Let me tell you how great it is to be an American, when entire bodies of government are coming together on a racist front.... >_< I am enraged to the point of speechlessness.

Birthers:
Ignorant? yep
Racist? not necessarily

I fail to see how ignorantly demanding more and more proof the the president's status as a natural born citizen indicates a racist agenda. I would fully expect that, had McCain won the election, a similar non-troversy would have arisen from the fringe left over his status as a natural born citizen.

I think a lot of the frothing originates over a perception, fair or not, that the media failed to adequately investigate President Obama's background and history during the campaign. Frankly, we know more about Joe the Plumber than we do about Obama before he became a state senator. Obama's school records, for example, have been sealed, though most Americans know that President Bush was a C student in college. Similarly, there are no written legal opinions from Obama's time practicing law.

FWIW, I'd rather judge the man on his policies and his performance as a president. I don't really care about his past that much, nor do I think it would change many minds if we learned that he was a straight A student (the right would still vilify him) or a D student (the left would still adore him).

I don't see how you can declare this action by the Arizona legislature to be motivated by race without somehow presciently knowing their thoughts. COULD it be racism? Certainly. But I don't think it's the only reason such a silly action could have been taken.

It doesn't help that there are made-up "news" stories making the birth certificate issue even more fishy to the uninformed.

You *can't* tell me there's no connection between the president's race and the rise of the birther movement. De-legitimizing those of other races is a standard tactic. (See also.)

(Also, we know plenty about Obama's early life. And I never heard anyone seriously challenge McCain's citizenship status, despite him being born, you know, overseas.)

Edited at 2010-02-26 12:38 am (UTC)

Your links don't really show much. The first link of links seems to be mostly about Robert Stacy McCain, but little in the way of articles explaining how the birthers are racially motivated as a whole (or even part). The second link is just a bunch of quotes from left-wing assholes calling right-wing assholes a bunch of names.

That there is racism in this country is fact. That some elements of the right who cling to this birther issue are racists is also fact. That the Arizona legislature is necessarily racist for calling the birth certificate into question shows their ignorance on the topic (and unwillingness to freaking google it), but doesn't prove they are racists. You can't prove it without knowing their innermost thoughts, and unless you're a telepath, I think you need to stick with "it seems racist to me".

As for the 'early life' thing, I still know more dirty little secrets about Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin than I do about our president. That I know George W. Bush's GPA, and how many alimony payments Joe the Plumber missed, but can't find any legal opinions from Obama's 12-year law career, or even the title of this doctoral thesis strikes me as a blatant case of media malfeasance.

Do you honestly believe that, if Obama was white, the birther movement would be as prevalent as it is? (And yes, I know it's only a goofy fringe, but still.)

So it's specifically legal opinions and his doctoral thesis you're after? I wager you could infer some of those opinions from his books, have you read those? (I haven't.) Would reading those change your opinion of him? You say above that you're more concerned with his policies and performance, so I am not sure why those are a sticking point. I don't see any links suggesting a cover-up, other than WorldNetDaily, which isn't what I would consider a trustworthy source.

No, the birther movement probably wouldn't be as prevalent if Obama were white. That hardly makes all of the subscribers to this lunacy racists, however. Neither does it make every surfacing of it a race-motivated action.

You say above that you're more concerned with his policies and performance, so I am not sure why those are a sticking point. I don't see any links suggesting a cover-up, other than WorldNetDaily, which isn't what I would consider a trustworthy source.

It's not really a sticking point, it's more a couple of examples of what I believe are reasonable background checks on a presidential candidate, and comparing them to other background checks performed on similar or lesser public figures. No, I doubt any of that background information would change my mind, or many minds on the right (though reading some of his legal opinions might give me useful insight into how he thinks things through).

My point isn't so much about judging the man as the fact that, in my opinion, the perception of an incurious media is fueling the conspiracy theories about Obama's history at least as much as racism is.

My point isn't so much about judging the man as the fact that, in my opinion, the perception of an incurious media is fueling the conspiracy theories about Obama's history at least as much as racism is.

And from my point of view, on that topic, the 'incurious media' is much less a factor than his race and rabid partisanship (which is, in fact, fed by the big media business, because it sells.)

Now, see, if this conversation had started off about rabid partisanship being the cause of Birther profligation, I'd have agreed instantly.

I just think it's a bit trite that every time there is partisanship it's instantly labeled racist. If you can prove to me that every member of the Arizona legislature is a racist, I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, I'd argue that it's a form of bigotry to assign racist motives to every dissenter of this president.

I just think it's a bit trite that every time there is partisanship it's instantly labeled racist.

I don't think that. But I do, as noted, think racism is at the heart of the birther movement. And we were talking birthers initially, not partisans.

So every Birther is a racist? That is what the original poster implied.

How is that any different from saying 'every Mexican is an illegal immigrant'? Or 'every black person is on welfare'?

You're being a bigot. You are lumping a group of people (birthers) into a category (racists) based solely on your opinion of that group of people.

If they are supporting what I feel is an ignorant and racist (and at this point thoroughly debunked) claim then yes, they are acting as racists. They might have different, partisan reasons for their support of the racist claim, but that doesn't really help their cause any.

So, by your logic, all pro-choice people, including me, are racists. This has to be true since more abortions occur among minorities than white people, and therefore supporting abortion is a form of eugenics. Sure, only a few nutjobs actually think that way, but by supporting abortion rights, EVERYONE in that category must be a racist. Guilt by association at its finest.

I'd rather judge people by the content of their character, thanks.

I'm chiming in late, and Cheetahmaster as addressed most of what I would say, but here's what I would like to add:

Ignorance does not absolve a person of racism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "birthers" are organizing on one point only- Obama's citizenship. A point that we're all agreeing is racist at it's core. Even if every individual who subscribes to the "birther movement" isn't doing it with racist intent, they are still supporting a movement that is racist.

Which is exactly what I wrote. That they are "coming together on a racist front." I did NOT say that every person involved has racist intentions.

s/profligation/ubiquity