Opinion Forum

Sarah and the “Birthers”

December 6th, 2009

Sarah Palin stepped in — and then out — of the question of “where was Barack Obama born” during an interview on a conservative talk show, The Rusty Humphries Show. What she said was:

“I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting records — all of that is fair game.”

Right away the media and many bloggers jumped on the issue and accused her of being a “birther,” forcing her, later that day, to clarify that, “while she may have said she supports others questioning the president about his citizenship, she herself has not raised such questions.” As far as I know, that’s true — she has never made an issue out of it — and I hope it never sidetracks her.

It’s pretty clear — in Article II, Section 1, the U.S. Constitution specifies that:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The problem (granted, at this stage the issue is all but moot) is that many people feel, among other things, that President Obama has not produced the documentation that proves that he was born in the United States; on the other hand, many people claim that he has proved it conclusively. For anyone who wants to read a good summary of the claims and counterclaims, check out Snopes.com on this issue.

My personal opinion is that if the birthers’ claims are true they will not be provable for many years after Obama has been extracted from the presidency — if indeed they are ever provable. Then there is the “why bother” factor. The Obama White House and the liberal mob headed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in the process of attempting to do terrible damage to the free market in the United States, and if the free market dies, the United States is essentially dead. That is a much, much larger and much more immediate issue than trying to prove that the capo di tutti capi of the aforementioned liberal mob should not be where he is, doing what he is already doing.

As for Sarah Palin, I can’t see where acknowledging that the public has every right to make Obama’s birth circumstances an issue because it’s a fair question will do any damage to her politically as long as she diplomatically handles the next few months of media questions on the issue.

Someday, Sarah Palin will be an excellent President — she’s charismatic, she uses common sense, and she’s a font of rock-solid conservative values. I don’t believe 2012 will be her year, but I have to admit I’d love to see it happen. At any rate, you can be sure that between now and 2012 she will be a dominant force in the Republican party.

(This article was also posted at My View from the Center.)

Articles written by Harvey Grund
Tags: birthers, conservative, liberal, Obama, Palin
Categories: News, Politics | Comments (11) | Home

11 Responses to “Sarah and the “Birthers””

larry | December 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am

Harvey
The place of birth issue resulted from other questions about Obama’s past. I would not be overly shocked if he was born in another country. I would not be shocked to discover that he is a Muslim sympathizer.
No matter what comes to pass, Obama and his crowd have done damage to our economic and security well being that will remain long after his demise. To all our misfortunes, he still has three years to go. We need to be finding ways to stop whats happening. Obama is really not new on the world scene. There have been other bad leaders before him.
Mean while Sara Palin is gaining a solid hold among the voters. Her adversaries have if anything made Palin a hero in the process of trying to destroy her.

Harvey | December 6th, 2009 at 8:50 am

Larry,

Totally agree!

The “Snopes” article mentions several other factors along with the ‘place of birth’ argument. That ‘Muslim’ sympathizer thought has crossed my mind more than once along with the possibility of him being worse than that.

Right now Obama’s opposition is gaining ground, as witnessed by the two elections this year and it looks like 2010 will be qa good start in ‘finding ways to stop him.

Brianna | December 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am

After reading The Audacity of Hope, I am pretty convinced that he was born in Hawaii. After all, he didn’t know he was going to become Pres. when he wrote it, and that’s the only office for which one must be a natural-born citizen as opposed to a naturalized one.

I also don’t think the isse of where he was born is particularly important. Plenty of immigrants have made great citizens of this country. Plenty of natural-born citizens have turned out to be whackjobs. The important thing is whether you accept and respect the fundamental ideas on which this country was built, and I don’t think Obama does that.

Tom | December 6th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

I agree that the “birthers” controversy will never amount to much. The Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released is a completely legal document sufficient to prove place of birth for any purpose. However, don’t expect the nutcases that pursue this to ever quit.

