35 Responses to “Jon Stewart Destroys Birthers Movement”

1. Agnostick Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm

   PWNED!!!

2. Agnostick Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm

   Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing this out…

3. Mike A. Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm

   I will bet this theory will NEVER be debunked and will continue in perpetuity. I can just picture the 30th anniversary meeting of Birthers holding up their birth certificates in Hawaii, similar to the foil-hatted Area 51 people in Roswell. Even if there was a satellite photo showing video of Obama’s live birth in Hawaii, the birthers will not accept the data. My personal debate – is this an example of a large population of people overly suspicious of government conspiracies or is it an example of an extreme lack of critical thinking resulting from poor education?

4. michael reynolds Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   Why? Race. As you may know, Barack Obama is black. Therefore he is not a true American. And he has no business being in the White House. He’s by definition an interloper. He’s by definition a threat to all we hold dear as Americans.

   That’s what this is about. It’s racists finding a way to denigrate and exclude and delegitimize Obama without having to use the n-word.

   The GOP is not itself a racist party, but it has knowingly, deliberately catered to racists and made sure they had a home in the GOP. They’ve been practicing a dog whistle racism since the 1960’s and while I doubt 20% of Republicans are racists, I suspect 80% of racists are Republicans.

   In its shrunken, distilled-to-the-base condition the GOP has elevated the wingnuts to greater importance.

   And before we get the usual Republican apologists comparing these people to Truthers, let me point out the differences: 1) I don’t recall a Truther bill getting measurable support in Congress. 2) Not a single major voice in the Democratic party supported the Truthers. 3) Republican nuts like guns, our nuts don’t.

   The GOP ought to do something about this, but they won’t. Rush Limbaugh has inoculated the Birthers from attack. They are now safe within the GOP, as the GOP continues its spiral into crazy town.

5. Agnostick Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm

   Again: I challenge CBL (Crazy Birther Lady), EI, and all the others to put up or shut up.

   In a court of law… birthers would be plaintiffs, the president would be the defendant. Burden of proof rests with the plaintiffs.

   Find and present the original, authentic Kenyan birth certificate–or any other non-American birth certificate.

   Agnostick
   agnostick@excite.com

6. Mike A. Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm

   Michael R says “Why? Race.”

   God I hope that’s not the case.

7. Tully Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm

   What Republican bill? I’m not gonna watch ten minutes of Jon Stewart to pick up a third-hand reference, but I’d love to know the bill number so I can have fun mocking it, and making sure we have the names of all the sponsors out there for everyone to see.

   So then, question….why do you think this birth certificate nonsense has been able to pick up steam?

   Because nutburgers are divorced from reality and critical thinking. You can always tell a conspiracy theorist, you just can’t tell them anything that will convince them they’re wrong.

   Michael does love to ascribe wingnut criticism of Obama as racist, and most racists as being Republicans (which is admittedly a decline from previous implications that all Republicans are racists). Without any actual evidence to support such blanket accusations, of course. No doubt some of it is, but ALL of it, or even a majority? Heh. Unlikely.

8. michael reynolds Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm

   Tully:

   1) Poll internals. Those who admit they won’t vote for a black guy are Repubs.

   2) Dog whistle racist rhetoric in the GOP and in GOP media. They don’t do it because it lacks for audience.

   And I’ve never said all Republicans are racist. I’ve said they chose in the Nixon era to add racists to their party and have fed and watered those lovely people ever since.

9. Tully Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm

   Poll internals? Cite ‘em. Showing that all or at least a majority of Birthers are racists. And prefereably showing that they are Birthers because they are racist.

   No?

   I’d say it’s a given that anti-black racists would trend anti-Obama, as would Republicans for pretty obvious reasons, but the logic breaks down past that, so more direct evidence would seem required to substantiate a claim that Birthers were motivated mostly or completely by racism as you allege, despite the inevitable overlap. It’s possible, of course, but it’s also quite possible they’re Birthers mostly because their Rice Krispies told them to be.

   As for race and “dog whistles,” I think that both parties have their own dog whistling going on. It’s always instructive to flip situations in reverse to examine issues. I think it’s a safe bet that had McCain (born in Panama) been elected, we would still be hearing from Birthers. How would you describe those Birthers?

10. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Tully:

    Nice try.

    I believe that birthers are racists.

    I asserted that polls show Republicans are more racist than Democrats. That they have given home to racists. And that they did so deliberately.

    And it’s not just about Obama:

    http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

    It’s a question of attitudes toward blacks. Given a set of descriptors in every case the Republican respondents had a significantly more negative attitude than Democrats. Republicans more likely to view blacks as stupid, lazy and violent. And all sorts of other unpleasant things. Yes, there were racist Dems and racist Independents, but more racist Republicans.

    Republicans far more than white Democrats see blacks as the “other.” And as an essentially negative other.

    So both negative attitudes toward blacks generally, and the Birther movement, are located inside the GOP.

    No, I don’t think there would be an equally strong Birther crowd in the Democratic party if McCain had won. Sorry. Republicans are crazier. And their crazies aren’t just sideshows, they are feature players. The single most powerful person in the GOP — Rush Limbaugh — is a serial race-baiter.

    We have nuts. We do not have nuts with guns. We do not threaten the violent overthrow of the government, nor do we circulate pictures of Obama as a jigaboo, nor do we do droll little radio bits based on Amos and Andy era caricatures, nor do we attend “tea parties” and wave the Confederate battle flag, nor do we suggest secession might be a nice idea, nor do we obsess for days about a “wise Latina” woman, nor do suggest as Pat Buchanan recently did that we should exploit racial animus.

    That’s your side, not mine. And I know, I know, you’re a registered Democrat, God only knows what that’s about, but it’s not about you really being a Democrat.

11. rob Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    I asserted that polls show Republicans are more racist than Democrats. That they have given home to racists. And that they did so deliberately.

    Well, the white racists anyway. The dems get the lock on the classists and minority racists.

12. Tully Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    What a wonderful partisan morass of bubbly generalist-statement bullshit, Michael! But thanks for clarifying that those are your beliefs, and that you’re not able to be specific about the evidence of it.

    Now, if you went through the attitudes of all Democrats towards white people, do you think that you might find something similar going on? Would that not imply anti-white racism? I ask because it’s been a long time since I heard the phrase “rich Republicans” used without the word “white” in the middle of it. I’m told that’s not racism, or that it’s justifiable racism, or even that it’s good racism.

    No, I don’t think there would be an equally strong Birther crowd in the Democratic party if McCain had won. Sorry. Republicans are crazier.

    Crazier? ROFLMAO. I would REALLY challenge you to prove that with objective evidence. (I’d also challenge Republicans to prove the opposite.) I think that categorically it can not be done, but it would be funny to watch. And it’s a lovely demonstration of your own prejudices, isn’t it?

    I know, you’re a registered Democrat, God only knows what that’s about, but it’s not about you really being a Democrat.

    So, someone who is a registered Democrat is not really a Democrat unless they agree with you on everything! How special. It reminds me SO MUCH of the rightie wingnuts and their claims that anyone who doesn’t agree with them about absolutely everything is not really a Republican. On that basis, I am happy to say I am assuredly neither a “real Democrat” nor a “real Republican,” and as things stand have zero desire to be either one. Guess I just lack that True Believer let-somone-else-do-all-your-thinking-and-do-as-you’re-told gene. But thanks for proving my ongoing lecture about True Believers, dogmatic zealots, and CPD™. And for implying I’m really a Republican and thus a racist.

    That’s your side, not mine.

    Your side, apparently, being “real Democrats” as defined above. Glad I’m not on your side, then. Contrary to the bullshit either/or dichotomies so beloved by the goose-stepping partisans of both parties, that does not place me on the “other side” either. I’m not a real partisan because I don’t goose-step to the uber-platform of the spittle-spewing partybots. Oddly enough, a large percentage of Congresscritters in both parties also fail that test.

    And BTW, I read through that poll, and the crosstabs you claim are there ARE NOT THERE. The poll reported NO measurements of racial attitudes by party, despite your claims it did. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The best that could be taken from that poll is that small a percentage of people self-identifying as white are willing to tell pollsters of attitudes construed by you as being racist. And no real comparison of countervailing anti-white racism among non-white respondents is possible from the poll, as the appropriate questions were not extended the other way to ask non-whites about their stereotypical perceptions of white people. Rather lopsided, that.

