Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: These crimes don’t happen in a vacuum Previous entry: Shut your mouth! I’m talkin’ bout Dick…

Do not underestimate how much of right wing politics is about self-titillation

I’m going to choose to believe Ezra is being a little obtuse on purpose to start a discussion here, in talking about how stupid a conspiracy theory the birther thing is:

As I understand it, the argument here is that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but that his mother said he was born in the United States and even had relatives lie to that effect. Presumably, she also told young Barack that he was born in Hawaii. The big reveal here is…what? That Barack Obama’s American mother desperately wanted to be certain that her infant child had American citizenship?

It’s about as lame a conspiracy as I can possibly imagine. This is like charging that his mother and father smoked pot and baby Barack got a contact high. It’s a conspiracy theory for the sake of being a conspiracy theory. It has, in practice, precisely zero implications for the character or comportment of Obama. I guess the dream is that it would disqualify him from office, but it wouldn’t even do that.

It’s not that hard to understand the appeal, is it?  Nojojojo spelled it out clearly enough:

I mean, it’s obvious with the Republicans. They’re just using this shit (and other shit) to blow smoke over their attempt to scuttle single-payer healthcare. But all these individual teabagging crackpots who jump up at rallies and rant about Obama being from Kenya? They’re not really crackpots. They’re just the same old garden-variety racists we’ve always had, using “he’s not a citizen” as a euphemism for “he’s not completely white OMFG he’s got 50% black cooties straight outta Africa and I bet the White House smells funny now somebody go get a roooope!!!”....

So it really doesn’t matter how much proof gets shown to confirm that Obama is too, really, truly, an American. The birthers aren’t going to buy it. Because the only proof these people will accept is a 100% European American genetic makeup, or 99.44% with the incriminating .66 hidden acceptably far back in the family tree.

The birther thing getting so much media play is a bushel of lemons of epic proportions, in terms of being a distraction from the real issues and yet another example of how much nuttery the mainstream media will indulge as long as it panders to the right.  But here is the lemonade for you good people who are sick of this shit: It’s a learning moment.  You can learn a lot about the sort of things that motivate right wingers, so you can be better prepared to predict and react when this shit inevitably stirs up. Sadly, geography and my own fascination with aggressive stupidity led me to predict to my dear, patient boyfriend that something like this would happen when Obama looked like he was going to win the nomination.  I said, to paraphrase: “Right wingers will never get over the fact that Obama has a black father and a white mother.”  Interracial relationships set off pretty much every wingnut alarm imaginable, because racism and lurid sex-phobias make up 95% their make-up. (The other 5% is hating bureaucrats for not acknowledging that they’re better than everyone else.)  They will never get over the fact that not only do we have a black President, he has a white mother.  Being a birther means you get to talk in coded language about your disapproval of Obama’s parents’ relationship without coming right out and saying it.  You get to obsess about race and sex and the two things at once and it’s just a smorgasbord of undiluted wingnut assholery.


I wrote a piece about the connections between birthers and anti-choicers at RH Reality Check, and I’d like to draw your attention to something I noted then that is relevant: birtherism isn’t even the only manifestation of this obsession with Obama’s birth and his parents.  Anti-choicers have their own form of birther-ism, which is “Obama nearly got aborted nanny nanny boo boo”-ism, which isn’t as snappy a phrase, and I’m working on making up something catchier. But if I may be so bold as to quote myself:

Interestingly, movement conservatives aren’t just obsessed with the circumstances of Obama’s birth when they’re wearing their birther hats.  For a long time now, anti-choicers have dwelt upon an obsessive insistence, against all evidence, that Obama’s mother wanted to abort her pregnancy, and was merely prevented by illegal abortion. Catholic Vote has done an ad implying this, and going so far as to call Obama’s mother a “single mother”, even though she was married to his father when he was born. And, as I document in last week’s podcast, the myth reached the House floor when Representative Todd Tiahrt claimed that Obama is here only due to the unavailability of abortion in 1961.  He also said the same thing about Clarence Thomas, in case there was any doubt about what he was hinting at.

There’s no reason to think that Obama’s mother wanted an abortion in 1961 and was forced to have a baby against her will.  Yes, she was young and pregnant when she got married, but that was the custom in that era.  The only difference between her and most young mothers/wives of that era was the racial make-up of her marriage.  Thus, the ready assumption that she was eager to abort is no doubt based in the conservative belief that interracial relationships are seedy.

I promise you; it’s shocking how blithely conservatives who bring this up assume that the only thing that kept Obama’s mother from getting an abortion in 1961 was the ban on abortion.  They just know she wanted to, even though I can’t think of a scrap of evidence to suggest this. They developed the ability to time travel and read minds.  But this shouldn’t be so surprising, I suppose.  Think of the recent revelation of how Nixon—-the godfather of paranoid conservative thought as we know it—-went immediately racist when he was thinking about abortion.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

These are the prejudices and assumptions that have given us the birther conspiracy theory.  I could go on making connections between racism and the titillation/condemnation wingnut cycle, but then this post would be 3 hefty volumes long.

I don’t think it’s a big revelation to say that conspiracy theories tend to erupt because a group of people have all these feelings that find expression in the fantasies of the conspiracy theory.  (Conspiracy theories, I suspect, also prey on people who haven’t completely matured out of the adolescent phase where reality and fantasy blend into each other.)  For moon landing conspiracy theorists, it’s usually either about their own annoyance at the way the moon landing was supposed to be this beacon of hope in a time that was actually pretty hopeless on earth. (Though nowadays, a lot of it is just a bunch of people who really have it out for science, which makes them feel inadequate.)  9/11 Truthers, well, what bothers them is pretty obvious.  On the right, conspiracy theories are usually about racism, sex, and purity—-fluoridation fears being the most obvious kind of purity paranoia.  Always, you have this lurking fear that right wing white men will lose their rightful claim to power not just over the country, but over their own homes.  (Think black helicopters.)  The Vince Foster conspiracy theory was actually a very good predictor for the birther conspiracy theory, since both are about satisfying the right wing desire to believe that this President is illegitimate, that he should be in jail (Clinton) out of the country/not in existence at all (birthers/anti-choice fantasists).  Because birtherism satisfies its proponents on many levels—-it satisfies their need to obsess about sex, their racism, the need to believe that liberal men are not real or legitimate, and their fear that someone is coming to your house right now to take away your penis and/or phallic symbols—-it’s probably even stickier than the Vince Foster thing.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:00 PM • (105) Comments

On the right, conspiracy theories are usually about racism, sex, and purity

We must protect our precious body fluids!!!111!

Comment #1: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  02:49 PM

off topic, sorry, but that’s a cute baby!

