Archive for the 'Birther' Category

New champions for the Birther movement: 3 lawmakers, Lou Dobbs and one angry woman

Published
by
Taniel
on July 21, 2009
in Birther, IN-05, TX-02 and TX-24
. 3 Comments

In the two weeks since my post on the Birther bill’s gaining new champions in the House, this ridiculous movement has gained even more cheerleaders. News stories now regularly allude to the issue and cable TV, unable to pass up on the opportunity to invite Allen Keyes or to score links from Drudge and Huffington, is discussing it at length.

At least one media personality has been converted: Lou Dobbs, the immigration-obsessed CNN host. Yesterday, he insisted that Obama had not produced a birth certificate (the truth: the president has submitted to the standard procedure of releasing an official copy) and went as far as to proclaim that he has “no idea what the reality is here,” says Dobbs. “You suppose he’s undoc — no, I wouldn’t use the word ‘undocumented,’ wouldn’t be right.”

We know how obsessed Dobbs is with immigration, but that last sentence (the conflation of all his paranoid fears) makes him look like his own caricature. “This isn’t one of those things that goes away quite as easily as I’d thought,” he concluded. Obviously not, Lou: if you harped about it enough in your primetime CNN show, you could make Caesar’s assassination a timely controversy.

All of this obviously has the potential of hurting conservative opposition to Obama. As the 1990s showed, obsessive hatred does not yield a party that many political benefits, quite the contrary - it can lead to unexpected defeats in seemingly unlosable elections (see the 1998 midterms). Democrats will have a field day attacking vulnerable Republicans who are on record as supporting the Birther movement as extremists (for instance Rep. John Campbell, a co-sponsor of H.R. 1503) and portray the GOP as beholden to its fringe.

But for many Republicans, the Birther movement could be a big political opportunity: It allows them to position themselves as moderates without having to substantially move to the center. Case in point, the much-discussed video of Delaware Rep. Mike Castle being interrogated by an angry woman screaming about Obama’s Kenyan birth and demanding that Castle help her take the country back. “If you’re referring to the president, then he is a citizen of the United States,” Castle answered. The crowd booed. “You can boo, but he is a citizen of the United States.” he continued.

Think about it for a minute: Just by uttering the banal fact that the U.S. president is a U.S. citizen, Castle sparked a wave of stories describing his confrontation with the GOP’s fringe - stories that make him look sane, moderate and willing to take on conservatives, just the type of coverage he needs to win in blue-leaning Delaware.

And he was able to achieve this feat without supporting the stimulus or offering any type of encouragement for health care reform.

Other Republicans are not interested in affirming the president’s citizenship, however. H.R. 1503, which makes a congressional issue out of the fears of the Birther movement, had already gained 7 backers by early July: Its main sponsor, Bill Posey, and 6 co-sponsors (Goodlatte, Blackburn, Campbell, Carter, Culberson, Neugebauer). Since then, three new conservative congressmen have added themselves to the list of co-sponsors: Dan Burton (IN-05), Kenny Marchant (TX-24) and Ted Poe (TX-02).

That means that 10 Republicans - 5 of them from Texas - are now sponsoring or co-sponsoring the Birther bill.

As you can see on the table below, none of the 3 new co-sponsors are vulnerable. If anything, Burton has far more to fear from a Republican primary than from the general election (he has already drawn several challengers in 2010) so this co-sponsorship could help him. But Marchant is not completely safe either. Not only did he score an unconvincing victory last fall, but his Dallas-suburbs district is rapidly trending blue: Gore lost by 36%, Kerry by 30% and Obama by 11%.

Name District First elected 2008 Prez vote 2008 score Bachmann bill?
Burton IN-05 1982 59% McCain
 66% Yes
Marchant TX-24 2004 55% McCain 56% Yes
Poe TX-02 2004 60% McCain no Dem No

Interestingly, Burton and Marchandt’s addition to the list means that a majority half of the Birther bill’s sponsors are now also co-sponsors of Michele Bachmann’s paranoid foreign currency-banning constitutional amendment; the other 3 are Posey, Blackburn and Culberson. [Update, with tips to Chris Steller for correcting me: It's 5 out of 10, so half rather than an outright majority.] We are here talking about the congressmen who are closest to movement conservatives.

In particular, Burton became famous in the 1990s for channeling most of the Clinton conspiracy theories - starting with his conviction that Vince Foster had been murdered and that the first couple was involved. Burton went as far as calling the press in his backyard to reenact the crime by shooting into a melon.

As the chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, Burton masterminded congressional investigations into Bill Clinton’s funding the 1996 campaign but Burton’s own ethical issues and strikingly vehement style made him a bigger lightning rod than the president. Burton attracted so much criticism that he was chided by Newt Gingrich himself (then Speaker, Gingrich called the Burton hearings “a circus”) and he had to apologize to the GOP.