    In short, you lied about the poll. Another datum in your veracity index.

13. Mike A. Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Michael says “We have nuts. We do not have nuts with guns. …..nor do we circulate pictures of Obama as a jigaboo”

    This is only a personal observation, but I have to agree that the emails I receive from my conservative friends (generally older retired military folk) are incredibly racist in nature. If I challenge them on the content I get the “it’s just a joke” and “you’re too sensitive” response. Although I have not gone back and audited, I can safely say I have received a minimum of one questionably racist email per week since the election. That’s a lot!

    Maybe I need new friends… :p

14. ExiledIndependent Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    MRl, awfully fast to play the race card. Would you agree that a percentage of black people who voted for Obama are racist? Check the exit polls by race and tell me what you think.

    Let me ask the overall question in a different way: What is wrong with requiring an original certified birth certificate as part of the process for becoming a presidential candidate?

    And Mike A., you’re probably right. Even though an original certified birth certificate as part of the public record would quiet some folks down, there are others who will cling to the mythology of it all.

15. Tully Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    What is wrong with requiring an original certified birth certificate as part of the process for becoming a presidential candidate?

    What’s wrong with it is that original birth certificates are not the property of the person, but of the state, and generally by law cannot be removed from the files of same. The person has no access to them, only to the state’s certification that such a record exists and is in their possession and shows X was born at Y facility on date J to patient Z and the father was reported as being person Q. The state of Hawaii has issued such a certificate for Obama, it has been exmained and verified as having been truly and properly issued and not a fake, and both the state Registrar and the Sec’y of State of Hawaii have publicly confirmed that they have examined the original and it is as reported in the state-issued certificate.

16. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Exiled:

    The birther bill has 9 co-sponsors.

    7 are from the former Confederacy: Texas, Tennessee and Virginia.

    1 is from Indiana, a virtual southern state. That would be famous mental case Dan Burton. He of the melon-shooting fame.

    And 1, God help me, is my own idiot Congressman from Orange County, CA.

    Amazingly — amazingly I say — none from New England. Or the midwest. Or the northeast. Mostly old white southerners. From overwhelmingly white districts. Almost all from rural white districts.

    So I guess white conservatives from all-white rural southern districts are just really, really into documentation. And it’s just coincidence that their interest was piqued on the occasion of our first black president.

17. Nick Benjamin Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Now, if you went through the attitudes of all Democrats towards white people, do you think that you might find something similar going on? Would that not imply anti-white racism? I ask because it’s been a long time since I heard the phrase “rich Republicans” used without the word “white” in the middle of it. I’m told that’s not racism, or that it’s justifiable racism, or even that it’s good racism.

    I sincerely doubt any poll of “most democrats” would demonstrate most of them associated whites with bad things. Most Democrats are white. And the black ones don’t exactly go easy on themselves.

    Rich whites probably. But that’s not racist so much as classist.

    As for the debate on whether more racists are Republican than Dem I’d have to say yes.

    There’s no direct polling data on this issue, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty hard to refute.

    1) Most Americans are white, therefore most American Racists are probably white.

    2) The Republican party is almost 100% white. The only Black GOP Congressman quit after Bush killed a pork-defense program in his district, and still hasn’t returned to politics. It should be noted that he was theoretically an important person in the House hierarchy, and the Crusader Artillery system was the sole casualty of Bush defense cuts. IMO J. C. Watts got elected, they gave him a fancy title, and then totally ignored him. Kind of like what’s happening to Steel right now.

    3) People who study white racism find it’s strongly correlated with right-wing activism. The Council of Conservative Citizens is explicitly racist, but it frequently manages to dupe non-racist Republicans into supporting it because the rest of it’s platform is right-wing. The John Birchers ain’t leftist, either. The only possibly Democratically aligned racist groups the Southern Poverty Law Center watches are neo-pagan skinheads (probably nonpartisan, or National Socialists), and black separatists. The latter are probably Dems or go for a third-party, but given that blacks only make up 14% of the country it’s unlikely they are a majority of the racists.