Comment #2: Laureli  on  08/05  at  02:51 PM

I think it’s making the Rethugs look like idiots.  I don’t it’s distracting except to the believers.  Rachel says that the latest Gallups show only 7-8 reliable Red States left.  The blatant lunacy the Right comes up with the better.  I’m still wondering when they are going to switch from an elephant to a squirrel.

Comment #3: Magis  on  08/05  at  02:51 PM

The birther crap started before the healthcare reform fight, but otherwise I’m with ya on this.

Birthers can be equally divided into two camps: the stupid racists who actually believe that crap, and the smirking, smart racists who know they’re getting away with racism cloaked in birther “doubts.”

Comment #4: judybrowni  on  08/05  at  02:55 PM

Laureli, I think that actually is li’l Barack.

Comment #5: Auguste  on  08/05  at  02:55 PM

On the back of it, I think it says “EF Lavender Photo Studios, Mombasa, Kenya.”

Comment #6: Auguste  on  08/05  at  02:55 PM

Oh, yeah, and sure there’s the sex thing too—a WHITE woman had teh SEX with a BLACK man 48 years ago, and we’re FURIOUS about it!

Stupids believe IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED IN KENYA, IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED HERE!

Smart racists are smirking ‘cause they get to have a public hissy fit about white/black sex, cloaked by birther doubts.

Comment #7: judybrowni  on  08/05  at  02:58 PM

My conspiracy theory is that the big conspiracies are invented to hide the slightly less glamorous ones: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2672/pg1/

Also that Barack Hussein Obama Sr murdered Vince Foster to hide the truth.

Comment #8: asdf  on  08/05  at  02:59 PM

I don’t it’s distracting except to the believers.  Rachel says that the latest Gallups show only 7-8 reliable Red States left.

2012=1964.

Comment #9: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  03:00 PM

The adorable baby is our President.  His sister gave that picture to the Chicago Tribune.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/05  at  03:03 PM

Thanks for this analysis. I saw a “Where’s the Birth certificate?” bumper sticker on the back of an enormous SUV yesterday, and I just couldn’t comprehend the insistence still now that Obama is not an American citizen.  Now, when this stuff first started, I just kept telling people “If you spring forth from the birth canal of an American citizen, it really doesn’t matter where that happened.”  But then the stories changed to “Mom was underage, so only father counted.” To, “but he wasn’t born HERE,” to “blatherblatherblather I need PROOF, blatherblatherblather LIBRULS SUCK.”  And then I gave up, because I had no idea what they were talking about.

Comment #11: Heo Cwaeth  on  08/05  at  03:03 PM

The grand unified theory, the killer app of wingut-ism is that shiftless dark-complected people (and some of the mouthier ladies) want for free what hardworking white people earned.  All else is commentary.

Comment #12: FlipYrWhig  on  08/05  at  03:06 PM

I’m calling bullshit on the “underage” thing.  That reeks of something that they made up so they could linger not just on the fact that his mother is white, but that she was young.  Perverts.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/05  at  03:10 PM

a WHITE woman had teh SEX with a BLACK man 48 years ago, and we’re FURIOUS about it!

Hence the ‘single mother’ thing. The idea of interracial marriage is just not something they can accept.

Comment #14: mythago  on  08/05  at  03:10 PM

Them most fundamental element of this conspiracy theory doesn’t even make sense.  Being an American citizen who was born in a different country does not place any restrictions on future opportunities except for one - becoming president.  So if Obama were born in Kenya, what reason would his parents have to pretend from the very beginning that he was born in the United States?  Did they really predict that Obama had a good chance of becoming not just a great politician, but actually president?  I mean, most parents hope for it for their children but they don’t start massive conspiracies on the remote chance that it might actually matter someday.

Comment #15: bananacat  on  08/05  at  03:11 PM

“Right wingers will never get over the fact that Obama has a black father and a white mother.” Interracial relationships set off pretty much every wingnut alarm imaginable, because racism and lurid sex-phobias make up 95% their make-up.

THIS.

I think that even if Obama had been the son of two black parents, the racist hatred would still inevitably be present, but I think the fact that his mother was white ratchets it up several notches, in a way that wouldn’t be so even if he had a white father and a black mother.

There is still sadly a not insignificant number of Americans who have an automatic revulsion towards interracial relationships, and that revulsion is significantly stronger when the relationship involves a black man and a white woman.  It stems predominantly from extremely insecure racist white males (a redundant phrase, as I realize there is no such thing as a secure racist white male), who view woman as their property, and black people as their inferiors.  They view it as the black inferior taking something that does not belong to them.  And it absolutely drives them batshit crazy.

I witnessed this batshit crazy reaction firsthand from an extremely conservative cousin of mine when we were at a baseball game together several years ago… sitting a few rows in front of us was an attractive young interracial couple, a black man and a white woman.  My cousin was so disturbed by this that he literally got up after 3 innings and left the baseball game, because in his words, the sight of it “made him sick to his stomach” and he felt he could not enjoy the baseball game because of their mere presence.  The couple wasn’t acting in any sort of way that would have disturbed anyone had they not been interracial - no over the top PDA or obnoxious behavior of any sort - they were merely holding hands and enjoying a baseball game.  Something that happens with thousands of same-race couples everyday everywhere in America, almost always unnoticed by the vast majority of other attendees at these ballgames.

And yet so many of my fellow white male citizens find even the sight of this unconscionable.

So when I hear rational white people try to smack some sense into these troglodytes by demonstrating that of course Obama doesn’t hate white people by pointing out the photos of him with his mother and his maternal grandparents, whom he clearly loved very much - I shake my head and think “you don’t get it… the fact that his mom is white makes them hate him even more, not less.”

It makes me sad for humanity that so many of us are still so fucking disgustingly backwards and hateful.

Comment #16: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  03:18 PM

Hence the ‘single mother’ thing. The idea of interracial marriage is just not something they can accept.

Yeah, my first instinct when I saw that Catholics for this this or that thing about Obama The Fetus lurking inside a single mother was to look it up, and yep, as I thought, his parents were married.  Not that the ‘nuts give a shit.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/05  at  03:19 PM

Cat, I’m afraid the birthers have gotten to you.  The Constitution doesn’t require that you be born inside the U.S.—-John McCain wasn’t.  It specifically says “natural born citizen”, which is defined as someone born either in the U.S. or to at least one citizen of the U.S. (with a couple of restrictions that Obama’s mother easily meets).

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/05  at  03:21 PM

WEll hell, everybody knows that you cannot be a RealAmerican (TM) unless you are white (we are after all a white Christian conservative country).  Just ask Lou Dobbs.

Comment #19: DrDick  on  08/05  at  03:23 PM

Well, Amanda, the Canal Zone was a part of the United States (a Federal Territory) so McCain was born in this country, technically. It wouldn’t be any different from being born in Guam or Puerto Rico.

