"Dear Birthers,
"Stop!
"Sincerely,
"Serious Conservatives."
I've held fire for the last several months as I've watched the so-called "Birther" movement gain steam.
At first it was amusing, like playing a drinking game -- you know, like taking a shot every time Chris Matthews explains why he insists on pronouncing the former Vice President's name "CHEE-knee."
It's not amusing anymore.
As one of the GOP operatives whose job it was to defeat Barack Obama in a campaign for federal office (there have only been three GOP campaigns run against him, and I've been involved with two of them), I can attest to the fact that nowhere in our opposition research did we find any reason to believe that the man was not a natural born citizen of the United States.
I can also attest to the fact that this man -- who, at about 1:22 into this video, shot on February 20 of this year, lays out the Birther case against Obama -- never raised any doubts about Obama's alleged overseas birth while he was running against Obama for the United States Senate in Illinois in 2004.
Oh, Alan Keyes said all sorts of other nutty things while he was the GOP Senate nominee in 2004, the kinds of things that cause campaign operatives to go gray prematurely -- "Jesus Christ would not vote for my opponent," Second Daughter Mary Cheney was a "selfish hedonist," and other such bon mots -- but he never once challenged Obama's place of birth.
Nor did he suggest Obama had anything to do with the introduction of the Edsel, nor the marketing of New Coke; nor the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, nor the disappearance of Amelia Earhart; nor did Keyes allege Obama was anywhere near Graceland on the morning of August 16, 1977, nor did he suggest Obama had anything to do with the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa.
But that "Birther" thing ...
Seriously. Is this anything but a gift to the Democrats?
Am I the only one to notice that mainstream media attention to the "Birthers" has picked up in recent weeks -- and that this increased attention is coincident to the turn in Obama's approval ratings?
A search of The Washington Post web site, for instance, on the term "Birther" yields as its oldest hit this one from July 6; a search of The New York Times, though, shows one June reference in passing and then the first real mention of the term on July 22.
Far be it from me to assume one is the cause of the other -- as faithful readers know, I do my best to avoid falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap -- but, still, it is an interesting coincidence.
Coincident or not, it is eating up valuable air time and gobbling up precious inches of type that could, and should, be devoted to other, more pressing, matters -- like the self-immolation of the Democratic Party, as it struggles to find a way to reform the health care delivery system without destroying it.
Reasonable and responsible conservatives, thus, are stuck. We are being lumped in with irresponsible and unreasonable conspiracy theorists.
And I believe the time has come for reasonable and responsible conservatives to deal with the Birther Problem.
In January 1962, conservative leaders faced a similar problem -- how to deal with the members of the John Birch Society, whose leader, George Welch, believed that the former President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a conscious agent of the International Communist Conspiracy.
National Review Founder William F. Buckley, Jr., Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, conservative historian and philosopher Russell Kirk, and American Enterprise Institute President William Baroody took it upon themselves secretly to meet at The Breakers hotel in Palm Beach, where they decided Welch and the Birchers would have to be excommunicated from the Conservative Movement, lest their lunacy taint reasonable and responsible conservative political activity.
Were Buckley alive today, is there any doubt he would have the same response to the Birthers?
I think not.
DISCLAIMER: When I write about the politicians in my past, CQ Politics says I have to turn the cards face up. I arrived in Chicago in late May of 2004 to try to help then-GOP Senate nominee Jack Ryan campaign against Barack Obama. Four weeks after I arrived, Ryan ended his campaign. I was the guy whose idea it was to recruit Alan Keyes to run as Ryan's replacement candidate -- which led to a nightmarish 86-day campaign, about which all I will say for now is that if I ever sit down and write the book about that campaign, it will be called "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time."
Follow me on Twitter!
UPDATE: A couple of links worth looking at, even though they won't change any minds:
A story from The Associated Press. A story from a Honolulu newspaper, with a lot of detail about state law on birth records. What the disputed document looks like, from Politifact.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Subscribe to RSS feed![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Archives
Comments
Hi Bill,
Ya need to proof your piece one more time...