I don’t think Sarah Palin will ever be president. I knew nothing about her when she joined McCain’s ticket, and I instantly liked her, her family, the whole nine yards. But the cracks in the picture emerged pretty quickly, particularly in regard to her knowledge of things she should have been more aware of. She can get better and look more presidential as time goes on, but right now she’s like the inexperienced runner on a first 10K race — you can do that first mile in seven minutes, but the next five are going to kill you, assuming you get that far. She’s out too early, doing too much, taking too many shots. Won’t happen in 2012, and by 2016 even more substantial Republican candidates will have emerged.

Think about it — who would you rather have as a Republican candidate in 2012, Romney, Pawlenty, or Palin? She’s out of her league.

Brian Bagent | December 6th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Tom, I imagine that in 1988, people probably said the same thing about Clinton.

Tom | December 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am

I don’t think so. By 1988, Clinton had been a very visible figure for a long time. He had been governor of Arkansas for six years (and would serve four more), had been attorney general of Arkansas, and had just been chairman of the National Governors Association. He was a Yale Law School graduate, generally recognized as highly intelligent and an accomplished policy wonk. His very visible, feminist wife was also a Yale Law School graduate and an accomplished working lawyer and mother to boot. I remember well that to the public, he was the golden boy with the golden wife. Almost all of this is the opposite of Palin.

Of course, it wouldn’t be until many years later that we’d know he was a hound dog who chased (and often caught) every skirt in sight and that she was a crook involved in shady business deals and padding her law firm billing hours.

I’m not saying that Palin will never be president. Politics is too unpredictable for that kind of certainty. But I doubt it.

Harvey | December 7th, 2009 at 1:12 am

By the end of 2011 Palin might or might not look better as a presidential candidate — anybody got a crystal ball? She already has one advantage over the better known possible candidates, she speaks right to the average American in terms he or she can understand.

Lisa | December 7th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Let’s not forget about Mike Huckabee. He has a varied resume of executive experience and he remains very visible and is on top of all the issues foreign and domestic. After Obama gets done everyone will want a leader with executive experience who will say, “There now, everything will be okay. Here is what we need to do to get back on track.”

Brianna | December 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Harvey – One of the problems with all the corrupt schills floating through DC is that it makes people associate brains with fast-talking and experience with corruption. People then turn to potential leaders who look folksy and average, on the premise that, “Hey, she may not be too bright, but at least she won’t cheat me.”

I’ll be honest with you though, I don’t know how bright Sarah Palin is or not. The media is so tangled up in knots that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s true and what’s just bad press, and I haven’t looked into her very much. But folksy people can get corrupted just as easily as really bright people… more easily, in a way, because they have not hammered out their fundamental principles as well and thus cannot always know when they are crossing a line. Of course, many of the more intelligent people who have gone to the best schools and have boatloads of experience are also the ones who have had it drilled into them hardest and longest that no fundamental principles were necessary, which is even worse than someone who just goes by their gut but is at least trying to get it right.

I guess what I’m trying to say, in a nutshell, is this: it’s hard to like brains and experience after you’ve seen so many smart people corrupted, but don’t discount them altogether and don’t think that just because someone seems “simple but honest” that they’re immune to corruption or will make a good leader.

Brian Bagent | December 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

I think the last 18 months have been a wake-up call for Palin. She may have been naive before all of this started, and VERY insulated up in Juneau and Wasilla, so I don’t think she can any more be labeled “simple but honest.” Time will tell.

I’d still have a difficult time voting for an “R”, even if it were her on the ticket, and even if she had been thoroughly vetted and made “worldly.” Any more, the GOP has become nearly as bad as the Democrat party. There would have to be some HUGE changes within the GOP for me to go back, and I just don’t see that happening.

If you’re headed over a cliff, it doesn’t really matter if you’re doing 125 mph in a Corvette or 65 mph in a dump truck, the end result is still the same.

Tom | December 12th, 2009 at 8:37 am

I like the Corvette and dump truck analogy. Far as I’m concerned, I would much prefer to go over the cliff in a Corvette. At least I would die with more style, and my last moments would be much happier.

Think about it — would Thelma and Louise have been as good a movie if they had gone over the cliff in a 1966 Datsun instead of a 1966 Thunderbird convertible?