Comment #20: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  03:24 PM

Magis -

I don’t (think) it’s distracting except to the believers.

I believe news coverage, and talking head news shows are a zero sum game. Every second talking about nonsense is a second not talking about health care, or the wild popularity of Cash for Clunkers, or saving Social Security, or raising taxes on the rich back up. This conspiracy does it’s job well.

I think part of the reasoning about JFK’s murder or 9/11 conspiracy theories is that a sizable portion of the population cannot accept that random chance plays that much of a role in their everyday lives. Sure, a car can skid through a light and kill someone, or a stray shot, or aneurism, or whatever, but on the level of major terrorist attacks or presidential assasinations, the government (and history) is not supposed to be subject to random chance. Especially when it comes to a black man getting elected president. It all has to be planned for nefarious reasons.

For racist dopes, Obama’s quick rise in politics is a perfect example of “random chance”. These people actually believe their claims against him (inexperienced, pals around with terrorists, Rezko, pawn of Daley, etc) and feel that if these accusations were just exposed more, people would “see the truth”. Just like CIA/FBI/al Queda/Enron “complicity” in 9/11, just like Cuba/CIA/mafia/Dallas police “complicity” in JFK’s assasination.

Conspiracy theories are mind candy. It’s a, sort of, fantasy game people play to reintroduce order into their universe. If JFK’s murder had to have been planned and cooridinated between 2 agencies, a foreign government and a crime syndicate, some lone a-hole can’t just climb up a lightpole and change history.

All that being said, I don’t believe the polls about whether people believe that Obama was born in America or not. People are being asked if they “believe that Obama was born in America”, and of course Republicans are going to say no. It’s not about a presentation of facts. People aren’t being asked if they accept a Certificate of Live Birth as a legal document that is irrefutable evidence of a person’s native birth. It’s about asking people if they’re willing to admit that they think Obama wasn’t American-born.

Yes, there’s a complete racist angle to the delusional denial of Obama birthers. But how many books have been written about George Bush’s handlers, how he was chosen to represent particular interests, how he was groomed for years to be the person who would affect certain changes to make a small cadre of individuals hillariously rich? Could Bush not be some lucky SOB who stumbled into a void of power, and said the right things to charm the financial powers that be?

Comment #21: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  03:25 PM

Amanda, it wasn’t the birthers who told me that, but my high school history teacher.  However, since it doesn’t matter either way, it makes the conspiracy theory even more ridiculous.  As the the McCain thing, I thought the he “counted” because military bases are legally considered U.S. soil.  Of course I’m not an expert.

Comment #22: bananacat  on  08/05  at  03:27 PM

There has long been an evile thread in all of this - the notion that “mixed marriages” are bad because the resulting biracial children will suffer and be ruined.

If Obama’s election settled one thing, it is the idea that biracial children are inherently inferior.

Teh wingnuts hate that.  Despirately hate that.  Because Obama being POTUS means that biracial children are not “against God” because they just spent 8 years telling us how God decides who is POTUS.

I think that God has a sick sense of humor ...

Comment #23: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  03:27 PM

There has long been an evile thread in all of this - the notion that “mixed marriages” are bad because the resulting biracial children will suffer and be ruined.

Yeah, Obama pretty much smashes the “tragic mulatto” trope.

Comment #24: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  03:29 PM

JohnGor0:

Both of your statements can be true at the same time. The nice thing about having piles of money is that you can groom a bunch of people to serve the interests of the wealthy simultaneously. One of them, at least, is almost sure to work out. Hence Jeb, hence Liz Cheney and so forth.

Comment #25: paul  on  08/05  at  03:31 PM

I don’t think they think that Obama’s not a citizen, specifically.  I think they think that only white people are meant to be citizens, generally.

Comment #26: BetsyD  on  08/05  at  03:34 PM

Also I wonder if a lot of right-wingers don’t consider Hawaii to be part of America, whether because of ignorance or because it is majority Asian.

Comment #27: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  03:34 PM

Amanda -

The Constitution doesn’t require that you be born inside the U.S.—-John McCain wasn’t.  It specifically says “natural born citizen”, which is defined as someone born either in the U.S. or to at least one citizen of the U.S. (with a couple of restrictions that Obama’s mother easily meets).

TPM did a writeup of this a few weeks ago. His take is that the flimsy string that birthers are hanging their hats on is:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

This is why birthers are trying to pretend that Obama was not “born in the USA”.

Comment #28: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  03:37 PM

JohnGor0, what really matters is the way that law was interpreted.  My guess is that it was never applied that specifically - Mom is a US Citizen?  Therefore baby is US citizen.

The McCain issue was settled as of Goldwater’s time - which would also have solved any issues had Obama been more than two years older.

Comment #29: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  03:47 PM

Rachel says that the latest Gallups show only 7-8 reliable Red States left.

Actually, the Gallup survey found that there are only FIVE states left that can either be classified as leaning or solid Republican in their current voter identifications.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx?CSTS=alert

Those five red states are Alaska, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah, which collectively have 24 out of 578 Electoral votes in presidential elections, roughly 4% of the total.

To be fair, the Gallup survey didn’t indicate that all 46 other states were either leaning or solid Democratic, only 37 of them.  8 states were classified as toss-ups in their findings.  But among those toss-up states?  Texas, Arizona, Montana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kansas, North Dakota and Nebraska - every one of these states voted for McCain last November.

Not one of the 2008 Blue States has shifted to either a Republican leaning or even toss-up status, but several states have gone from red to blue in party ID this year - notably Georgia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee - all of these now identify as Democratic leaning states.

Fucking Oklahoma now leans Democratic in party ID among voters.

And yes, Texas now has a roughly equal number of voters who consider themselves Democrats as voters who consider themselves Republicans (Texas Democrats actually slightly outnumbered Texas Republicans in the Gallup survey, though by a small enough percentage to be within the margin of error).

The Birther movement is the behavior of a terrified bunch of know-nothing idiots who are starting to realize that they are rapidly shrinking in numbers, and it is freaking them the fuck out.

Comment #30: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  03:47 PM

If the Republicans ever lose Texas they’re toast in the electoral college. That’s the only reliable big state they have left.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  03:49 PM

Paul - yes, Bush, McCain, Quayle and Liz Dole were probably the only “serious” candidates for the GOP in 2000, meaning, the only ones who had any kind of organization, name recognition and insider backing. And if John McCain, or Liddy Dole somehow squirted through the GOP primaries, and used the same playbook on Al Gore (McCain could have probably won 2000 outright), they would have followed a similar pro-business, anti-(everything on the left (choice, environment, poor, etc)), and we would have seen the same themes emerge about the grooming of President McCain by nefarious backers.

