Posted under "Birther" & Donald Trump & Media & Political Correctness
Incurious - Lacking intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity; uninterested.
One reason I am so emotionally invested in the birther issue despite the fact that I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, is because the failure of our press to do their basic job infuriates me. I have called our press ”deliberately incurios,” and I think that label fits perfectly. It’s not that our journalists are incurious by the definition above. If they were they wouldn’t be journalists. It is that they have willed themselves to be incurious in this case.
This blog post by Jack Cashill illustrates perfectly this dynamic. George Stephanopoulos interviewed Obama on the Thursday (14 April 11) edition of Good Morning America. Stephanopolous brought up Trump and his pursuit of birtherism. This was Stephanopolous’ hard hitting question:
“I mean all of us have been struck by Donald Trump rising to the top of the Republican field by feeding fantasies about your background. What do you make of that?”
I think the idea that Obama was born in Kenya is highly implausible at best, but the use of the word “fatasies” by Stephanopolous is inexcusable and clearly reveals his bias, especially since the “fantasies” being referred to are about Obama’s “background” (which is much in question) in general and not his alleged Kenyan birth specifically.
Obama told Steph he was born in Hawaii and doesn’t “have horns.” (Yuck, yuck. What a funny guy. That was a real side splitter.) Would it have killed Steph to just ask the simple follow-up “Mr. President, why don’t you just release the long form to put this issue to rest?” There is a name for an obvious and simple follow-up question of that sort. It’s called journalism. Obama shouldn’t be able to put his face in public without 100 mainstream journalist yelling “Mr. President, why don’t you just release the long form?”
I know I’m pretty much just making the same point Cashill makes in his post, but I had had this conversation with someone before I saw the Cashill post. I guess great minds think alike. 
Matt Weber on 19 Apr 2011 at 3:24 am #
I guess I’m in the incurious camp. You’ve already acknowledged that Obama was born here, so the only real crime he could possibly be guilty of is off the table. That he may be hiding something is decidedly less interesting. What could he possibly be hiding? That he’s a worthless president who personifies the decline of America? No, he makes that quite plain. That he’s a Muslim? Nope; he’s plainly an atheist like 95% of his peers.
What in the world is there to gain from any of this? I suppose if I were a Republican strategist I might see some value, but for a normal person? Obama has already given anyone with their eyes even half open enough reasons to never vote for him again. And imagine if, in October 2012, he releases the long awaited long form and…there’s nothing there. It’s just a normal birth certificate. Then the birthers look insane as well as stupid, and by that time it won’t matter how much they hedged it.
Larry on 19 Apr 2011 at 12:57 pm #
MR. Weber:
So Obozo is hiding his birth certificate as part of a plan to have Reps demand it up to the eve of the next election and then SHAZAM! He will disclose it and expose them as loons. Fine.
And spending millions (millions) of dollars with lawers to keep his records all sealed is part of this shceme??
RedPhillips on 19 Apr 2011 at 3:45 pm #
Matt, what if what is on the long form proves the short form he released is a fraud? Would that matter? What if the birth certficate shows he was officially adopted by his step Dad? (I don’t know that it would but I have read that birth certificates are annotated when an adoption takes place. It’s funny, however, that I don’t know this for sure and have only read about it from people with a stake in the birth certificate controversy. If our press was doing its job this would be common knowledge because every mainstream news outlet in the country would have done a story on it. [Before the 2008 election.]) I don’t know that either of these is true. They are just a couple of things that have been speculated about.
I’m sorry, but I simply can’t supress my desire to know the truth, and I can’t understand how folks like Kirt and you can. That he has been a disaster as a President and not worthy of re-election on that basis is a different issue.
roho on 19 Apr 2011 at 4:03 pm #
Red…………You are right on this issue, and I will go as far as to say “What has Washington and it’s MSM mouthpiece ever been honest about?”
Pearl Harbor?
Gulf Of Tonkin Incident?
USS Liberty?
WMD’s in Iraq?
Kennedy Assasination?
Israel’s Nukes?
The Georgia South Osatia Conflict?
Israeli white phosphorus on civilian children?
Politicians are all liars.
Matt Weber on 19 Apr 2011 at 5:29 pm #
“Matt, what if what is on the long form proves the short form he released is a fraud?”
Well then we’re back into the actual birther claim, which to my understanding we had all moved on from.
“What if the birth certficate shows he was officially adopted by his step Dad?”
Then…what? I couldn’t care less. Obama’s personal details have absolutely no interest to me whatsoever. I haven’t even read his books that he may or may not have written. Perhaps the story he has concocted about himself is a big fat lie. Well then, I say the lie is so bad that the truth could hardly be worse.
It isn’t enough to say he may be hiding something. The president is allowed to hide things. He’s not required to make anything public that is not a stipulation of eligibility for office. So, if birthers, as you say, have conceded that Obama was born in the US then there is simply no more argument to be had. We might be curious, but there is nothing to demand that Obama satisfy our curiosity.
