will allow you to actually provide some original thought on the point being made.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Seriously molson, do you have anything else to say? It seems like 90% of your posts in political threads are about how "oh, but the Democrats did that too", "you liberals were criticizing Bush/Palin/xxxx for doing the same thing", "where were you guys when Bush....".

Let's just assume that you will post that in response to every comment made by a liberal, so you won't have to waste your time actually typing it out anymore. Hopefully, the time saved will allow you to actually provide some original thought on the point being made.

90% of my posts? Can you back that up?

Otherwise, shut up. I've just skimmed over your incredible recent contributions to FOFC. What do you think you bring to the table that's so great?

I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into the liberal ballwashing at FOFC. If you start a "larrymch42's opinions only" thread, I promise to stay out of it. I assumed this thread was open to anyone

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Well, maybe that needs to happen. A guy with nothing could not stand up to Rush. But Gingrich? Its not like he lacks conservative bona fides.

Eh, Gingrich (who still has his solid moments IMO) has enough problems that his bona fides aren't strong enough to overcome a whole lot.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think there's any Republicans that use that as justifications. The reason Republicans don't speak out more against the extreme is not because that Democrats don't. It's the same reasons that Democrats don't speak out against their fringes - they need the votes and money.

The comparison with Democrats come more, I think, from people in the middle seeing the Democrats bitch about the other party while ignoring their own failings. Why don't they speak out on Michael Moore? That fringe is why I don't want to associate with Democrats or vote for them. (Same with Republicans). Both parties have pretty horrible associations in my mind.

Again, the difference is elected officials. I don't know if the number of crazies is equal and I don't much care. All I'm worried about is the effect of the fringe on those in office. What worries me about the recent incarnation of the GOP is that the crazies have way too much influence over the decision makers. Some of that's the natural tendency of a smaller party, but the crazies are also encouraged at every level of GOP politics.

The truthers/birthers comparison actually makes that point fairly well. Democratic politicians weren't running out to validate the truthers, but GOP politicians are doing just that.

I'm not going to ever be apart of the GOP, but I do think a strong, rational opposition party is important in a two party system like ours. I'd love to see rational arguments and counter proposals that would moderate the party in power, but the GOP elected officials are spending too much time placating the birthers and tea party whackos.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The truthers/birthers comparison actually makes that point fairly well. Democratic politicians weren't running out to validate the truthers, but GOP politicians are doing just that.

Who's the most prominent republican office-holder that has claimed that Obama is not an citizen? I'm not disputing that any of them have, I just haven't heard it about it at that level.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Who's the most prominent republican office-holder that has claimed that Obama is not an citizen? I'm not disputing that any of them have, I just haven't heard it about it at that level.

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, apparently a bill was drawn up in the House requiring a birth certificate be produced as part of Presidential paperwork and co-sponsored by 10 GOP Representatives while Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said he would support it, if it got there (which it won't).

I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that was to support this nonsense.

Tho, yes, they didn't openly claim he was not a citizen.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equivalence?

[JPhillips]

Sen. Inhofe:

"They have a point," he said of the birthers. "I don't discourage it.

Sen. Blunt:

And I think that's a legitimate question. No health records, no birth certificate.

There are at least 11 House GOP cosponsors to the so-called Birther Bill that would require a candidate to show a birth certificate.

There are also Dem birthers, as the craze may have started with the PUMAs, but no Dem politician that I have seen has endorsed those views.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, apparently a bill was drawn up in the House requiring a birth certificate be produced as part of Presidential paperwork and co-sponsored by 10 GOP Representatives while Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said he would support it, if it got there (which it won't).

I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that was to support this nonsense.

Tho, yes, they didn't openly claim he was not a citizen.

SI

I think Obama's a citizen, but I would support that bill. Why shouldn't Obama be required to produce his birth certificate? Why shouldn't every presidential candidate? That seems like a no-brainer.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, apparently a bill was drawn up in the House requiring a birth certificate be produced as part of Presidential paperwork and co-sponsored by 10 GOP Representatives while Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said he would support it, if it got there (which it won't).

I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that was to support this nonsense.

Tho, yes, they didn't openly claim he was not a citizen.

SI

Yeah, they've all left themselves an out by saying it's really just to make sure rumors like this don't start again. Coburn openly stated that Obama is eligible to be President.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are lots of problems with the Democrats.

I STILL DON'T GET WHY THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO FIX THEIR PARTY.

Birthers are stupid and wrong. Birthers are bad for this country. Birthers keep people with the ability to apply logic to facts and reach conclusions from taking the GOP seriously.

So, even assuming that there are lots of Truthers and Michael Moore worshipers on the Democratic side, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? Why wouldn't the GOP still want to get its own house in order for the good of the party?

It's like a team with a horrible defensive line refusing to improve it "because the other team has a horrible WR core." It makes no sense.