The main difference is that the anti-Bush and (potential) anti-McCain literature were/would have been inspired by resentment and anger at a campaign of lies and deceit and the subsequent destructive policies, while the anti-Obama stuff is most truly inspired by racism and dog whistle flags to the base.

Actually, I’m pretty surprized by the still tame nature of the Obama code-words, and all. By this time, weren’t the Clintons fucking everybody in DC, murdering anyone who seemed to “know too much”, and had already established an empire fed by drug-running, corruption and a “failed” land deal?

Maybe I’m not getting out, much, but the Obama stuff seems to be that he’s a stupid kid who will most assuredly enact an evil masterplan of pure evil genius.

go figure.

Comment #32: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  03:56 PM

What makes me very sad is that we have Birthers in HAWAII. I find the whole thing incredibly insulting to my state, implying our BCs are somehow ‘illegitamate’ because we don’t actually HAVE a ‘long form’ option. I had to get a dupe of my BC last month, and what you see online is iwhat you get.

Comment #33: Mark Temporis  on  08/05  at  03:58 PM

A side effect of this birther nonsense is something I read the other day… something about the Hawaiians having terra-istically bombed Pearl Harbor themselves, and then blamed it on the Japanese.

Because… even IF he was born in Hawaii, it isn’t a legitimate state… because…. because…. unamerican…. terra…. and he STILL isn’t really president.

Which is about as coherant an argument as I can percieve there.

Comment #34: KMac  on  08/05  at  03:59 PM

I think that even if Obama had been the son of two black parents, the racist hatred would still inevitably be present, but I think the fact that his mother was white ratchets it up several notches, in a way that wouldn’t be so even if he had a white father and a black mother.

Note the other favorite taunt of the rightards—Obama’s mother moved on and married an Indonesian MOOSLIM! which must disqualify Obama from being an American citizen, right?  Right?

I’m not sure where this bizarre notion came from that your parents can renounce your citizenship on your behalf, but it just ain’t true.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  08/05  at  04:00 PM

Heh.  Just had this argument on the local newspaper forum.  Then they launched into a pity party about how oppressed white men are now.  I laughed at them.  They called me a racist because this apparently means I hate white people.  Even though I am one.  {shrugs}  Whatevs.  Buncha loons.

Comment #36: BadKitty  on  08/05  at  04:00 PM

What I don’t get is how exactly Hawaii is “exotic” or something but Alaska is “real America”. They’re both equally remote and pretty unlike any other part of the country.

Comment #37: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  04:00 PM

I found it interesting that I saw this ad:

Online Anger Class $99
Low cost 8, 16 & 26 hr classes. Court accepted, Instant Certificate

...on this thread.  Maybe that Google adbot is smarter than I thought…

Comment #38: MikeEss  on  08/05  at  04:01 PM

Could Bush not be some lucky SOB who stumbled into a void of power, and said the right things to charm the financial powers that be?

Only if you leave out the part where he’s the son of a US President and the grandson of a US Senator.

I mean, yes, you can make the case that it was the luck of the draw that we ended up with W as president instead of Jeb or, God help us, Neil, but there was a pretty small pool to select from.

Comment #39: Mnemosyne  on  08/05  at  04:03 PM

I had to get a dupe of my BC last month, and what you see online is what you get.

Not only that, but the State Department has started demanding the COLB version.  I had to go to Boston City Hall and get the COLB copy of my sons’ birth certificates so that I could get their passports.  The long forms were not what they wanted because the information is in random locations that vary by municipality and state, and is sometimes incorrect.  They want the COLB because it is certified and standardized.

Comment #40: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  04:03 PM

What I don’t get is how exactly Hawaii is “exotic” or something but Alaska is “real America”.

Because Alaska is majority Caucasian and Hawaii is majority Asian.

SASQ.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  08/05  at  04:04 PM

Mark Temporis - this whole thing is not about proof. Obama’s birth could have been featured in an early version of that ABC series that starred karen VAlentine as one of 4 pregnant women who was followed though the last few days of their pregnancies through birth, etc.

It could have been on national TV, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and there would be a group telling Capricorn One type tales about it.

I’m into genealogy, and that’s pretty much what Birth and Death certificates look like from the 4-5 states I’ve done research in. There’s no essay section, just parents, vitals, date, and name.

Even the pretense of absense of evidence is, in itself, evidence of conspiracy.

Comment #42: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  04:05 PM

“The long forms were not what they wanted because the information is in random locations that vary by municipality and state, and is sometimes incorrect.  They want the COLB because it is certified and standardized.”

Certified and standardized by SATAN!  Everybody knows that a COLB is not even a legal document (at least not as legal as The Long Form) and is in fact an insult to the fine men and women who started this country… 

I knew letting that crypto-Mooslim Obama take office was a mistake…

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  08/05  at  04:08 PM

Ben D writes -

What I don’t get is how exactly Hawaii is “exotic” or something but Alaska is “real America”. They’re both equally remote and pretty unlike any other part of the country.

Because the obliteration of Alaska’s native population and the continued oppression thereof has resulted in an epidemic of suicide among Alaska’s native peoples, while the obliteration and oppression of Hawaii’s hasn’t?

Comment #44: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  04:09 PM

What I don’t get is how exactly Hawaii is “exotic” or something but Alaska is “real America”. They’re both equally remote and pretty unlike any other part of the country.

Don’t make this harder than it has to be.  Hawaii produced a biracial man, and Alaska produced a white woman.  It’s really not any more complex than blatant racism.

Comment #45: bananacat  on  08/05  at  04:10 PM

“Because Alaska is majority Caucasian and Hawaii is majority Asian”

The white population of Alaska has had much more success in marginalizing the indigenous population than Hawaii has.  This makes them more “civilized” and less “exotic” in the eyes of the wingers.  Alaska knows how to keep those brown people down.

Comment #46: BadKitty  on  08/05  at  04:11 PM

or, you know, what JonGor0 said while I was answering the phone.

Comment #47: BadKitty  on  08/05  at  04:12 PM

Fucking Oklahoma now leans Democratic in party ID among voters.

Which shows us some of the problems with party ID, since most Democrats in OK are still far to the right of Republicans in MA.

Comment #48: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/05  at  04:13 PM

DTG -

So when I hear rational white people try to smack some sense into these troglodytes by demonstrating that of course Obama doesn’t hate white people by pointing out the photos of him with his mother and his maternal grandparents, whom he clearly loved very much - I shake my head and think “you don’t get it… the fact that his mom is white makes them hate him even more, not less.”

It is funny, (and by funny, I mean really, really sad) that in online Newpaper comments sections, I find anger over Obama hating white people because he “denies his white half”. Of course, if he called himself white, they would jeer even louder.