Of course I don’t care if birthers go on about their theories, and I have no desire to silence them or shut them out. But they ought to realize that without the central birther claim, their case gets much less important.
RedPhillips on 19 Apr 2011 at 6:01 pm #
Matt, his COLB lists Barack Obama Sr. as his father. What if the long form lists the father as unknown or someone else? That would prove the COLB is a fraud without getting at the original birther claim.
If he was officially adopted by his step dad then he arguably became an Indonesian citizen and arguably lost his American citizenship. It is possible that the President of the United States is an illegal alien since there is no evidence that he reapplied for US citizenship as far as I know.
I say arguably because I have only seen this argument from people with a stake in the birther debate. (Although I don’t recall seening it rebutted specifically by the other side.) If, for the sake of the argument, he was adopted by his step dad the implications for his citizenship would, I assume, be a rather straight forward matter of law. Why haven’t I seen this worked out by a disinterested expert in citizenship law? Why have I only seen assertions made by the birther side? Again, BECAUSE THE PRESS HAS NOT DONE ITS FREAKING JOB! This should have all been worked out very precisely by the press before the election (during the primary really). Proof that he was or wasn’t officially adopted by his step dad should have been demanded by the press and any lack of transparency on the part of Obama should have been viewed with extreme skepticism.
Do you to take issue with the last half of the paragraph above? It is simple due deligence.
Matt Weber on 19 Apr 2011 at 6:43 pm #
This is the first I’ve ever seen of the stepfather argument, but the US allows dual citizenship, so a citizen must formally relinquish their US citizenship once they have it. I’ve no idea whether the records of such a thing are public, but I’d be amazed if they both existed and escaped Hillary’s goblins back during the primaries.
To me, though, this is all just a variation on the original birther claim. He may not have been born in Kenya exactly, but some other fact of his early life renders him ineligible for the Presidency. This only strikes me because I thought we had all moved on from outright claims of ineligibility. The birthers ought to decide what it is they are really accusing Obama of.
Why the press doesn’t ask any questions is odd, especially given how much time the 24 hour news channels have to ask them. I imagine Stephanopolous is motivated for precisely the reasons you give, but even Fox doesn’t ask, and surely we can’t accuse them of being in the tank for Obama. They may not ask because they find nothing to be suspicious about. As long as there is no law requiring Obama to release his long form birth certificate to satisfy the curiosity of his opponents, there is nothing to demand.
The only real good I can see coming from all of this is a law requiring presidential candidates to make public all relevant documents to prove eligibility to run for president. In fact, I find it baffling that we don’t already have such a process in place.
RedPhillips on 19 Apr 2011 at 7:49 pm #
I have long thought that focusing on “eligibility” was misguided. The focus should be on potential deliberate deceit. So if he is lying about his paternity, for example, that might actually help him from the eligibility standpoint, but would reveal him to be a deliberate deceiver on a grand scale.
The issue of adoption and potential Indonesian citizenship may not impact his current citizenship, but it could impact whether or not he can be considered “natural born” from a constitutional standpoint.
The issue of what exactly was meant by “natural born” citizen is actually a separate issue. From a conservative, originalist standpoint what matters is what the Founding Fathers intended by that phrase. So where is a scholarly originalist study of this? Have you seen one? I would love to see a serious originalist constitutional or history scholar address this issue, but I haven’t. If I am missing it, please direct me there. This is actually a failure of the conservative press who should be interested in original intent. What I have seen is a lot of assertions by both sides about what “natural born” means, but very little attempt to back up these assertions with quotes from the Founders, debate from the Constitutional Convention, etc. This is what originalists are supposed to be concerned about, is it not? (It is unlikely to actually be totally clear cut because times were different back then and we didn’t have mass travel, hospital births, birth certificates, etc. like we do today, but someone needs to at least give it a college try.) This separate and entirely legitimate line of inquiry has been neglected because it falls within the “penumbra” of birtherism and thus “mainstream” conservatives are scared to touch it. It is a casualty of what I have previously called conspiracy phobia.
Do you support a concerted attempt to ascertain the meaning of “natural born” from an originalist standpoint? And if it can be convincingly demonstrated that “natural born” was intended to exclude those born with dual citizenship, would you then oppose Obama’s eligibility on originalist constitutionalist grounds?
I am not naive enough to believe that would settle the issue “in real life” because our government (and most voters) clearly doesn’t care about original intent and subverts it every moment of every day, but it would sure give those of us who do a bully pulpit to mount and pound away from.
CharleyCarp on 20 Apr 2011 at 3:28 pm #
Hi. Honest question here. I don’t follow this thing as closely as many, but have the distinct impression that (a) Obama has turned over the only document he is permitted to have and (b) has the only document he can get from the state. That is, he hasn’t failed to disclose a document that he has, can have, or can authorize be disclosed. Is this actually incorrect?