Here are the facts:
Before Robert Welch founded The John Birch Society,
he sent a PRIVATE COMMUNICATION to a few friends.
His comments were NOT put out by The John Birch Society; which did not even exist, at that time.
Because this private communication was made public,
it was later published as a book, and named "The Politician".
This was done so that the comments could be seen in context. BECAUSE IT WAS BEING QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT, AND BECAUSE IT WAS BEING ATTRIBUTED TO THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY,
it was later distributed by The John Birch Society,
so that people could see it in context.
After 292 pages of information he stated the following THREE possibilities concerning Eisenhower:
1. That he was a gullible fool.
2, That he was a self serving politician.
3. That he was a communist.
The title of the book was "The Politician".
The title of the book was NOT "The Communist".
Saying Robert Welch believed that the former President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a a conscious agent of the International Communist Conspiracy is a Straw Man fallacy.
Keeping you honest,
Hirsh
Posted by: hirsh
| July 28, 2009 2:28 PM
Dear Conservatives,
Stop assuming that everyone who questions Obama's past, is a "Conservative."
There's another wing on the Right: Libertarians.
If Conservatives want to give up the fight against Obama, and just roll over, not ask any questions about his shady past, than fine.
Just means more votes and support for Libertarians.
I don't advise our Conservative friends to cave in to all Obama's wishes. But if that's the path you all want to choose, than we Libertarians will gladly take over the leadership role for the Right, and be the ones who will fight back - balls, to the wall - against Obama.
Posted by: ericdondero
| July 28, 2009 7:35 PM
The same out of touch knee-jerk rightwingers who insist on questioning Obama's U.S. birth are the same out of touch knee-jerk rightwingers who questioned Mitt Romney's fitness to be president merely because he is a Mormon. Why doesn't the McCarthy wing of the Republican party just admit it: it's not about asking tough questions; it's not about refusing to roll over; it's about the knee-jerk right ALWAYS smearing the reputation of anyone who is not white or Christian.
Posted by: mag_amberson
| July 28, 2009 10:56 PM
According to Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm, they wanted to distance themselves from Welch, not the Birchers.
Posted by: Steve J.
| July 28, 2009 10:57 PM
"Dear Conservatives,
Stop assuming that everyone who questions Obama's past, is a "Conservative."
There's another wing on the Right: Libertarians.
If Conservatives want to give up the fight against Obama, and just roll over, not ask any questions about his shady past, than fine.
Just means more votes and support for Libertarians.
I don't advise our Conservative friends to cave in to all Obama's wishes. But if that's the path you all want to choose, than we Libertarians will gladly take over the leadership role for the Right, and be the ones who will fight back - balls, to the wall - against Obama."
Or you could focus on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed legislation, which is picking up steam among members of both parties. You know sane sorta of stuff that won't marginalize libertarians even further. Or you could latch on to this issue while issues such as healthcare, are debated by rational people who don't buy into conspiracy theories. "Birthers", I bet these are the same people who believe the Gov't was behind 9/11. Hell, think about 9/11 truthers/Birthers, makes sense....
http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors
http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
Posted by: Eisenhower
| July 29, 2009 1:07 AM
how come my comment doesn't show up?
Posted by: Ree
| July 29, 2009 2:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPxi9ispU9w
This asks the essential questions
Posted by: BruceMajors
| August 2, 2009 11:44 AM
I like the article, mostly because it states that the President is losing points in the polls because the left's policies don't square with the American public and in spite of the left wing media, voters are beginning to realize that Chris Mathews sold them some swamp land in the Sahara, and it's not because they are wondering if POTUS is a natural born citizen.
I do have to say, though, that I am reminded of a line in a song from long ago, "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you." Well, Carly, apparently he's not vain, because the song was actually about him ... And in this instance, aren't you guilty of what it is you're complaining about in the first place? Giving this conspiracy yet another platform? I'm just saying ... a thought.
Keep up the good work, though!
Posted by: W. Robinson
| August 2, 2009 12:44 PM
Post A Comment