Posted under "Birther" & Donald Trump & Election 2012 & Obama & Republican Party & Ron Paul
In order not to clutter up the site with multiple links only posts, I will combine some Ron Paul and Donald Trump related links of interest in a single post. My minimal commentary will follow some of the links.
Ron Paul gets a little love from The Hill. In the same blog post The Donald gets dissed.
Bussiness Insider also give Paul a little love and respect.
Public Policy Polling says we should take Paul seriously.
Politico has the story on Paul’s announcement. This story irked me a bit. It begins:
“Ron Paul will move one step closer to a long-shot presidential bid Tuesday, when he announces the formation of an exploratory committee in Iowa.”
Ron Paul’s campaign honestly is a “long-shot,” but it is poor form for the allegedly neutral Politico to inject that editorial description of the campaign into its story, especially in the first sentence.
Trump questions how Obama got into Harvard Law School. The reigning assumption of a lot of people including Trump (and Wayne Allyn Root who has harped on this issue a lot) seems to be that Obama is not disclosing his school records because his grades were poor, and this seems likely true, but I also think he may not want his school records revealed because they might reveal he attended school as a foreign student or have some other embarrassing information. So the focus shouldn’t just be on grades. That said, it is good that this issue is being brought up because it also focuses the attention of a lot of people on the unfairness of Affirmative Action. We do know that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law because that information is public, so he is no dummy, but he likely didn’t earn his way in.
Trump claims Obama’s birth certificate is missing. This is a bold and reckless, if not true, claim. Does Trump know something? The problem is Trump tends to shot from the hip. He says he has been “told.” Anyone else I would think they might know something. Trump I’m not so sure.
De Niro criticizes Trump. Trump fires back. As much as I appreciate Trump for having the balls to raise and pursue the birth certificate issue, he really is too thinned skinned for politics. Trump has a tendency to respond by going for the neck. For example his famous exchange with Rosie O’Donnell. Here he calls De Niro dumb. Trump’s handlers, if there can be such a thing, need to help him reign in this type of reaction.
HT: IPR, Lew Rockwell
Brock Townsend on 26 Apr 2011 at 6:35 pm #
Trump claims Obama’s birth certificate is missing. This is a bold and reckless, if not true, claim.
=========
As I posted elsewhere: This isn’t new, but hopefully this added light will get somewhere this time.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Hawaii Governor Can’t Find Obama Birth Certificate!
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/01/hawaii-governor-cant-find-obama-birth.html
RedPhillips on 26 Apr 2011 at 7:50 pm #
Brock, I’m aware of the issue with the Hawaii Gov. The problem with how that was reported by the birther side is that he didn’t really say he couldn’t find it in so many words, although it is reasonable to conclude that that is one possibility. A reporter stated that and then later retracted it. He said he meant Abercrombie was searching for it.
Here is the sequence of events as we know it. Abercrombie announced he was going to try to release the BC, then there were a bunch of inquiries about the status of his search, then he quietly announced that state law wouldn’t allow him to release it so he is dropping the subject.
This sequences of events rightly arouses suspicion, but it is overstating things, from what we know, to say Abercrombie couldn’t find it.
It is not unreasonable, based on putting together several cryptic statements, to conclude that whatever is there, if anything, may be in some way irregular.
RedPhillips on 26 Apr 2011 at 8:42 pm #
On the no long form exists at all front, one former Hawaii elections clerk has sworn an affidavit saying that he was told no long form bc exists and says it was common knowledge in his office.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=283865
The idea that nothing in the way of a long form exists has always struck me as unlikely. If so then the short form is either a complete fraud or it is based on something other than a standard long form.
Sean Scallon on 26 Apr 2011 at 11:24 pm #
Gee where were these people asking these questions four years ago? It’s a little late now.
If you can’t run against the President record, you’re pretty much admitting you’re sunk.
Sean Scallon on 26 Apr 2011 at 11:29 pm #
I saw Trump’s act while supporting Buchanan in 2000 and it’s the same thing, all BS. He spouts off and calls it campaigning. He really doesn’t understand what he’s getting himself into.
RedPhillips on 27 Apr 2011 at 1:24 am #
“Gee where were these people asking these questions four years ago? It’s a little late now.”
I’m not sure who you mean by these people? Do you mean the election worker Adams specifically? If so, he worked for Hawaii in 2008 and came out with his allegations in June 2010? I don’t know why he waited. Did you read his affidavit? It rings true to me. There is nothing obviously fishy about it.
If you mean “birthers” in general, don’t you think they were shouting from the rooftops in 2008 trying to get anybody who would to listen? The state of our knowledge has advanced and there have been a lot of false starts, but they have been on this all along. Trump has just revived it.
“If you can’t run against the President record, you’re pretty much admitting you’re sunk.”
For me this is not about winning an election. It is a righteous quest for the truth. Am I more interested in finding the truth because I don’t like Obama and think the truth will harm him? Of course. I wouldn’t be as bothered if Ron Paul had issues of a nebulous background. But I would never shill for him either. I didn’t shill for Nikki Haley, even though I had reason to be sympathetic to her.
roho on 27 Apr 2011 at 1:27 am #
If the Hollywood useful idiots are coming out against Trump, he now has my attention?
Sean Scallon on 27 Apr 2011 at 4:47 am #
“he worked for Hawaii in 2008 and came out with his allegations in June 2010?”
As I said, a little too late.
Trump has revived because it gets him some love from that group of Republicans who believe Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. It’s gets him inside their thinking because if you look where’s stood politically over the years, he has absolutely zero convictions whatsoever. So what he’s doing is marketing himself and its got him good poll numbers because people know who he is. Wait’ until he declares and then watch him drop like a stone.
