Flat Birthers

Vociferous contributor to this blog's forums, FascistSocialist (I really should ask him about that penname) responds to my last post on the turbulent town hall meetings, with these results from a Daily KOS poll:

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
77% Yes/11% No
Dems: 93 / 4
Reps: 42 / 28
inds: 83 / 8

This was relevant to my criticism of Paul Krugman who made the connections between the town hall protesters and the Birthers, and accused the former of racist motives. My criticism stands, as Krugman's piece was all innuendo.

As to the numbers, KOS is a very partisan outfit (not that there's anything wrong with that), so I'd like to see these results confirmed by Pew or someone. FS's other link (of the two that he accused me of not reading) directed my attention ultimately to a poll that didn't seem to be about the birther issue at all but about the appropriateness of press coverage of this and other issues. Nonetheless, I expect that the numbers are probably about right and I acknowledge that that is embarrassing.

Birthers, for anyone who doesn't know, are people who believe that Barack Obama was not really born in Hawaii but in Kenya, and is therefore ineligible for the office of the Presidency. This is a manifestly silly idea for a couple of reasons. One is that there is no reason to believe it other than a desire to believe anything that might discredit the President. Another is that Obama is in fact President. Only proof that he was part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth would matter, and that, only if the House chose to impeach him for it.

So it is indeed embarrassing that more than a quarter of Republicans cling to this nonsense. I would be more embarrassed if I did not know that Democrats tend to be as much or more goofy on different questions.

When asked in a Rasmussen poll whether George W. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, seven out of ten Republicans said no. Democrats almost broke even.

Dems No 39%/Yes 35%.

Now I humbly submit that this is worse than the birther thing. 9/11 conspiracy theories require much greater leaps in logic. Also it is rather worse, I think, to accuse someone of willfully letting thousands of people die for political purposes than to accuse someone of being born in Kenya.

The birther theory and the 9/11 conspiracy theories are embarrassing to Americans. We are prone to believe in wild conspiracy theories. A lot of us still believe, against all evidence, that JFK was murdered by Lyndon Johnson, or the CIA, or Castro, or John Dillinger, or maybe the Pope and the Jews.

At any rate, it is illegitimate to tar the town hall protesters with guilt by association, especially when the association is all innuendo. It is worse to accuse them of racism on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. These people are doing what nearly everyone says Americans should do: they get involved and they question authority. The Left used to say it liked that sort of thing. It doesn't like it at all when the shoe is on the other foot.

Comments

[Alan Miller]

Many senior U.S. Intelligence Service Veterans also question the official account of 9/11.

For their informed opinions, please see the article "41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up".
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Articles

[FascistSocialist]

Well, Ken, the poll was commissioned by KOS but if you take a closer look, it was not conducted by KOS, it was conducted by an independent polling firm.

And... I said you didn't like to click on my links, I didn't accuse you of not looking at those two polls. Did you read the two articles I linked you on health care by Atul Gawande? Probably not... Those I am accusing you of not reading (although I would love to be pleasantly mistaken).

Anyway, as I'm sure you are aware from my initial response to that post, my primary allegation against these town hall participators is that they are largely uninformed. They aren't arguing disagreements on this or that, or seeking information, they're just badgering representatives and disrupting what would otherwise be a useful endeavor.

And, further, it's pretty well documented that they are primarily being organized and informed by right-wing radicals (rush, hanity, etc.) and republican operatives out to score political points, not forward the discussion or object to specific provisions.

They are angry, motivated by anger, not information. All you have to do to understand that is attend a meeting. (or watch one on Youtube)

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in hearing your thoughts on those Atul Gawande articles! =) email me if you don't want to post it on the blog, that's fine too.

[denature]

The Rasmussen poll has been criticized for its wording and thus its accuracy (coverage of all the ignored warning documents was high prior to the poll). The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are more adept with their rhetorical stylings, but arguing whether they or the birthers have a more immoral conspiracy theory strikes me as a waste of time. In the spirit of unity why don't we just all agree to never vote for a politician who doesn't directly answer 'no' when asked if Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and 'yes' when asked if Obama was born in the United States?

[FascistSocialist]

Also, just for shits and giggles, here's another look at the poll's breakdown, from CQ.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/07/31/fewer_than_half_of_republicans_think_obama_is_a_citizen.html

I'm glad I'm not old, southern, or a republican.

Apparently those are three contributing factors to being ignorant (at least about this particular fact).

And again, I just wanna stress, I'm not really that interested in squabbling about whose radical idiots are more radical or bigger idiots (As fun as that is). I'd like to see your thoughts on those Atul Gawande articles.

[lexrex]

i read one of those articles, fs, about how checklists can improve care. so what?

but back to kb's point, don't you think it's unfair of krugman and others to brand the current crop of protestors as racists? and so what if these people are organized.

i don't like how uncivil they are, but so what if they're motivated by what they heard on a radio talk show, an email from an activist group, or if they just showed up on their own volition?

i'm sure you, fs, have no problem with calling people names and grotesquely attacking others who disagree with you -- you engage in those things, often, on this blog -- but i think most people take objection to such aspersions.

[FascistSocialist]

The reason I want Ken and, I suppose you also, to read those two articles is because Ken has stated a few times that he thinks that health care's main problem is 'New Technologies and Old People', and that solutions might include tort reform, competition between health plans, and tax rebates.

Well, after reading these two articles, one can not help but have a better sense of what is wrong with the health care system. Mostly the 2nd one from 2009, but also the 2007 one that you read.

I won't defend my calling names of people, it's childish, but I often do it to accentuate an argument, throwing a fuck around here or there for emphasis, my arguments typically don't center around a pejorative.

And I think it's pretty fair to draw a parallel, although not to explicitly call these people racist, between a movement (birthers) who are driven not by information but by hatred and these health care protesters who are driven not by information but by hatred.

[lexrex]

your comments are ususally pretty offensive, fs, and hard to look past. but i can try.

you say it not fair "to explicitly call these people racist." do you think it's okay to imply it? i hope not.

so you're saying that these protestors' agreement is hateful. i'm not sure i would go that far.

true, their uncivility may open themselves up to such an accusation. and i can see why you might reach such a conclusion. such spiritedness can come across as anything but joyful and loving. shoot, maybe i'm talking myself into siding with you.

i've been around those kind of people, during my several years of political action. many of them are as mean-spirited as many of those liberal activists are. but there is definitely something different, this time around.

this is more than just a few committed wingers, shouting from the rooftops. this has a much different feel to it -- a groundswell, if you will. and the harsh, and sometimes crass, reaction from obama, pelosi, and other politicos only bolsters my belief. if it were really just a few haters, the dems could just go ahead an push their legislation through. but they can't and won't because they know they're losing popularity for it.

[tanabear]

"9/11 conspiracy theories require much greater leaps in logic. Also it is rather worse, I think, to accuse someone of willfully letting thousands of people die for political purposes than to accuse someone of being born in Kenya."

The only prominent 9/11 conspiracy theory is the one regarding Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs who planned and executed the attacks. The evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack is overwhelming at this point. The debate about where Obama was born is trivial. The issues surrounding 9/11 are of the utmost consequence.