SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
August 23, 2009
Exclusive: Birthers and Aborters
There has been much talk recently about the “birthers,” those supposed right wing “crazies” who refuse to let die the issue of President Barack Obama’s qualification to hold his elected office. These birthers have been relentless in pursuing what they believe is a critical issue to our nation. In turn, they have elicited an equally potent response from Obama and his media architect, David Axelrod.
The truth of the claim itself is beyond the scope to be addressed here. Much has been written in an attempt to support both sides of the argument—that Obama is or is not properly qualified as a natural born citizen and whether he has yet to demonstrate that qualification.
At the heart of the problem lies Obama’s campaign promise that he would be the most transparent of all presidents. Despite this claim, his campaign strategy was to write, early on, his own history in the form of two books (years before he accomplished anything noteworthy to demand such exaltation) so that an acquiescent liberal media would accept his story hook, line, and sinker and never feel the need to probe the veracity of any of the claims. Obama wrote it and who are the media to question it?
In this sense, the birthers truly birthed the first in-depth challenge to Obama’s promise. Interestingly, it is the nature and quality of the response to the birthers, whether they are right or wrong, which raises the intriguing questions.
Initially, the White House responded by posting material on Obama’s website. Spokesman Robert Gibbs then declared that the issue had been settled as Obama’s birth certificate had been posted for the world to see. Additionally, those disagreeing with the birthers point out that one or more announcements heralding his arrival appeared in local Hawaiian papers shortly after his birthday. That is reasonably claimed as circumstantial evidence too strong for the birthers to overcome, as no conspiracy to hide his real birth could have credibly been launched back then.
Finally, the White House’s rebuttal also seems to avail itself of either common sense or the deep fear on the part of those who might otherwise think there is an issue. If, in fact, Obama is unable to prove that he was a natural born citizen, the country would then face extremely difficult questions: Was the election valid? Who is to decide in the event of less than prima facie evidence? What is the appropriate remedy – a new election, the Vice-President takes over, subject the president to the impeachment process and thus allow Congress to determine the outcome, let the Supreme Court decide, impute or infer some laches or statute of limitations and leave well enough alone, invalidate all policies and executive orders executed under Obama, and so forth? Understanding, either implicitly or explicitly, the can of worms that could be opened, many have rejected the issue in full. There seems to be an almost natural inclination to avoid the subject absent any clear mechanism to resolve it, and Obama’s team seems to be very willing to play on this tendency.
It seemed to most that the issue had been exposed as, in fact, a non-issue. But, the birthers continued their challenge, alleging that the actual birth certificate had not been released. Rather, a certification of live birth is what was disclosed, and they argue that that is not the same as the birth certificate. They asserted a variety of other related arguments as well to conclude that the issue of Obama’s qualification for the presidency is far from settled.
In response, Obama has curiously avoided the task of indisputably disclosing what is necessary to end all discussion. Gibbs simply repeated the declaration that the issue had been resolved and stopped there. It would be very easy for Obama to release the actual birth certificate to the public and allow the New York Times and other compliant media to execute the final coup de grace to the entire challenge. Why does Obama refuse to once and for all put the birthers’ challenge to bed and, instead, employ Saul Alinsky tactics – in essence, abort the rebuttal, distract and attack the questioners and ridicule and humiliate them as “birthers,” “right wing crazies,” and so forth? Why does Obama wind up creating a new group of media warriors who join him in this effort: the “aborters?”
This strategy of aborting the rebuttal and running away typically indicates weakness. As has been pointed out by the birthers, if it is so clear, why does Obama not just permit release of the actual document instead of reportedly spending upwards of $1.3 million to defend legal cases aimed at forcing disclosure? It is easy to see how Obama and Axelrod might tire of the issue and believe it distracts from the “real” and “urgent” concerns of the presidency. Nonetheless, any cost/benefit analysis would dictate a quick release of any documents on file. Qualification for the presidency should, ideally, be easy to prove and one would hope the President feels the need to go the extra mile to demonstrate absolute adherence to the Constitution.
There are, perhaps, three general rationales for the White House reluctance to close the issue by revealing the actual birth certificate on file. The first and most obvious is that the allegation is actually true in at least one of many ways and the problems resulting from any admission would be, simply, too unmanageable. This is what the birthers seem to believe. If it were true, the advice given would have been precisely what appears from the response – drag out the charge, humiliate the attackers, accuse them of being ridiculous, and hope the issue dies of its own accord. In this scenario, Obama and Axelrod and team are liars engaged in quite a grand criminal deception upon the American public. This is clearly too big a proposition for most Americans to accept, at least at this time. Hence, the birther’s lack of traction.
A second explanation for aborting his rebuttal is that Obama, in fact, is intentionally stoking the issue because as long as some birthers make themselves targets for attacks as “crazies,” he and Gibbs can group all of their opposition together as one big Republican Party of “crazies.” This would seem to be good political advice and, assuming there is no real issue underlying the undisclosed birth certificate, is likely the path Obama is taking. It is an old tactic and has the added advantage of holding in reserve the move of finally disclosing the exonerating birth certificate at a more significant time of Obama’s choosing – perhaps when he needs a boost or when he is distrusted on some other issue. He certainly is familiar with playing the victim and much can be obtained by later acting as if he has been so unfairly distrusted that he is compelled to travel that extra mile and actually fully disclose. In doing so he would significantly stifle future challenges on other disclosures. If anyone can sell that, Obama can. That time has yet to come.
The third rationale is more troubling. Obama’s stonewalling certainly suggests he has something to hide. But perhaps it is not the birth certificate at all. Perhaps, instead, he has been hiding other facts and has reached the tactical conclusion that he has no choice but to keep the birth certificate undisclosed. The reasoning is that if he ultimately discloses the birth certificate after being pressured to do so, then, on what basis could he continue to not disclose other records which may, in fact, be more damaging – such as his college and law school records, documents as to how he funded his education and who, if anyone, helped him? What does his passport then and now say? Was he ever a citizen elsewhere? Did he travel to Pakistan at times when Americans supposedly were prohibited from doing so and, if so, how? The challenge will always be: “You disclosed the birth certificate, why not this…?” Simply put, the disclosure is feared to invite further disclosure of other, possibly even more sensitive, information.
If this is at all possible, it gives a different and more serious relevance to the aborters. The aborters, in this case, are not merely lying and playing obstinate when they insist that the birth certificate is a non-issue and that only nutcases refuse to accept that fact. Nor are they playing a “rope-a-dope” game with a plethora of dopes. Rather, the aborters are doing the only thing they can do to protect against the possibility that one day Obama will face real pressure to disclose other information that is perhaps substantively even more injurious to him.
At this point, it is too early to decipher which strategy Obama and Axelrod actually have been employing. Unfortunately, the only way to truly sift out which of these explanations best applies is to have the liberal press begin to demand that the most transparent and accountable presidency actually become transparent and accountable. Only then, will we be able to finally determine whom is right - the birthers or the aborters.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bill Siegel lives in New York.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