If you want to win arguments on FOFC, then spend your time attacking Democrats. OK. You win the great FOFC debates of 2009. Our grandkids are still going to live under socialized medicine because FOFC isn't part of the electoral college.

If you want to win elections and actually let your ideas become law, then spend your time attacking the assholes and nutjobs in your party and getting confidence in your brand back.

Tell the Birthers to shut-the-fuck-up. Demand that your elected officials put out a comprehensive health care plan so we can all get behind it instead of just falling into the "party of NO" stereotype.

I'm a liberal, and even I'm getting a bit tired of what the Dems are doing and what they are failing to do. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO GO TO. Unless I want to rant along with Sarah about the Media, or Glenn about Obama's racism, or the Birthers about how far up my own ass my head can go, I see no place for me at the GOP table.

Why, I guess this all comes down to, don't you want my vote?

The defensive line needs to improve, no doubt. My big argument is always that we constantly hear about how bad the defensive line is but we never hear about the lack of WR's. Why does ESPN care so much about my defensive line and not your WR weakness? The best analogy from here then is gamblers then are betting on the team with no problems. When that teams fucks up and can't score, everybody feels duped. ESPN should be reporting both teams weaknesses so we have all the facts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Movement to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equivalence?

No, because impeachment has just become an extreme form of political speech. There are plenty of calls to impeach Obama that I wouldn't classify as crazy. Certainly for some of the birthers this is just another form of extreme political posturing, but when you see videos it seems that there are plenty of people that believe the certificate of live birth, the newspaper notifications, etc. are all faked. The way Congressmen are playing to that crowd is disturbing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I think Obama's a citizen, but I would support that bill. Why shouldn't Obama be required to produce his birth certificate? Why shouldn't every presidential candidate? That seems like a no-brainer.

Largely because the birth certificate doesn't solve anything. Would Obama still be a natural born citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother? What about a child born in Europe during a vacation? Congress said McCain was, but that's never been clearly established either. Natural born has never been clearly defined so using a birth certificate as the sole means of proof is very problematic. It's actually a very thorny question that could likely only be settled at the Supreme Court level.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sen. Inhofe:


Sen. Blunt:



There are at least 11 House GOP cosponsors to the so-called Birther Bill that would require a candidate to show a birth certificate.

There are also Dem birthers, as the craze may have started with the PUMAs, but no Dem politician that I have seen has endorsed those views.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: Asked about the president's eligibility at an Alabama town hall meeting back in February, Shelby said, "Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Dola:

Like, why won't a smart guy with some clout--thinking here of maybe Newt--just flatly say that the Birthers are wrong, that they are bad for Democracy, and that he sees no place for them when the country has so many real problems to confront.

Start leading the country instead of following the rump.

Because the birthers are still a strong part of the base. National Review came out the other day and said that birthers were bad for the party and to get over it. They were torn apart and had tons of people threaten to cancel subscriptions. A couple days later they had to put this out to calm things down.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...DMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

I'm a small government guy who would love to see our country gain some fiscal restraints. But the Republican Party is fucked man. Check out a Sarah Palin rally or read some of their sites like Free Republic. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and there is no one in the party at this time who is strong enough to lock them back up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Largely because the birth certificate doesn't solve anything. Would Obama still be a natural born citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother? What about a child born in Europe during a vacation? Congress said McCain was, but that's never been clearly established either. Natural born has never been clearly defined so using a birth certificate as the sole means of proof is very problematic. It's actually a very thorny question that could likely only be settled at the Supreme Court level.

There's definitely grey areas with citizenship. The existence of grey areas, though, doesn't seem like an adequate justification to say, "no, you can't have my birth certificate".

Some would still challege the citizenship even if the original certificate was produced by Hawaii, no doubt. That doesn't seem like a justification either.

It's like if Bush had phone records the morning of 9/11 between himself and unidentified contacts in Saudi Arabia. The recordings exist, but Bush said, "no, you can't have them, it wouldn't solve anything anyway, and you people will still think I'm involved no matter what"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

There's definitely grey areas with citizenship. The existence of grey areas, though, doesn't seem like an adequate justification to say, "no, you can't have my birth certificate".

Some would still challege the citizenship even if the original certificate was produced by Hawaii, no doubt. That doesn't seem like a justification either.

It's like if Bush had phone records the morning of 9/11 between himself and unidentified contacts in Saudi Arabia. The recordings exist, but Bush said, "no, you can't have them, it wouldn't solve anything anyway, and you people will still think I'm involved no matter what"

You can see the certificate of live birth here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

You can read the Snopes page here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

There's nothing being hidden.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

There's definitely grey areas with citizenship. The existence of grey areas, though, doesn't seem like an adequate justification to say, "no, you can't have my birth certificate".

