I heartily second Colorado Republican Ken Buck's observation that those questioning Obama's Hawaiian birth are "dumbasses." As I discussed last year in "The Meeting at the Grassy Knoll Behind WTC7 to Discuss Obama's Birth Certificate Is Called To Order," conspiracy theorists are often loyal to the idea of conspiracy rather than any particular ideology (see the followers of Lyndon LaRouche for an example of this). Not so with the Left's birthers, the ones less talked about, but equally idiotic, as the Right's birthers.
By invoking the Left Birther/Right Birther dichotomy, I hope to differentiate those who believe Sarah Palin faked the maternity of daughter (granddaughter!) Trig with those who believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya. They seem to be flip sides of stupid, but there is one big difference beyond the conflicting ideological motivations: Obama's birthers operate on the furthest recesses of the Internet, outside of establishment channels; Palin's birthers hold down influential jobs within the elite media.
The Daily Caller's publication of the raw threads from the Journolist website makes for a fascinating look inside the way journalists talk when they think nobody is listening. To be sure, only a handful of posters championed the idea that Sarah Palin faked her fifth pregnancy to shield her teenage daughter from the supposed shame that comes from a natural occurance dating back to the first teenagers. But a large number entertained the idea, and just a few rejected it outright. When Katha Pollit is the voice of reason, you know you are among screwballs.
Among those pushing the Palin-fake-pregnancy conspiracy theory were Talking Points Memo's Kathleen Geier, Harvard Crimson writer (and Washington Post researcher) Dylan Matthews, and The American Prospect's Paul Waldman. Most of the counterarguments on the thread involved political utility rather than truth, e.g., Mark Kleiman's remark, "I see no upside for our side here," and Lindsay Beyerstein's, "It wouldn't surprise me if the McCain campaign were to leak doctored evidence for the sole purpose of discrediting it and destroying the journalist who published it." In other words, even those arguing against this discredited story revealed their disturbing biases.
What is ideologically flattering isn't a good barometer of what is true. Journalists, whose raison d'etre should be digging out the truth, should be on guard against this delusion more vigilantly than most. As displayed by the Journolist threads, this isn't the case. Is anybody who reads the Washington Post or watches MSNBC surprised?
Mainline journalistic outfits would never (and should never) dare hire proponents of the Obama Birther conspiracy theory. Why do they still employ crackpots who bought into the Palin Birther conspiracy theory? Dumbasses.
I think it might be significant here to note that Palin (like her running mate) gladly provided hard copies of all of the necessary required documents and was never sworn in as the new Vice President of the United states having never produced any personal records whatsoever.
I heard Randi Rhodes bandying about left-birther theories the other day. She seemed to give them serious consideration.
I hate conspiracy theorists. Evidence doesn't matter to them.
I'm still trying to understand the equivalence of suspecting a failed conservative Vice Presidential candidate of hiding a birth by obfuscation versus a man who was elected to the most powerful position on the planet refusing to produce one shred of verifiable hard documentation about himself.
Flip sides of stupid indeed? Maybe?. But only one side has any significance or relevance.
Exactly how much swamp land do you own?
