Posted under Obama
While I have never questioned that the President was born in Hawaii, I have long and repeatedly maintained that he should authorize the release of his long form birth certificate, that there is no go reason why he shouldn’t, and that people are rightly curious as to why he has not.
Well it seems the incoming Democrat Gov. of Hawaii agrees with me.
Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie wants to find a way to release more information about President Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth and dispel conspiracy theories that he was born elsewhere.
“Just release the long form” has always seemed like an unassailable position to me. I don’t get how anyone could be opposed to it. It is the intuitive, common sense, default position. Those who get their back up about it seem to me to fall primarily into two classes – either liberal Obama apologists who construe any opposition to the President as inherently malevolent and likely racist and moderate and conservative conspiracy phobics who want to shout down any kind of conspiracy talk lest it taint political discourse. (Conservative conspiracy phobics have an interest in protecting the brand. Moderate conspiracy phobics have an interest in maintaining the unquestioning acceptance of the conventional wisdom. There is much overlap as well.)
Brock Townsend on 29 Dec 2010 at 8:19 pm #
Chris Matthews also.
Puggg on 29 Dec 2010 at 9:42 pm #
I’ve always thought the BC “controversy” was an Obama/Rahm/Axelrod gimmick to create a diversion away from his policies. There are some who think HRC cooked it up as a last ditch hail mary in the primaries, but if so, then Obama/Rahm/Axelrod would have produced it in spring ’08 and finished the dragoness off forever.
If my theory is right, thankfully it hasn’t been too much of a diversion.
I do think the White House is going to lean hard on Abercrombie not to release it, even if he could, because I don’t think the WH wants Obama to come off as the Machiavellian SOB that he is.
RedPhillips on 29 Dec 2010 at 11:59 pm #
BT, I plan to address Chris Matthews when I have more computer time. I think Matthews saying that is a big deal.
Chris Hewlett on 30 Dec 2010 at 3:42 pm #
My eldest daughter was born in Honolulu in 1982. The BC I have for her looks just like the O’s short form as presented on TV. If there is a “long form” I know nothing bout it.
RedPhillips on 30 Dec 2010 at 3:47 pm #
Ugh. No offense Chris, but you must be late to this debate. The long form is the original upon which the electronic form is based. I thought this was common knowledge.
Chris Hewlett on 30 Dec 2010 at 5:46 pm #
No it isn’t common knowledge. As I stated, I have never seen my daughter’s long form, so what is the significance of it? Obama is a non-American born in America.
RedPhillips on 30 Dec 2010 at 6:22 pm #
OK then, it’s common knowledge to people who have been following the birther debate. The significance, originally as I understand it, is that some birthers thought the short form Obama produced was potentially a fraud and wanted to see the long form to verify it. It didn’t help that at one time Hawaii itself required the long form for certain official business, a requirement that has since changed in response to the birther issue. At present, the significance is that Obama’s failure to authorize the release of the long form, for no apparent good reason, has become an issue in and of itself. It is an issue because it is an issue.
Chris Matthews explains the difference (and shows) in the video that I linked to in the thread above.
This post and especially the debate in the thread confirms my understanding of the issue. It’s long but worth reading.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5765#comments
Chris Hewlett on 31 Dec 2010 at 12:04 pm #
RedPhillips, maybe O will be forced to produce something which would be a good thing. Any distraction forced upon O is a good thing.