Which he hasn't done. He released the copy given to him by the Hawaiian officals.

Some would still challege the citizenship even if the original certificate was produced by Hawaii, no doubt. That doesn't seem like a justification either.

Which the Birthers still are. The Hawaiian governor (a Republican) and the head of the department that issues birth certificates have verified and validated his birth record.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

There's definitely grey areas with citizenship. The existence of grey areas, though, doesn't seem like an adequate justification to say, "no, you can't have my birth certificate".

Hasn't he posted his official birth certificate and even given it to the media? Hasn't the State of Hawaii come out and confirmed his birth certificate is legal and that he was born in their state?

I just don't get what the argument is about. I keep hearing about a birth certificate and from what I've seen it's out there and it's been confirmed as legit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can see the certificate of live birth here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

You can read the Snopes page here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

There's nothing being hidden.

Right, but from what I read on the wiki site, that's not the original but the "short-form". And Hawaii claims that they would release the original to Obama or his representives if they ask, yet we haven't seen that one.

I don't think he's hiding lack of citizenship, since Hawaii has confirmed that that birth certificate exists, but I wonder if he's hiding an even more Muslim-sounding name, etc.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, but from what I read on the wiki site, that's not the original but the "short-form". And Hawaii claims that they would release the original to Obama or his representives if they ask, yet we haven't seen that one.

I don't think he's hiding lack of citizenship, since Hawaii has confirmed that that birth certificate exists, but I wonder if he's hiding an even more Muslim-sounding name, etc.

Careful Alice, you're starting to go down the rabbit hole. From Politifact:

All that proved, the birthers concluded, was that there is, in fact, an original birth certificate, and that the public hasn't seen it. The new argument goes like this: Obama never published his "Birth Certificate" (a "Certificate of Live Birth") on the Internet; what he posted was a "Certification of Live Birth," what WorldNetDaily describes as "a 'short-form' document that is generated on-the-spot and based on what is contained in a computer database at the time it was printed out."

Some on the Internet speculate that the original "long form" — which might include the hospital where he was born as well as the attending physician — might show Obama was foreign-born and ineligible to be president, but that that wouldn't show up on the "short form."

Moreover, WorldNetDaily claims even the state of Hawaii doesn't accept "Certification of Live Birth" as proof that an individual was physically born in Hawaii.

They point to a policy from the Hawaii Department of Home Lands, which stated on its Web site:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

That's actually a misnomer, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a spokesman for DHLL. In order to be eligible for their program, you must prove that your ancestry is at least 50 percent native Hawaiian. And when he says native, he means indigenous. They don't even care if you were born in Hawaii. They use birth certificates as a starting point to look into a person's ancestry. Very different.

Here's what the DHLL site says now: "The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."

When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called "long" and "short" forms.

"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."

"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.

[RainMaker]

All the dumbfuck conspiracy theories go the same route. Make a claim, get debunked, make another claim, get debunked, etc.

First he had no birth certificate, so he posts it. Then it's a fake certificate, so Hawaii verifies it's real. Now it's that there is a secret alternative birth certificate that claims he's a Muslim or something. If somehow they provided every document they want, it would just turn into Hawaii covering for him. No way you can win with conpiracy theorists on any issue whether it's this, moon landings, 9/11, etc.

[Dutch]

Actually, I'd be quite satisfied with the original (long) birth certificate. If that was provided, I would not claim Hawaii was covering for him.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Actually, I'd be quite satisfied with the original (long) birth certificate. If that was provided, I would not claim Hawaii was covering for him.

So you think Hawaii is covering for him?

[molson]

The point was that the birther thing was far more mainstream than the truthers, and I don't buy that. I've heard a lot more about truthers than birthers, personally.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

The point was that the birther thing was far more mainstream than the truthers, and I don't buy that. I've heard a lot more about truthers than birthers, personally.

No, my point is that the birthers have more influence on elected officials.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

So you think Hawaii is covering for him?

Hawaii could be innocent here. Obama may have used the campaign funds to build a time machine and find a way to go back, sneak into the hospital on the day of his birth, and throw in a forged birth certificate with his info. I would say he could just have told his Mother he was Barack from the future and she needs to deliver him in Hawaii (not Kenya), but that may have sparked off a butterfly effect of sorts that when he transported back to present time he wouldn't be President.

[duckman]

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The point was that the birther thing was far more mainstream than the truthers, and I don't buy that. I've heard a lot more about truthers than birthers, personally.

I don't know the numbers of birthers vs truthers. I know there are a lot of both. The issue is that you have leaders in the Republican Party giving the story credibility. Multiple Senators, bunch of representatives, and virtually all the talk show hosts that these politicians hold in high regard (and must apologize to if they disagree with).

