Some expected this ridiculous birtherism would go away after a while, but it hasn't -- it seems to have grown instead. And this year at least 10 states have introduced bills that would require a presidential candidate to produce a birth certificate before being placed on that state's election ballot. It's pretty obvious that these bills are aimed at keeping President Obama from appearing on state ballots, in the hope of keeping him from winning a second term. They must think this will be easier than beating him fairly in an election.
Some right-wing constitutional scholars think these laws can be upheld because it is normally up to each state to determine their own ballot requirements. I think they are wrong, and I believe these laws will be struck down by the courts. In the final analysis, it is the constitution that determines the qualifications for president -- not the individual states.
But it does bring up the question of why these Republican politicians are going along with the birthers in this ridiculous maneuver. Even some national Republican politicians, who don't doubt the president's citizenship are afraid to cross the birthers. For instance, Speaker Boehner said he believed President Obama was born in the United States, but then he was quick to add that it wasn't his place to tell others what they should believe.
But a new Public Policy Polling survey makes it clearer when the politicians in the Republican Party are playing to the birthers. They are afraid of them because there are so many of them in the Republican Party in general. When PPP surveyed Republicans who said they were likely to vote in the Republican primary next year, they found the following:
51% don't think Obama was born in the U.S.
28% believe he was born in the U.S.
21% say they are not sure where he was born
Those are some pretty incredible numbers, and its easy to see why so many Republican politicians are afraid to speak out on this issue. Whether racist or just incredibly stupid, those people make up enough of the Republican Party to cost a politician his/her seat if he/she doesn't play along (at least in the primary).
I have a slightly different take on this whole Birther controversy than most.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I'm convinced that President Obama was born in Hawaii. And although I'm not as certain that his long-form birth certificate still exists (recent statements by Governor Abercrombie seem to indicate that it isn't in the records), I think the President has a vested interest in exercising his privacy rights and keeping his birth certificate under wraps if it does.
"Why?", you might ask.
As long as the Birther issue exists, it drives a wedge in the Republican Party between the Birthers (many of whom are absolutely single minded about this issue) and the rest of us, who don't much care one way or the other.
As you mention in your post, this poses a dilemma for Republican candidates. Do they cater to the Birthers, and run the risk of alienating independent voters, or do they distance themselves from the Birthers, losing maybe half of all registered Republicans. Last weekend, I heard David Gregory on Meet the Press practically insist that Speaker Boehner call the Birthers a bunch of loony toons. I thought Boehner handled it diplomatically, but it wasn't easy.
President Obama could resolve this whole issue by simply permitting his sealed birth records to be released to the public. But the question is: why would he want to, when keeping this controversy alive causes so much turmoil in the GOP?
(P.S. You called the image at the top of this post a "birth certificate." Technicially, it's a certification of live birth.)