Comment #49: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  04:15 PM

Rachel says that the latest Gallups show only 7-8 reliable Red States left.

This might seem nice, but in reality it doesn’t necessarily mean that the public is becoming more liberal.  In reality, the Democratic party is becoming more conservative on average.  I consider the Democratic party to be very moderate or centrist, and we don’t really have a party that is consistently liberal.  Sure, there are plenty of liberals in the Democratic party, but they are diluted with many centrists and even conservatives that are too embarrassed to be associated with the Republican party anymore.

Comment #50: bananacat  on  08/05  at  04:15 PM

I knew letting that crypto-Mooslim Obama take office was a mistake…

And it is all his fault, seeing as he was running for president in March, 2008 when said passports were obtained!

Comment #51: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  04:17 PM

The Constitution doesn’t require that you be born inside the U.S.—-John McCain wasn’t.  It specifically says “natural born citizen”, which is defined as someone born either in the U.S. or to at least one citizen of the U.S. (with a couple of restrictions that Obama’s mother easily meets).

I have not personally researched so I don’t know if this is true or not, but one of the restrictions in 1961, as claimed by the Birthers, is that at least one parent had to have been a U.S. citizen who lived in the United States for at least 5 years after the age of 14 for the offspring to be considered “natural-born” when born on foreign soil - meaning that Stanley Dunham, who was 18 at the time of Barack’s birth, would have been one year shy of meeting this restriction.

Again, I don’t know if that alleged restriction is true or not, though I know that it is part of the Birthers contention regarding Obama’s inability to be considered a “natural-born” citizen.  As such, the claim must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Per Wikipedia (with cited references), here is the law for “natural-born” citizenship for people born abroad to one parent who is a U.S. citizen SINCE November 1986 (doesn’t state what the law was in 1961):

For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

1.  One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;

2.  The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child’s birth;

3.  A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

————-

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.

Under current law, if Obama had been born in Kenya after November 1986 (all other conditions being the same regarding his mother), he would be considered a “natural-born” U.S. citizen, as Stanley Dunham had fulfilled all of the current requirements.  That said, I don’t know specifically what the parental requirements were in 1961 for foreign-born children of one U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.  Which happened in Hawai’i anyway, meaning the issue is totally irrelevant regardless of what they were.

Comment #52: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  04:19 PM

.  In reality, the Democratic party is becoming more conservative on average.  I consider the Democratic party to be very moderate or centrist, and we don’t really have a party that is consistently liberal.  Sure, there are plenty of liberals in the Democratic party, but they are diluted with many centrists and even conservatives that are too embarrassed to be associated with the Republican party anymore.

After a certain tipping point, the party will split and either the Blue Dogs or the Liberals will form a new second party. I think that’s the direction we’re headed in given the demographic and cultural trends working against the Republican Party, combined with their own self-destructive impulses.

Comment #53: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  04:24 PM

Could Bush not be some lucky SOB who stumbled into a void of power, and said the right things to charm the financial powers that be?

Considering that his father was the 41st President of the United States, former VPOTUS and former CIA Director, his grandfather had been a very influential U.S. Senator, and his brother happened to be governor of the state that ultimetely decided the 2000 election in the most controversial recount in modern history…

Ummm, no.

There is absolutely zero chance that George W. Bush was just some lucky SOB who fell into the presidency by sheer dumb luck without the heavy influence of many outside connections.

If he had a last name that was anything other than “Bush”, he’d have been little more than some drunk overaged fratboy who couldn’t run a business to save his life.

Unfortunately, he got the chance to be a drunk overaged fratboy who couldn’t run a country to save his life, at the tremendous expense of millions of U.S. citizens (not to mention, millions of Iraqi and Afghani citizens).

Comment #54: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  04:31 PM

I’d bet it will be the party in crisis that splits. And the Republicans already have the Libertarian and Constitution[altheocracy] Parties to receive them. I predict a comeback for the Meghan McCain version of the Republican Party.

Comment #55: asdf  on  08/05  at  04:32 PM

DTG in STL -

From the state department’s website, via TalkingPointsMemo:

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birthers are hanging their hat on that 5 year stiplation IF the child was born outside of the US. That’s why it’s so important to them to prove Obama’s foreign birth, or more accurately, disprove his US birth.

Comment #56: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  04:39 PM

The adorable baby is our President.  His sister gave that picture to the Chicago Tribune.

Well that’s another problem right there. Babies are not eligible to be President.

Comment #57: typist  on  08/05  at  04:42 PM

asdf, my bet is that the Blue Dogs and the Sane Republicans will join forces to retake the republican party.  The current GOP tapestry contains far too much lunatic fringe to hold together, and it is driving people away.

Comment #58: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  04:43 PM

DTG - I’m not implying that George W. Bush was as lucky as Joe A-hole born to a coal-miner, 3 DUI’s to his name while he failed out of the coal business, went to U of WV, etc.

The fact that he was born with the name and connections make any kind of special conspiracy to push Bush into the presidency unnecessary. I mean he was lucky to have all the previously mentioned advantages AND walked into a void of leadership.

I don’t think rich oilmen started grooming him in 1973, or anything like that.

Comment #59: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  04:48 PM

Somebody needs to put the blue dogs to sleep.

Comment #60: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/05  at  04:50 PM

That’s a distinct possibility, Ms Kate.

I think the current Democratic Party is unstable. Too many Blue Dogs and too many Progressive Caucus members for a multi-decade alliance. I mean that non-judgmentally. In my view there could never be too many Progressives.

Comment #61: asdf  on  08/05  at  04:52 PM

Anybody looked at http://electoral-vote.com/ lately?

Comment #62: asdf  on  08/05  at  04:54 PM

I don’t think rich oilmen started grooming him in 1973, or anything like that.

Actually Dubya was supposed to play Billy Carter/Roger Clinton to Jeb, and Jeb would be the President. But Lawton Chiles kicked Jeb’s carpetbagging ass in the first time Jeb ran for Governor, and that kind of threw the plan off track.

Comment #63: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  04:57 PM

This might seem nice, but in reality it doesn’t necessarily mean that the public is becoming more liberal.  In reality, the Democratic party is becoming more conservative on average.  I consider the Democratic party to be very moderate or centrist, and we don’t really have a party that is consistently liberal.  Sure, there are plenty of liberals in the Democratic party, but they are diluted with many centrists and even conservatives that are too embarrassed to be associated with the Republican party anymore.

Pretty much.

Hell, I don’t even consider President Obama as being particularly liberal.  His heart may be there, but his methodology sure isn’t - hence Rahm Emmanuel, Tim Geithner, Bob Gates, and Larry Summers all holding top level positions in his Administration.  One could argue that he is probably to the left of any of his 4 most recent predecessors (including Bill C.), but that ain’t saying a whole lot.