As a matter of Hawaii law?
Matt Weber on 20 Apr 2011 at 3:50 pm #
I’d like to see a scholarly originalist anything on TV or anywhere else in the popular media. Most likely, though, it would take place in one of the conservative ghettos on the internet and no one would know or care. But in that case I would be happy to oppose the O man’s eligibility on any grounds that were turned up.
I guess my position is thus: unless there is good reason to suspect Obama of some deception regarding the circumstances of his birth that would impinge on his eligibility to run for president, there is little use to haggling over it when all the press is against you anyway. Obama just being deceptive about this or that aspect of his life, where it doesn’t affect eligibility, isn’t enough grounds to start digging around in records. If he wishes to hide these things, then he should be able to, and the other candidates should be able to use that against him all day long. But overall, Obama’s life and private affairs have almost no interest for me. If he was indeed a Kenyan peasant, I might actually have more respect for him.
RedPhillips on 20 Apr 2011 at 4:13 pm #
Charley, good question. You are not technically correct, although Hawaii seems to be going out of its way to give that impression and change the rules as time goes on. But that was certainly not true in 2007 – 2008 when this all started. Until recently Hawaii itself required the long form for certain official business. I’ll explain in detail when I have more time, but that Hawaii seems to be running interference for Obama only makes people more suspicious.
Matt Weber on 20 Apr 2011 at 11:38 pm #
Red, if you’re still paying attention to this thread, look at Beej’s comment here:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/04/19/iowa-could-be-bachmann-country/#comments
This is the real problem with birtherism; not that some on the right are uninterested, but that many find it beyond the pale to even ask the question. He’s a lifelong American citizen and was democratically elected, how dare you bring up the Constitution written by dead white men! Sadly, birtherism can’t succeed because a lot of people would rather toss out the Constitution than Obama.
Kirt Higdon on 21 Apr 2011 at 3:06 pm #
“Do you support a concerted attempt to ascertain the meaning of “natural born” from an originalist standpoint? And if it can be convincingly demonstrated that “natural born” was intended to exclude those born with dual citizenship, would you then oppose Obama’s eligibility on originalist constitutionalist grounds?”
I can’t think of a bigger waste of time, energy and money for an individual, but maybe Trump can finance such research out of small change. I doubt if the founders even considered this question, especially since citizenship was a much vaguer notion then than now. Most people were considered “subjects” of ruling monarchs. And I notice this question also slips in the assumption that Obama in fact has dual citizenship. What is the evidence for that?
Let me mention some related developments. The demos are now starting to smear as birthers repub candidates who have never questioned Obama’s birth eligibility. But if birther has now been redefined to include anyone with any doubts whatsoever about the Obama “narrative”, anyone who thinks that BHO even MAY have something to hide, no one can really call this a smear – just an accurate statement.
Worse yet is the tendency of delusional thinking in one area to bleed over into other areas. That the birthers are anti-Obama is a given, that they are flocking by the thousands and maybe millions to follow Donald Trump is a potential catastrophe. Trump is a long time promoter of and contributor to liberal causes and candidates. As recently as December of 2010, he contributed $50,000 to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign to be mayor of Chicago. This one item, which I first saw a couple of days ago, tells me more about Trump than birth certificates of any length are likely to tell me about BHO, yet it is only one item out of many – most of them cheerfully admitted by the Donald. Yet this is the man who, according to many all the way across the political spectrum, now defines the right.
BTW, the “issue” of BHO’s birth certificate or lack thereof or college transcripts or ghost-written books did not make Ron Paul’s list of the top 50 issues which should be of concern to Americans. Since the good doctor stopped at 50, I don’t know where the “birther issue” would fit in. I’m guessing maybe #782 or maybe #10,456.
Kirt Higdon on 21 Apr 2011 at 9:21 pm #
One leftist commentator suggests that Trump is a self-appointed liberal mole/troll pulling the biggest prank in the history of American politics. That’s a possibility to be considered; I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.
http://www.truthout.org/mad-genius-donald-trump
RedPhillips on 22 Apr 2011 at 3:34 am #
“I can’t think of a bigger waste of time, energy and money for an individual,”
First of all, it is NEVER a waste of time and energy to investigate original intent, and how would it cost money? Shame on you for suggesting such. Second, I can easily think of a bigger waste of time. Trying to talk you down from your counterproductive naysaying.
“I doubt if the founders even considered this question, especially since citizenship was a much vaguer notion then than now. Most people were considered “subjects” of ruling monarchs.”
I absolutely agree, and I even said so in my reply above to Matt. I said “It is unlikely to actually be totally clear cut because times were different back then and we didn’t have mass travel, hospital births, birth certificates, etc. like we do today, but someone needs to at least give it a college try.” I guess you missed that part.