It's akin to seeing Joe Biden and Dick Durbin giving 9/11 conspiracy nuts credibility.

[molson]

Didn't we used to have a truther here? Where'd he go?

I liked how uncomfortable he made the regular liberals.

[Flasch186]

I think the birther crowd is making enough of an ass of themselves that the snopes stuff shows how asinine they are, if that was a reference to me, so IOW posting of the Snopes bit is enough for me coupled with the quotes from the people from, you know, the state and the dept. that handles it. I also admit that it doesnt matter....the people upset about losing will continue to drum up conspiracy theories. I didnt believe Bush planned 9/11 and I dont think Obama is ineligible and I think people who find themselves in either camp are showing their asses. Ive also gotten insanely busy training new hires and selling a boatload of new homes {shrug}.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, my point is that the birthers have more influence on elected officials.

That just seems like an attempt to lump them together. Most Republicans aren't birthers (and I'm not sure we can count someone who wants to see a birth certificate as a "birther"), so instead they can be criticized because "they don't speak out against them enough", or "they have influence in the party."

Who exactly are you criticizing? Birthers (fair enough, nobody disagrees), or Republicans because birthers are in the party? It sounds like Republicans are criticized as being the party of the whackos, which seems just a tad arrogant considering the beliefs of some that make up the Democrat ranks.

I have some Republican opinions on things, but I assure you I'm in no way influenced by birthers.

[JPhillips]

I'm saying that too many GOP elected officials pander to the crazies in the party and hence the party has very little to offer in terms of ideas outside of conspiracy theories and over the top lies about legislation. That critique doesn't apply to all Republicans as I think many are frustrated and/or embarrassed by what the party has become. What's the last constructive policy solution the elected GOP has offered? Instead we get Schiavo, birthers, euthanasia, Marxism, czars, etc.

Some of this is natural as the party has shrunk a great deal, and has too large of a base in one location(less than half of Southern respondents thought Obama was born in the U.S.), but a lot of this is a fear of or refusal to distance the elected officials from the crazies. Until the heat is applied to GOP elected officials to stop placating the crazies, the crazies will have a disproportionate influence in the party.

[Greyroofoo]

I really think it's smart on Obama's part to not release his original birth certificate. It just makes the republicans look like nut jobs with no policy to stand on.

As for myself, Obama has presented all the legal documents regarding his birth that he's required to do. These documents were upheld by the Supreme Court. Case closed.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Until the heat is applied to GOP elected officials to stop placating the crazies, the crazies will have a disproportionate influence in the party.

And that's where I think that the GOP moderates and intellectuals are falling down. They are not putting that pressure on.

[molson]

What are they supposed to do? It's not like this birthers thing is all over the papers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And that's where I think that the GOP moderates and intellectuals are falling down. They are not putting that pressure on.

I think they try but get blown up by the rest of the party. I mean Steele came out after taking over the GOP and made some comments about opening up the party more and so forth. He got crushed for it. Run a search on any right-leaning site for Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and even at one time Arlen Specter. If you don't agree on every issue, you're a RINO.

Take Illinois for example. We'll have a Senate seat open in 2010. Mark Kirk will run for the Republicans and would be a great Senator. He's a smart guy, experienced, and not fucking crazy. He's not uber-conservative, but that's fine since you can't win in this state if you are. But the Republicans have shit on him for years. Run a search for Mark Kirk traitor and it's a who's who of Republican sites calling him every name in the book.

This is a party that will probably be down to 36 or 37 Senate seats come November 2010.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What are they supposed to do? It's not like this birthers thing is all over the papers.

It is in every paper though. It's made it's way through all the cable news networks and is a major story online and on the radio.

As for what they are supposed to do. Say it's stupid, it's ridiculous and that people should move on. Treat them the same way we treat other conspiracy lunatics. You don't have top Senators in your party giving it legitimacy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think they try but get blown up by the rest of the party. I mean Steele came out after taking over the GOP and made some comments about opening up the party more and so forth. He got crushed for it. Run a search on any right-leaning site for Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and even at one time Arlen Specter. If you don't agree on every issue, you're a RINO.

Take Illinois for example. We'll have a Senate seat open in 2010. Mark Kirk will run for the Republicans and would be a great Senator. He's a smart guy, experienced, and not fucking crazy. He's not uber-conservative, but that's fine since you can't win in this state if you are. But the Republicans have shit on him for years. Run a search for Mark Kirk traitor and it's a who's who of Republican sites calling him every name in the book.

This is a party that will probably be down to 36 or 37 Senate seats come November 2010.

Exactly right. There are plenty of Republican moderates, but they get attacked left and right. There are a number of Republican moderates in the punditocracy, but see what the Rush's of the world are saying about David Brooks or Ross Douthat (to name the two NY Times Op-Ed writers) or Reihan Salam or, even, Megan McCain.