And I’m not sure who, but I believe it was Rep. Maxine Waters who made a very wise observation the other day about the current White House Chief of Staff - the chickens have come home to roost.  See, in Rahm’s last job (where he was always in battle with his far more liberal party leader Howard Dean) as Chairman of the DCCC, Rahm thought it would be a fantastic idea to go get a bunch of moderate Republicans to switch parties and run in conservative-leaning districts to increase the Democratic majority in Congress.

His plan did indeed work, based on the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections, but with a whole lot of unintended consequences.

Markos Moulitsas astutely pointed out that it isn’t really the Republicans fault if healthcare dies in committee or gets watered down to the point of utter useleness.  Republicans don’t hold enough seats in Congress to actually control this legislation or kill it.  And God knows that if they had the numbers the Democrats currently have, they would be ramming through every one of their pet projects under the sun with no problem whatsoever.

It’s the fucking Blue Dog Democrats who are causing the clusterfuck at this point.  The Senate has 60 Democrats.  That’s enough to pass legislation without using reconciliation and without needing bipartisan support.  And if the Republicans had 60 Senate seats, you can damn-well better believe they’d be passing their bills with ease.

So thanks, Rahm.  You’ve now given us a huge majority in Congress of people who belong to the same party but can’t seem to stand in ideological unison on any damn thing.

The downside of the party ID is this, as pointed out by MAJeff above… an Oklahoma Democrat may claim allegiance to Team Blue, but his heart aligns with the causes of Team Red, by a mile… he’s probably more loyal to conservative ideology than most actual Republicans in Massachusetts.

Filibuster-proof majorities sound neat on paper.  In practice, they don’t mean jack shit if you can’t reach anything resembling consensus among those 60, and you are unwilling to use the power of that majority to get anything done.

Comment #64: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  04:59 PM

And if the Republicans had 60 Senate seats, you can damn-well better believe they’d be passing their bills with ease.

Republicans could never reach 60 seats though because they aren’t a political party, they’re an ideological cult.

Comment #65: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  05:02 PM

asdf, my bet is that the Blue Dogs and the Sane Republicans will join forces to retake the republican party.  The current GOP tapestry contains far too much lunatic fringe to hold together, and it is driving people away.

I don’t think that’s going to happen, though I wish it would.  The rabid lunatics are still far too valuable to people like Grover Norquist.  People need to understand that the real damage economic conservatives do is at the state and local level.  Currently several states including mine (AZ) are in the midst of horrific budget deficits causing them to make drastic cuts to education and social services.  This is no accident.  It’s by design.  Well-funded national groups have stacked school boards, city councils, county boards, and state legislatures with wingnuts.  They get elected (typically in safe gerrymandered Republican districts where the real race is in the primary) by the lunatic fringe by running on their pet social issues.  These politicians are usually not very bright or versed in complex economic issues so they do whatever the Club for Growth tells them to do vis a vis tax and spending cuts.  Though the GOP voter base has whittled down to this bare essence of aggressive stupidity, we will unfortunately be plagued by the power they continue to wield for years to come.

Comment #66: DonnaDiva  on  08/05  at  05:05 PM

JohnGor0:

I’m not going to dispute what you said, but most people aren’t as ‘wonky’ as the Pandas.  I really don’t think most people are giving any credence to the Loons.  I overheard somebody the other day mutter “Jesus, give it a rest.”  And you can always trust what you hear in a bar.  Atleast from the common joes and janes.

Comment #67: Magis  on  08/05  at  05:12 PM

DTG in STL:

Soooo…..

What we have in the Congress now is just as bad as 1995-2007?  Have faith.  The Blue Dogs are generally fiscally conservative but not so much socially (with some exceptions).  These Blue Dogs come from Republican Districts.  After we complete the destruction of the Geezers Only Party in 2010, they’ll relax a little bit.

Comment #68: Magis  on  08/05  at  05:18 PM

I think I mentioned before that the birthers apparently want to believe that Barack was born in a grass hut in the jungle somewhere.  I think that dovetails nicely with the implication that Barack’s mother sullied herself by having sex with a negro.  Her giving birth under primitive, “savage” conditions only completes the race traitor image the birthers have created.

Comment #69: keshmeshi  on  08/05  at  05:26 PM

Magis - Yes, it’s only, like, half of GOPs who admit they will entertain the conspiracy of a foreign-birth of Obama. But that’s half of 28% of the electorate, which is right down there with the percentage of the population who believe in alien abductions, Roswell, leprechauns, etc.

I would actually think if pressed, the percentage would be even lower for people actually, really, believing it.

All that being said, I agree with your 4:12 post.

Comment #70: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  05:32 PM

I think that dovetails nicely with the implication that Barack’s mother sullied herself by having sex with a negro.

The whole “too young to confer citizenship” aspect plays into their fears ... and porn-fed tittilation ... of big black men getting it on with white teenage girls, too!

Comment #71: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  05:32 PM

I’ll attempt to explain how that 5-year law is supposed to work by using a real-world example:  Felix Magath, the soccer coach and former star player.  Magath was born in Germany to a German mother and a US-serviceman father.  To my knowledge, he has never been a resident of the US.  Therefore, although he himself is a US citizen, his children would not be (unless they qualified through their mother).

How this would be applied to an 18-year-old who gave birth while on a weekend trip to Mombasa, I have no idea.

Comment #72: Thlayli  on  08/05  at  05:38 PM

DTG in STL:

Soooo…..

What we have in the Congress now is just as bad as 1995-2007?  Have faith.  The Blue Dogs are generally fiscally conservative but not so much socially (with some exceptions).  These Blue Dogs come from Republican Districts.  After we complete the destruction of the Geezers Only Party in 2010, they’ll relax a little bit.

No, I don’t think it’s as bad now as it was then… but I do think for all of the celebratory high-fiving we were doing back in November (myself included), we’re getting a stark wake-up call to the reality that these numbers are hugely deceptive.  On paper, the Democrats have a MASSIVE amount of power to enact their agenda.  Think about it… never in any of our lifetimes have the Republicans held any sort of Congressional majority resembling the current majority held by the Democrats.  A huge GOP majority in Congress means +20 House seats and +3 Senate seats.  For them, that’s huge, and it’s all they ever needed - when they had those sorts of numbers, they got a hell of a lot of their agenda pushed through.

You think the Patriot Act is an abomination as it currently stands?  Imagine what that thing would have looked like if the Congress that created it was made up of a Senate with 60 Republicans and a House where the GOP held a nearly 2-1 majority?  <i>Shudders.<i>

My point is this… while it’s neat that we have whittled away a lot of the social conservatives in Congress, right now, the biggest issues on the table for America are economic in nature.  We have a grand opportunity today to introduce an economic agenda as sweeping as those brought forward by FDR in the 1930s and LBJ in the 1960s.