“And I notice this question also slips in the assumption that Obama in fact has dual citizenship. What is the evidence for that?”
Kirt, I know this is going to shock you, but I have followed this issue pretty closely from the start so I think I know the details of the debate pretty well, if I do say so myself. I don’t mind you commenting here, even though I don’t agree with you. I even kind of enjoy our little sparring matches. But if you are going to attempt to comment knowingly on this issue, please do try to keep up. That Obama had dual citizenship when he was born IS NOT IN DISPUTE! He did. This is an established fact that no one denies. Even Obama admits it. His alleged Father was Kenyan. At the time Kenya was a British colony. As a “citizen” of Kenya BO Sr. was a “subject” of the British Crown as was his son automatically according to the British law at the time which is what governs. Once Kenya became a free country and was no longer a British colony, according to Kenyan law BO II reverted to Kenya “citizenship” (or whatever the appropriate term is) and remained a dual citizen until a certain age. After a certain age (I can’t remember if it was 18 or 21 or 23) he could no longer remain a dual citizen and had to renounce his Kenyan citizenship. (This is of course ignoring the issue of his possible Indonesian citizenship.) But assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, which I do, no one disputes that at the time of his birth he was both a US citizen and a subject of the British Crown. No one.
“That the birthers are anti-Obama is a given, that they are flocking by the thousands and maybe millions to follow Donald Trump is a potential catastrophe.”
Trump is far from being an ideal candidate, but no one is to blame for birthers flocking to him other than the other candidates who are too chicken sh*t to ask the obvious question “Why won’t Obama open his records?” Trump is filling a void the other candidates aren’t manly enough (yeah I said it) to fill.
Kirt Higdon on 22 Apr 2011 at 12:33 pm #
So now the Donald sets the standard for manliness? And those “other candidates” who “aren’t manly enough (yeah I said it)” include Ron Paul, whom you, Red, said you were supporting. Hmm. At this point I’ll be permanently withdrawing from this birther controversy. With Ron Paul expected to soon officially announce his candidacy, I’ll have serious things to do.
RedPhillips on 22 Apr 2011 at 3:52 pm #
“And those “other candidates” who “aren’t manly enough (yeah I said it)” include Ron Paul,”
Let me, for the sake of clarity, restate my premise. 1.) Obama should release his long form birth certificate to put this issue to rest (as well as unseal his other sealed records). 2.) There is no good reason why he shouldn’t (unless he has something to hide). 3.) To want to see his long form birth certificate is the natural, intuitive response driven by natural, innate curiosity. 4.) To deliberately look the other way and claim disinterest in seeing his long form bc and other records requires the deliberate suppression of the innate, normal response. 5.) The fact that he hasn’t released the long form birth certificate and opened his other records naturally causes people to go “Hmmm … I wonder if he is hiding something.”
I am not going to back down from this because I don’t think any of these are debatable propositions. They are akin to me asserting that the sky is blue. I will concede that people could argue with #2 that a “good reason” would be adherence to some sort of high minded principle of it hasn’t been asked of others or it isn’t required or whatever. Fine. If Obama wants to fall on that sword then so be it, but #3, #4, and #5 still apply, and he then has no right to protest that people aren’t buying it. (And I will concede that routinely asking of candidates to unseal their health records, transcripts, SAT scores, etc. is a bit voyeuristic, but here Obama is lying in a bed entirely of his own making.)
That said, if a candidate or pundit is asked what they think about birtherism an appropriate response would at a minimum be something like this: “I think the current evidence suggests that Obama was born in Hawaii, but I also think he should just release his long form birth certificate to put this issue to rest.” He would get bonus points from me if he added “Obama’s refusal so far to release his long form birth certificate and unseal his many other sealed records has a lot of people naturally asking if he has something to hide.” Anything along the lines of “there are more important issues to discuss,” “this birth certificate issue is just a distraction,” “I’m satisfied with what he has released so far,” “its time to move on” etc. etc. etc. is a deliberate dodge, and would yes indicate a certain level of fearfulness.* This is true whether Romney says it or Ron Paul says it. I like Ron Paul. I intend to support Ron Paul, but I do not consider Ron Paul above criticism. I will criticize him when I think it is warranted as I did on his stupid DADT vote. And he if dodges the birther issue I will call him out on it.
*I understand the prudential argument that this is bad politics, but the current milieu does not allow for neutrality. This is a time for choosing. In the current environment, prudential political arguments land you squarely on the dodging the issue side. What would be the best politics would be complete unity on the “just release the long form” message. If every Republican and conservative pundit was relentlessly and unflinchingly beating that drum, then we might reach critical mass. But we don’t have unity. We have a bunch of fearful ankle snipers undermining the unassailable common sense position.