    Note that the folks who do the most to whitewash the history of racism in this country tend to be GOP. Haley Barbour’s Christmas list includes at least one person who wants to honor Nathan Bedford Forrest with a statue, and his staff actually addressed the card to “Wizardess.”

    4) Republican states never elect black guys to high office. The two blacks elected to Governor’s seats were elected in Virginia (GOP-leaning), and Massachusetts. MA and IL are the only states to have elected blacks to the US Senate.

    This is despite the fact that more than a quarter of the talent pool in LA, MS, and AL is black. Admittedly Louisiana elected a nonwhite to the Governor’s chair recently, but it’s still pretty surprising that IL (15% black), and MA (5% black) both found black guys smart enough for high office before Louisiana (32% black) did.

18. Paul Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Orly Taitz sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger and acts like Sarah Palin. Oh well…

19. Chris Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    If you don’t think they’re racist, you need to work on some critical thinking skills. You think people would be obsessing over “John Smith”’s BC? Absolutely not.

20. Solomon Kleinsmith Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Well… as I could care less about the conversation above…

    The question posed above is why this ’story’ doesn’t go away.

    That’s a simple one. I don’t care if its racism, political beliefs, cultural differences or he just talks funny… people believe what they want to believe, especially when it involves something negative about someone they despise. Remember the falsified documents Dan Rather and company didn’t do due diligence in researching over at CBS? Do you know how many people still believe that recounts showed that Gore won Florida in 2000? Throw in those people who still think that 9/11 was an inside job… oh, and we can’t forget the New World Order folks, and the Bilgeberger Group, or whatever insane stuff they babble on about.

    Notice how the vast majority of the people who believe these things are those who already hate the person implicated? Its the way we’re wired… we’re pack/tribe animals. We naturally throw up nearly impossible psychological walls to believing good things about those we view as against our tribe, and see things ‘between the lines’ of people who disagree with us… and find things that we couldn’t possibly actually know, but are sure they are true.

    … like Tully claiming my argument for taxing the consumption of certain unhealthy things to pay for health care reforms as being a moral argument. He couldn’t just disagree with me, he had to actually make it personal… because that is what people do when they get riled up… they turn things that MIGHT be true, into things that ARE true, whether they have proof or not.

    Its really just a amplified version of why its so hard to change someone’s mind once belief comes into play. Beliefs put a filter on the world. Sometimes that ends up being useful, sometimes it… well… makes you believe crazy things like the president is the Manchurian Candidate.

21. dmf Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    all Rs aren’t racist, sure. some of my best friends are Rs… :)

    however, on the whole, they sure as hell wheel and deal in it. why do you think st. ronnie kicked off his prez campaign in philadelphia, mississippi?

    as a subtle wink to the white racists. don’t take my word for it. take merle and earl black’s.

22. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Tully:

    Dude, check your browser. Did it not open the big giant sidebar window that showed question after question on racial attitudes divided by “white democrats” and “white repubs” and “white independents?”

    Don’t call me a liar because your window didn’t open or you didn’t scroll down.

    The rest of your response is empty posturing and straw men.

23. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Here, Tully, I’l make it easy. Respondents were asked to consider a list of adjectives to describe blacks. “Friendly, determined, law-abiding, hard-working, intelligent at school, smart at everyday things” and so on.

    Responses are then broken down by “All whites,” “White Democrats,” “White Independents” and “White Republican.”

    There are 13 adjectives. In all 13 Republicans were more negative toward blacks than were democrats.

    13 out of 13. 100% of the time the Republicans took a more negative view of blacks than did Democrats.

24. ExiledIndependent Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    MR, if you’re going to continue to push the race thing, would love take on the presidential exit polls, by race.

25. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    Exiled:

    In what context?

    I’m not “continuing to push the race thing.” I’ve stated my belief that the birthers are racists. I’ve stated the fact — acknowledged by anyone who knows anything about the last 40 years of American politics — that the GOP has exploited race for electoral profit.

    In fact it’s the birthers who are pushing the race thing. Portions of the GOP — including the semi-official spokesman, Rush Limbaugh — are pushing the race thing.