But it ain’t fucking happening.  And there’s no reason for it.  If we really wanted it, we could have Single-Payer Healthcare in the legislative pipeline today.  The political will among the American public is there.  But among our spineless representatives in Congress, many of whom are beholden to the health insurance industry despite their Democratic Party affiliation, it isn’t even being talked about.

I mean, right now, we are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that there is even a decent public option available once all is said and done here.  That shouldn’t be the best outcome we aspire to, that should be the bare fucking minimum.  And yet here we are, and there is absolutely no guarantee we will even get a decent public option at this point.  And without that, we’ve really got nothing at all.

The starting point should have been “Single-Payer Healthcare”, period.  Sure, it is likely that would have ultimately been watered down, but if that’s where the Democrats would have begun in the process of negotiating this legislation, it would have drastically increased the odds of producing a bill with a strong public option.  Instead, they used “public option” as their starting point, and now, in the ridiculous interest of bipartisanship, Blue Cross’s very own Democratic shill Max Baucus will try to meet the GOP halfway and God knows what we’re gonna get… but I fear a strong public option may not be a part of it.

I don’t give a shit about bipartisanship.  I don’t think everyday Americans really do, either, when they go about their day-to-day lives.  When you drive down a road, do you fret over the possibility that the funds allocated to build and maintain that road might not have been apportioned by a bipartisan agreement of legislature?  Of course you don’t.  We don’t care about process when it comes to these issues, we care about results.

I’ll take a good piece of legislation with some real teeth rammed through without a single GOP vote and only 51 Democratic votes before I settle for some piece of crap watered-down legislation that achieved more consensus in committee, but does nothing tangible to fix the problem.

Comment #73: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  05:44 PM

BTW, the birth of Obama to married parents also sets off alarms because the wingnutteria wants everybody to think that this sort of thing just didn’t happen until after the Evile Supreme Court abandoned judicial restraint and made interracial marriage legal.

Comment #74: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  05:49 PM

DTG:

First of all, the Democratic Party for the last 100+ years has always been a coalition.  Before 1964 we had a pact with the Devil, the Devil being Jim Crow.  Without the Sourth there would never have been an FDR.  There has never been a time when the majority of either Party has been progressives.  There was a Progressive Party at one time but it didn’t last.  In truth the GOP was the progressive party before they kicked Teddy out.

As far as Max and health care goes, a bill has to get passed and it has to get reconciled with the House version.  There must be 60 votes because this is not a budget reconciliation–unless they invoke the “nuclear option.”  Don’t be so sure Max’s bill is going to be the yea or nay of things.  I think everything is still up in the air.  I’m feeling oddly optimistic though I don’t have any idea why.

Comment #75: Magis  on  08/05  at  06:02 PM

But how many books have been written about George Bush’s handlers, how he was chosen to represent particular interests, how he was groomed for years to be the person who would affect certain changes to make a small cadre of individuals hillariously rich? Could Bush not be some lucky SOB who stumbled into a void of power, and said the right things to charm the financial powers that be?

I remember having a sense, watching news coverage of the run-up to the primaries in the 2000 elections (i.e. fall of ‘99), that Bush had been groomed to be the next president.  And I was an 18 year old apolitical theatre major whose main exposure to the news media was CNN running in the background of the college cafeteria.

While I think it’s folly to assume Bush was groomed from childhood to eventually become POTUS*, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for him to have been groomed at least from the time he ran for governor of Texas.

*though certainly much less ridiculous than the idea that Obama’s parents deliberately hid his true country of birth in hopes that he would someday become president—I mean, Bush’s father was head of the CIA, and grandpa was an elite yankee banker.  Those sorts of people do tend to have children who eventually go into politics.

Comment #76: The Opoponax  on  08/05  at  06:05 PM

By the way, here’s the link to the Gallup map Rachel was talking about showing only three solid and one leaning GOP states.  You’ll have to scroll down a bit. Click here.

Comment #77: Magis  on  08/05  at  06:16 PM

@##!!**@, One more time. Click here.

Comment #78: Magis  on  08/05  at  06:18 PM

There has never been a time when the majority of either Party has been progressives.

Exception: The Civil War and Reconstruction-era Republican Party. And, whaddya know, that was the only time in our history where the South was banned from the political process. Coincidence?

Comment #79: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  06:21 PM

Ben D. wins.

Comment #80: Magis  on  08/05  at  06:26 PM

And I say that as a lifelong white southerner.

Now, we’ve had white, economic progressives in the past, especially in the 1930s, but they were still reactionaries on racial issues, sadly. Of course they in the 60s signed their own pact with the devil, they would give into glibertarian CEO-coddling economic policies (so many of which hurt the south especially, being a poor region) as long as the Republicans agreed to let them keep black people down.

Comment #81: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  06:30 PM

By the way, here’s the link to the Gallup map Rachel was talking about showing only three solid and one leaning GOP states.

Now, now, don’t hurt the poor widdle feewings of the Rethugs.  They have four solid red states (Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming), not three, and one leaning (Alabama).

Comment #82: DTG in STL  on  08/05  at  06:36 PM

DTG:

Somehow I ignored Alaska.  Do you think it was Freudian?

Comment #83: Magis  on  08/05  at  06:52 PM

That may be one of the downsides of being President - having your baby picture plastered all over the Internet (at least it isn’t one of the inevitable kid-on-training-toilet photos that most families seem to commit).

Comment #84: NancyP  on  08/05  at  07:05 PM

Actually it’d be more accurate to say that both parties were coalitions which included liberal and conservative wings.  The reason the Southern conservatives were so long in power in the Democratic Party is that the seniority system favored longevity, and many southern Congressmen help their seats for decades.  It’s only since the 1960s that both parties have shed so much of their minority wing, southern conservatives moving to the Republicans, northern Republicans liberals moving to the Democrats. There were southern liberals in the Democratic Party for decades, even if they were outnumbered by southern conservatives .  Jimmy Carter was the heir to a long line of southern liberals like Claude Pepper….

Comment #85: Woodrowfan  on  08/05  at  07:09 PM

If you need a break from the stupidity, go look at more adorable pictures of little Obama.  HE WAS A PIRATE FOR HALLOWEEN.  AND THERE IS A PICTURE OF HIM MISSING HIS TWO FRONT TEETH.  I am seriously going to die of the cute.

Comment #86: snowmentality  on  08/05  at  08:25 PM

The Civil War and Reconstruction-era Republican Party. And, whaddya know, that was the only time in our history where the South was banned from the political process. Coincidence?