As for Poe, he might not have partnered with Bachmann on the currency issue but he found other common ground. Just a week after signing on to the Birther bill, Posey signed on Bachmann’s new priority: Restricting the amount of information citizens are required to provide the U.S. census. (Despite the fact that Bachmann once called for a thorough expose of her fellow congressmen’s “un-American” activities, she is worried about the “ultimate protection of our sensitive personal information.”)

The Birther cause gains new House champions

Published
by
Taniel
on July 7, 2009
in Birther, CA-48, FL-15, MN-06 and TX-07
. 5 Comments

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

When Rep. Bill Posey introduced H.R. 1503 back in March, he gained wide attention as the most prominent Republican official to take up the birther cause. That movement, which falsely charges that Obama is refusing to produce his birth certificate and that he is thus not a natural-born citizen, long had as its highest-profile members far-right figures like Alan Keyes and Phil Berg. But here was a freshman Republican, sworn in the House just two months before, willing to make a congressional issue out of the fear that Obama is not a legitimate president.

When asked whether he believed Obama was a natural-born citizen, Posey avoided offering an answer. “I haven’t looked at the evidence. It’s not up to me to look at the evidence,” he explained. “I can’t swear on a stack of Bibles whether he is or isn’t.”

For two months, Posey was the only Republican willing to champion that bill but his isolation was broken in early May when Rep. Bob Goodlatte became H.R. 1503’s first co-sponsor. In June, four other Republicans added themselves to the list: Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. John Campbell, Rep. John Carter, Rep. John Culberson and Rep. Randy Neugebauer.

One thing these seven representatives have in common is that they are all members of the Republican Study Committee, a congressional caucus that groups the GOP’s conservative wing. Their association with the birther bill is now tagging them as members of the party’s most extreme right, so let’s take a closer look at what we know about these representatives and whether they could face competitive re-elections races; in the last column, I indicate whether they are signed-up as co-sponsors of Michele Bachmann’s paranoid constitutional amendment that seeks to defend the dollar’s role as the U.S. currency against depressingly misunderstood threats:

Name District First elected 2008 Prez vote 2008 score Bachmann bill
Posey FL-15 2008 51% McCain 54% Yes
Blackburn TN-7 2002 65% McCain 69% Yes
Campbell CA-48 2005 49% Obama 55% No
Carter TX-31 2002 58% McCain 60% No
Culberson TX-7 2000 58% McCain 56% Yes
Goodlatte VA-6 1992 57% McCain 61% No
Neugebauer TX-19 2003 72% McCain 72% No

CA-48 obviously stands out. John Campbell represents a district that voted for Obama in 2008; while it only did so narrowly, it was enough to label Campbell as vulnerable. Not only does CA-48 appear in my ratings, but is rated in the already moderately competitive “lean retention” category because Democrats have a highly credible challenge lined up: former Irvine Mayor Beth Krom has already jumped in the race.

Two other districts that are moderately competitive are FL-15 and TX-07. In the former, Posey (the leader of the House Birthers) is only a freshman and he occupies a district that is barely staying faithful to its Republican roots. While Democrats didn’t put up much of a fight in 2008, Posey is not entrenched enough to be certain he’ll easily win a second term. As for Culberson, he represents a staunchly Republican district but he had trouble closing his 2008 campaign: Democrats were excited by their nominee and the race created some buzz, though Culberson did prevail by 14%.

Of course, championing the birther bill will not end any of these 7 Republicans’ congressional tenure. For those, like Neugebauer and Blackburn, who are looking to move into higher office and know they have nothing to worry about but the Republican base, it could even prove a career booster. But the 3 congressmen who are already vulnerable - Campbell, Posey and Culberson - should to be careful not to make themselves into extremists isolated at their party’s fringe; as both Bill Sali and Bachmann showcased in 2008, that is a sure way to put yourself in electoral danger and lose your grip on a red-leaning district.

Speaking of Bachmann, isn’t the biggest surprise of this list her continued absence from it? The Minnesota congresswoman recently declared “I’m a foreign correspondent on enemy lines,” so would you not think she’d be interested in proving that the president is indeed a foreigner? Perhaps Bachmann is too busy in her newest crusade: The U.S. census. She recently declared that her family would not be filling any more information than the number of people in her household because she is concerned about governmental intrusion and about ACORN’s involvement with data collection.

Bachmann’s outburst led three conservative Republicans - Patrick McHenry (North Carolina), Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia) and John Mica (Florida) - to pen a letter urging her to reconsider her decision. The GOP does have reason to worry: If movement conservatives pick up Bachmann’s concerns as their new crusade and massively boycott the upcoming census, it could lead to conservative households to be undercounted. Even a small phenomenon could have consequences in terms of district allocation and redistricting, none of them to the GOP’s benefit.