26. michael reynolds Says:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    Exile:

    So that you don’t waste time denying that Limbaugh’s a racist:

    I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

    You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

    Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

    The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

    Feel free to deny that he speaks for the party, but that will be followed by the parade of groveling Republicans apologizing for offending Rush.

27. ExiledIndependent Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 7:45 am

    Wow, MR, you are doggedly avoiding my question.

28. michael reynolds Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 9:08 am

    Exile:
    I didn’t understand your question. Which is why I wrote “in what context?” That’s not an evasion, it’s a request for you to clarify your question.

29. ExiledIndependent Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Fair enough. In your opinion, do the exit polls from the presidential election indicate significant race-based voting if viewed according to ethnicity? For example, are there any disproportionately large or small percentages of a given ethnicity voting for one candidate or another?

30. michael reynolds Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Exile:

    Of course there were different groupings. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Hispanics voted heavily for Obama. Whites overall (I’m going from memory) split. Women of all races for Obama. White southerners for McCain. White mountain states for McCain.

31. Nick Benjamin Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Fair enough. In your opinion, do the exit polls from the presidential election indicate significant race-based voting if viewed according to ethnicity? For example, are there any disproportionately large or small percentages of a given ethnicity voting for one candidate or another?
    McCain had to win white folks. He got no love from blacks, and he got beat in the Latino community. If he does that AND loses whites he’s only got 30% of the vote.

    I will agree that if blacks always voted 90% for a black candidate that would racist. But they don’t they go for Democrats by 90 points every time. For obvious reasons most of the time those Dems are black, but even in cases where it’s a choice between a white De and a black Republican they go for the Democrat. That’s why Michael Steele and Alan Keyes have won a single election between them, despite being well-financed and well-known.

    Blacks support Dems in overwhelming numbers because they agree with the Dems in overwhelming numbers. They tend to be very dovish, economically liberal, and are relatively unsympathetic to law enforcement. Even relatively conservative black folks like Condi Rice and Colin Powell support Affirmative Action. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out they both support hate-crimes legislation too.

    BTW Tully I clicked on MR’s link He’s referring to a jpg.

32. Solomon Kleinsmith Says:
    July 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    I think what they are trying to yank out of you micheal is a comment somewhere in the neighborhood of:

    “If you polled certain segments of the black population (say… over 40 and lower on the economic spectrum) on those same 13 descriptors, they would answer much in the same way as white southerners who are also lower on the economic spectrum.”

    That about right guys?

    My response would be that you’re both right… but whats your point? These are known factors. The only thing I would say is that if either of you think that your tribe (con or lib) is less judgmental than the other, you’ve got the blinders on. All ideologies come with a set of perceptual filters and different sets of traits that they judge people on.

    The racist types are attracted more to the right because the conservative worldview is easier to twist in a way that includes other races as ‘alien’, and therefore, to one degree or another, bad. But the various breeds of radicals (anarchists, extreme environmentalists, antiglobalists, communists, etc) tend to be attracted to liberalism because of its knee jerk reaction to side with whoever the perceived ‘little guy’ is (hence how its a negative label – for liberals – to put the word ‘big’ in front of anything). Really just depends on who we consider ‘US’ or ‘THEM’..

33. dan from ohio Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am

    I wondwer why Obama [on his first day as President] signed an Executive Order sealing his records from public scrutnity?His elementary,college,passport and birth certificate are now sealed,wonder why?

34. Robert Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am

    A simple question. IF Obaba is the real deal (true American) why has he and his ilk spent over a million dollars in court battles NOT to produce his
    birth certificate? We’re talking about the Constitution, NOT racism. The issue is why he refuses.. especially in view of his pledge to get our votes that his would be the most open and transparent government in U.S. history!

    The document provided to date is now officialy a fake and the person who perpetrated it on the interned has admitted this. NO above comment mentioned THIS.

    Where’s the beef?

35. Aaron Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Justin please tell me you’re banning these last two =]

    Sorry I don’t really have more to contribute. Maybe an apology from the state of California for Orly. Sorry guys!

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• The Donklephant Roundup
• Jon Stewart Interviews Lou Dobbs, Reveals More Paranoia
• An MP3 About Jon Stewart