I have to take issue with the Republican Party being progressive even back then.  Much of what they did that could be considered progressive (such as pushing the 14th and 15th Amendments) were about consolidating power, however short lived that turned out to be.  They knew that freed blacks would vote Republican, and they wanted those votes.  The Reconstruction-era Republican Party was also incredibly corrupt, and they sold out their black constituents in the South awfully fast in order to get Hayes in office.

Comment #87: keshmeshi  on  08/05  at  10:01 PM

Keshmeshi, when they sold out southern blacks for the Presidency is when they ceased to be progressive.

And I wasn’t just talking about civil rights issues and abolishing slavery though theres that—also the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act, creating a national currency, etc. For whatever reasons they did it they got a lot of good things done.

Comment #88: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  10:17 PM

keshmeshi - (9:01pm)

The 1856/1860 GOP was a comglomeration of existing parties, like the Whigs, and regional parties, like the No-nothings, whose main focus was on ceasing immigration, and deporting foreigners. Yes, abolitionists may have voted Republican, but they weren’t a majority of the party.

Comment #89: I Heart Puppies  on  08/05  at  10:44 PM

John, Know-Nothingism was repudiated not only by Lincoln but by the 1860 Republican platform:

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

Comment #90: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  10:52 PM

And 1864, it was even more explicit:

8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/republican.html

Comment #91: Ben D.  on  08/05  at  10:53 PM

I am seriously going to die of the cute.

Good lord did that boy look like his Grandpa Dunham.  SRSLY!

Comment #92: Ms Kate  on  08/06  at  12:14 AM

Republicans have been socially liberal, but they have never been a progressive party. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. Progressivism forbids siding with wealthy business interests against the working classes, and the Republicans have always been a party of big business.

Comment #93: asdf  on  08/06  at  12:32 AM

Republicans have always been a party of big business.

Eh, to some degree…

I imagine Theodore Roosevelt wouldn’t be so popular among the big business folks in today’s America.

It was TR, after all, who first attempted to get nationalized single-payer healthcare system implemented.

And he had the insane notion that perhaps it would be in our national interest for wide swaths of land to not be bought and sold in the free market so it could be raped of all of its natural resources.

He also did quite a bit to break up the powerful trusts that were embematic of the Gilded Age before him.

Teddy Roosevelt was no big friend of big business, and his modern day successors aren’t on the same planet as him ideologically speaking.

He was probably the last great Republican POTUS we’ve had.  And he was one of only two GOP Presidents in our history who I consider worthy of being called “great”.

Comment #94: DTG in STL  on  08/06  at  12:47 AM

The more progressive TR became, the more the Republican party turned their backs on him. He couldn’t get the 60th congress, with a Republican majority in both houses, to pass his proposals for an income tax and inheritance tax, legal protections for strikers, or an eight-hour workday for fed employees. In the end he became convinced that he had to leave the Republican party in order to advance progressivism.

So I’d say TR is the exception that proves the rule.

Comment #95: asdf  on  08/06  at  02:01 AM

Republicans have been socially liberal, but they have never been a progressive party. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

William Jennings Bryan made that speech twenty years after reconstruction ended. I’m saying the Republicans were progressive from 1856-1876. After that they sold their souls to big bidness and haven’t looked back since.

Comment #96: Ben D.  on  08/06  at  10:11 AM

WJB is a really fascinating figure, btw. An evangelical Christian, unabashedly from rural America, who was very much an economic progressive. You don’t see much of that anymore.

Comment #97: Ben D.  on  08/06  at  10:21 AM

Amanda:  Actually, John McCain was born in Panama when it was under the control and ownership of the United States, which makes it American soil.  The same as being born on a military base overseas is being born on American soil.  You do actually have to be born on American soil to be President.  It’s just the definition of American soil changes as history changes the boundaries.

Comment #98: speedbudget  on  08/06  at  11:00 AM

asdf:

Teddy’s Pure Food and Drug Act was considered “progressive” legislation at the time.

Comment #99: Magis  on  08/06  at  12:18 PM

BenD - point taken.

DTG - the Republicans thought Teddy Roosevelt was a trouble-maker, and that’s why they “buried” him on the ticket as VP. The VP was never assigned task forces, or never was even briefed on anything of any substance. Alben Barkley was the first VP (the first to be called VEEP) to sit in on foreign policy meetings. Truman was completely in the dark upon taking over the presidency, and thought it prudent for Barkley to be prepared if the same thing happened to him.

Roosevelt was thought to be marginalized in his VP-itude.

Comment #100: I Heart Puppies  on  08/06  at  01:27 PM

that’s why they “buried” him on the ticket as VP.

Mark Hanna, the Republican king-maker, demonstrated some foresight re: Teddy Roosevelt:

Don’t any of you realize there’s only one life between that madman and the presidency?

Comment #101: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/06  at  02:04 PM

DAGCM—

The same man (Mark Hanna) also, upon hearing that President McKinley had died, said “That damned cowboy is President now”.

Comment #102: Ben D.  on  08/06  at  02:06 PM

The more progressive TR became, the more the Republican party turned their backs on him. He couldn’t get the 60th congress, with a Republican majority in both houses, to pass his proposals for an income tax and inheritance tax, legal protections for strikers, or an eight-hour workday for fed employees. In the end he became convinced that he had to leave the Republican party in order to advance progressivism.

So I’d say TR is the exception that proves the rule.

Fair enough.

I guess we can say that contrary to the claims of Senator McCain, Theodore Roosevelt was probably the last true “maverick” in the Republican Party.

Comment #103: DTG in STL  on  08/06  at  02:52 PM

William Jennings Bryan made that speech twenty years after reconstruction ended. I’m saying the Republicans were progressive from 1856-1876. After that they sold their souls to big bidness and haven’t looked back since.

They were sold from day one. In the early years, they had other very important issues on the platform which understandably obscure their economic policies from history.

Lincoln gave massive corporate welfare to the railroad and canal companies, a windfall for capital at the expense of labor. He did not believe in human freedom on principle; as Lerone Bennett Jr puts it, he was forced into glory. Mandating paid labor in the South was a means of restoring relative economic advantage to the North. The first Republican president, like the last, favored his supporters by privatizing the people’s assets and handing them away to the rich.

I know these sound like the complaints of a neoconfederate, so let me preempt any misunderstanding: the world would be a worse place, then and now, if Jefferson Davis had won.

Comment #104: asdf  on  08/06  at  03:15 PM

I guess we can say that contrary to the claims of Senator McCain, Theodore Roosevelt was probably the last true “maverick” in the Republican Party.

Yep. Except the Maverick family would still be pissed about that. They’ve been Democrats for at least 130 years.

Comment #105: asdf  on  08/06  at  03:23 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.