Transition: Citizenship challenge tossed, Hildebrand’s strange attack on the left

Published
by
Taniel
on December 8, 2008
in Birther and cd-Administration
. 1 Comment

Few people were taking the threat seriously, but it is worth noting nonetheless to reassure those who were burned by Bush v. Gore: One of the last potential obstacles (if we can even call it that) to Barack Obama’s inauguration was tossed out today when the Supreme Court declined to hear Donforio vs. Wells, a challenge to Obama’s natural-born citizenship.

The suit - filed by Leo Donforio, a resident of New Jersey - but contended that Obama had dual nationality at birth (American and British, since his father was Kenyan and Kenya was under British rule) and that this clashed with the Constitution’s natural-born clause no matter where Obama was born.

There are other suits against Obama’s eligibility, some channeling the theories that Obama was not Hawaii despite state officials confirming that Obama’s birth certificate is valid. (The most high-profile of these challenges is that of Philip Berg, a Philadelphia attorney.) Donforio’s suit attracted more attention last week when Justice Thomas referred the case to the entire court after Justice Souter had rejected it outright.

—

Meanwhile, Steve Hildebrand - the deputy campaign manager of Obama’s presidential campaign and a name we grew familiar with over the course of the past year - published an essay in the Huffington Post in which he hit “the left wing of our Party” for criticizing Obama’s Cabinet.

Hildebrand did not ask that progressives wait for actual policy decisions - the most common response we hear to critics; rather, he defended Obama’s centrist (and, in the case of national security, openly right-wing) choices using the President-elect’s familiar post-partisan argument and warning that Obama will not govern from the left. Quite the contrary, Hildebrand writes, Obama will not get to the Left’s concerns until after he has started to “get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world:”

This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren’t progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn’t the way he thinks and it’s not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn’t, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people — not just those on the left.

First of all, it is important to note that Hildebrand no longer works for Obama as he declined moving to Washington. His essay should thus not be interpreted as the official position of Obama’s team and we should as always remember that policy decisions starting on January 20th will be far more important than what Obama’s former deputy campaign manager has to say.

That said, this essay has attracted enough attention to warrant a response. My problem with Hildebrand’s argument is not that he is defending centrist appointments but that he is doing so in a gratuitous and deceptive manner. Gratuitous, first: Progressives have not been very vocal against Obama’s picks, generally giving him the benefit of the doubt and many even arguing that Obama’s bi-partisan team would give him cover to implement a more liberal agenda (an argument I summarized here).

Gratuitous, also, because there is no need for a Democrat - and one who proclaims himself a “liberal member of our Party,” though Hildebrand appears to carefully distinguish the “liberal wing” from the “left wing” - to hit on members of his party’s left, and in the process fueling Republican talking-points that portray the left as out of touch with reality. Whether Obama intends to govern as a liberal or as a centrist, he will need the left to not be discredited to implement card checks or health care reform.

Deceptive, finally: Obama never ran on a radical platform nor as a left-winger so I for one never expected him to be a committed progressive. But if he wants to govern from the center, there is no need to couch it in meaningless post-partisan rhetoric.

Gates, Jones and Summer are all highly intelligent men who thankfully have opinions on how to protect the country or improve the economy. It makes no sense to suggest that Obama’s appointees were not designated based on what their prior decisions, actions and writing reveal about their approach to the country’s problem - experiences that has provided them with ideas and opinion, a more or less hawkish or dovish, neo-liberal or progressive profile.

Now, the discussion on whether Obama is building cover for progressive governance or whether he is more comfortable with a centrist entourage can live on, but let’s not pretend that his appointments are not relevant to debates on his ideological commitments (unless we accept that most qualified people just happen to be centrists, and what would that reveal about the way Obama views the left?).

Let’s not pretend that the people Obama is tapping have no prior opinion on the appropriate use of force, on how trade regulations can impact productivity or on how to balance civil liberties and national security - opinions that are well-documented, well-known and that are bound to impact their future decision-making.

For that matter, Obama’s team is less shy about acknowledging ideological motivations when it taps a progressive - for instance Jared Barnstein’s becoming Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser is being presented as a sign that labor will have Biden’s ear and a voice at Obama’s economic table.

Whether Hildebrand likes it or not, centrist politicians are also driven by ideological reasons, by which I mean that they come to particular problems with a framework within which to place them and preconceived ideas (formed by their prior experiences, economic and military theory and their understanding of history) on how to address them. They might think that a balanced budget is important or that the use of military force is justified in some contexts.

Frankly, to suggest that Obama’s thinking that Gates, Jones, Clinton, Richardson, Summers and Geithner are the most qualified for the job has nothing to do with where those men and women stand on these important questions is insulting to them and to Obama.