RedPhillips on 27 Apr 2011 at 1:09 pm #
Trump has a core set of convictions that are very Perotesq. It is the ancillary stuff like abortion and gun control that he seems to change according to circumstances. When he was trying to beat Buchanan he was a moderate. When he is trying to get the GOP nomination he is suddenly pro-life.
But the conventional wisdom is that Trump has celebrity and a certain appeal and is polling well because of it in spite of his embrace of the birth certificate issue. But this is wrong. Trump is polling well because he has embraced the bc issue. He is filling a void for people who are hungry for the issue to be addressed and see no mainstream candidate willing to do it. It also plays into the image of him as bold and willing to speak his mind. Trump would be causing some stir even without the bc issue because he is Donald Trump, but his spectacular rise is a product of the other candidates’ silence.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Apr 2011 at 1:51 pm #
If after all the hype, Trump declines to run, I’ll be the first to admit that he had me fooled. The sheer volume of publicity he is generating far exceeds anything he did in 2000. And I don’t see people getting tired of him. He’s not a 15 minutes of famer; he has staying power. And he can outspend any opponent and probably all opponents on his way to the Republican nomination. He won’t take any unpopular positions and unlike Romney, he’ll sound sincere. (Bluster always sounds more sincere to most voters.)
Once Trump has the GOP nod, he’s the default choice to Obama in the duopoly election. I don’t think any Repub has a very good chance of winning against Obama, but Trump would at least not be handicapped by lack of aggressiveness or funds. With any Repub nominee, I’d rate current probabilities from most to least likely as 1. Obama wins small, 2. Obama wins big, and 3. Obama loses big. Obama losing could be caused by the economy tanking again or some disastrous black swan event for which Obama would be blamed. If BHO loses, the Repub wins – even if it’s Trump, disastrous as that would be.
roho on 27 Apr 2011 at 2:35 pm #
I assume that the CIA Document Division, that creates false documents for field assets daily, can create a birth certificate for the POTUS at any time?
RedPhillips on 27 Apr 2011 at 4:26 pm #
Kirt, Trump is not going to get the GOP nomination for the same reason that Buchanan was never going to get it and Paul was never going to get it and won’t get it this time. If it looks like Trump may be in reach of winning the delegate count, the Powers That Be will go into overdrive to smear him and insure it doesn’t happen. And one of their big weapons will be the claim that he can’t win the general. Republican primary voters respond well to this kind of argument, and it will be especially powerful this time because of the level of Obama hate. Anyone but Obama fears will reign supreme. This is why Republican voters don’t respond well to appeals to vote third party. They really do see it as a two man show and ultimately care about winning.
Polls show that Trump would be a bad general election candidate. His level of “definitely wouldn’t vote for” is very high. Things can change in a year, but Trump has MUCH to overcome. (The “definitely wouldn’t vote for” number for Sarah Palin is very high also. I think that is one of the things that is detering her from running.)
Brock Townsend on 27 Apr 2011 at 4:27 pm #
Trump is polling well because he has embraced the bc issue.
Precisely, as he jumped 10 points in the week after he broached the subject.
Brock Townsend on 27 Apr 2011 at 4:38 pm #
Obama losing could be caused by the economy tanking again or some disastrous black swan event for which Obama would be blamed.
========
Gunwalker could be Obama’s Watergate. We shall see. Watergate itself did not down Nixon, but the cover up did and the administration has been in full blown cover up mode since the revelation.
Investigators land in Arizona for “Gunwalker” probe
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/04/investigators-land-in-arizona-for.html
Kirt Higdon on 27 Apr 2011 at 8:36 pm #
Red, I don’t see Trump as comparable to Buchanan or Paul. Neither of them would say whatever it takes to get elected. They are principled (Buchanan a bit inconsistently). Trump is an egomaniac and sociopath, both valuable traits in the politics of a democracy. Neither Buchanan nor Paul were especially well funded while Trump is extremely well funded. As far as electability is concerned, 2nd term elections are a referendum on the incumbent. It’s Obama’s to win or lose no matter who the Repubs put up.
Brock, I hope you’re right about gunwalker being Obama’s Watergate, but covert ops resulting in blowback are now routine since the US being at war is routine. The American people have bought into a permanent state of war and simply tuned out the consequences as long as they are not being bombed or shot. Many of them even like the idea of being permanently at war and some even propose that the US invade Mexico to fight the same cartels the US is now apparently arming.
UncontestedTruth on 28 Apr 2011 at 4:25 am #
“I assume that the CIA Document Division, that creates false documents for field assets daily, can create a birth certificate for the POTUS at any time?”
And I assume that we threw out the Constitution on the fact that the paper is getting a little worn. Oh we didnt? Hmm thats odd.
You are suggesting that the CIA is not following the Constitution which would be the greatest conspiracy of the 21st century. And why would the CIA do this again?
Does no one else find it odd that the Republican party complains and complains about not seeing the birth certificate but never really does anything? All they have to do is bring up impeachment paperwork and Obamas documents would be unsealed under federal investigation. Why didnt they do this on day 1 because if proven not to be a citizen, the GOP would win the next presidential election in a landslide. It is because they know he is a citizen but they are feeding of this for votes. Like I always say, common sense is a simple game of connect the dots.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Apr 2011 at 11:10 am #
“You are suggesting that the CIA is not following the Constitution which would be the greatest conspiracy of the 21st century. And why would the CIA do this again?”
You’re kidding, right? The whole purpose of intelligence organizations is to engage in conspiracies. Indeed you could say that conspiracy is the very art of politics. And if any part of the federal government follows the constitution, it’s only rarely and accidentally.