Unsold memoribilia, maybe?
Posted by aogWednesday, 07 October 2009 at 11:09
TrackBack Ping URL
I was reminded reading some comments of the Presidential Library Act and left to wonder, what exactly will ex-President Obama put in there, given the huge blank that his “life and career” has been made?
Friday, 09 October 2009 at 15:16|
Try addressing the actual point, not a red herring.
Well, I didn’t understand that “given the huge blank that his ‘life and career’ has been made” meant “he’s gone to no small effort to restrict access to most of his personal life”.
What was specifically addressed was the matter of his birth certificate, about which situation I have knowledge. Further, to many that’s not a red herring, that’s the crux of the issue - they believe that if it can somehow be proven that O-dog was not born in the U.S., then he will be removed from office. (And then we’ll be treated to the beneficence of President Biden. O joy.)
There’s so much we don’t know. Aren’t you curious as to why [etc.]
Obviously there’s a good reason Obama spent upwards of a million dollars to keep everything in his past secret.
Yes, I’d like to know about all of that, I just don’t think that us not knowing disqualifies him from serving. After all, the electorate KNEW about all of those curiosities BEFORE choosing him as President, and about his racist and anti-American friends.
If, after full disclosure, (which in this instance means knowing full well that Obama isn’t disclosing all), the American people still want him to be their leader…1
Plenty of thugs, criminals, ruffians, venalities and incompetents have occupied the Oval Office, e.g. JFK (in your opinion) and the three Presidents between Reagan and Obama (IMO). In fact, the list of Presidents who’d fall into one or more of those categories is FAR longer than the list of those who were none of those things.
1 Which may indicate more about the general unpopularity and incompetence of the GOP than it does about O-dog’s “universal appeal”.
Friday, 09 October 2009 at 16:51|
All previous presidents have been vetted to some extent…
And so has Obama. Do you think that the GOP didn’t spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours looking for dirt on Obama?!?
That which hasn’t been revealed is very likely only trivialities and embarrassments. So he has a kooky family. Many Presidents have come from strange backrounds, and I have too.
He’s not the Manchurian Candidate.
You can’t be so naive as to think any of Obama’s adoring multitudes know anything at all about the stuff we discuss on this blog…
What I think is that Obama convinced 53% of American voters to cast their ballot for him, and only about half of them were “Obama adorers”. We live in a democracy where there’s no requirement that voters know ANYTHING, other than how to register to vote, and how & where to cast their ballot.
In addition, you do both yourself and the American electorate a disservice if you assume that 53% of American voters are uneducated and presumably ineducable. Or perhaps that’s true, but what’s false is the assumption that such bumpkins didn’t split their vote between the City Slicker and the Noble Man. Both sides had plenty of silly people and idiots as boosters.
Anyway, the case of Obama’s mysterious past was well-dissected, considered, and discarded. Remember also that Bush the Younger was elected despite wide-spread questions about his military service and corporate past. It’s a matter of public record that a person who wasn’t as well-connected as was Bush may well have faced criminal charges of insider trading and corporate malfeasance with regard to stock sales and other decisions at some of the companies where he was an executive.
But the voters chose to overlook Bush’s peccadillos, and did so again with Obama’s.
Also, the only one who has brought up eligibility is you, so I am not clear on why you think that’s a key point here.
However, since the only thing that I initially had to work with was “secrets” and “birth certificate”, I necessarily had to make some assumptions about what that might mean to the original commenter. (As is necessary with almost every comment, eh, not to mention post, since mostly we don’t iterate all of the backround thinking that went into the final verbiage - we don’t “show our work”.)
Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 22:28|
If there was anything to all the accusations and snide allegations, [Bush] would have been frog-marched to jail in a twinkling.
Um, no. Not when your father is the POTUS - ask Neil Bush about that. Or when your brother is POTUS - ask Roger Clinton.
You say that “the entire left” has been gunning for W., and that’s true, but the entire left isn’t all of society, it’s (at best) 30% of society. That provides plenty of company and support on the other side.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading your post I get the distinct impression that you regard W.’s lack of indictment as proof that he’s innocent of any wrongdoing ever, but the lack of indictment of Obama simply proves that powerful people have been covering for him. Now THAT is a “double standard”.
You keep asking the same question about Obama’s birth certificate and I don’t want to repeat my answers.
All you’ve previously said about the issue is that “perhaps [Obama’s] parents’ marriage is illegal because his father was already married (he had a wife in Kenya)” and (several times) that Obama has spent considerable time and money to obscure certain points about his past.
You’ve written NOTHING AT ALL about what you think might happen if said document were to be made public. Maybe that’s slipped your mind.
In any case, being illegitimate is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one is a “natural born” American citizen, and so whether his parents were legally married or not is moot. And you agree that Obama was most likely born in Hawai’i.
But you’ve also written that “the crux of the matter is, [Obama] has not produced [that birth certificate]. Why?”, which leads me to believe that you think that there IS something there that would affect Obama at this late stage, having already been elected - but something other than that which you’ve already mentioned.
It’s a bit confusing.
Unless it’s merely that you think that the general public will for some reason start caring that they don’t know much about Obama if more stuff about his past surfaced.
I don’t think that they will, unless something REALLY juicy came to light - “a dead girl or a live boy”, to quote former Louisiana governor and current felon Edwin Washington Edwards.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 21:43|
So lack of indictment is indicative but not determinative.
Sure. My point is that W.’s publicly-documented behavior before he ran for Governor of Texas heavily substantiates a claim that he sometimes acted in ways which were at best borderline-legal. If we are to say that only indictments count, then both W. and Obama are as pure as Montanan snow.
But we KNOW that neither of them are anything of the sort.
Really, I’m just curious as to whether erp will admit that we’re talking about two HEAVILY flawed men, who both also have strong points, and that she simply likes one of them much better.
Also, what I would expect from making Obama’s CLOB public isa demonstration that Constitutional requirements are to be enforced and a blow against the exact effect of political insulation that you describe.
What I would expect, should it be revealed that he was born outside of the U.S., is that after a lot of legal wrangling America would ditch the technical and never-tested requirement that the POTUS have been born on American soil. There’s evidence that the Founders didn’t mean to exclude American citizens, born abroad to American parents, from running for the highest office, e.g. the Naturalization Act of 1790.
But the Constitutional question might have come up anyway with a President McCain, since the circumstances of his birth are open to “natural born” interpretation as well.
And after all, at least three Hawai’ian state gov’t officials have addressed the Obama birth certificate issue, and those are the people who could be expected to testify about the authenticity of that document should it come to a court case. Other than the specific question about whether or not his American birth certificate is genuine, there’s no Constitutional requirement for any Presidential candidate to release any documents, including medical records or tax returns.
The question, stated several times, isn’t that Obama may be illegitimate, but WHY he doesn’t want his birth certificate made public.
Yes, you’ve asked that numerous times, which is why I keep asking you “what do you expect to find?” Really, what could one find in such a document?
I was wondering if you would respond with a specific thesis, as did Brian on October 9th at 11:38 and October 14th at 13:30, or AOG on October 9th at 16:15.
Otherwise it’s just a fishing expedition, and as I’ve endeavored to show, there’s no monopoly on bad behavior by any party or part of the political spectrum. Personally I’d LOVE it if every questionable or outright bad action, decision or choice by any public official became widespread public knowledge; but based on your comments over the past few months, it seems as though you might be quite shocked by who has done what.
A Republican congressman was hounded out of office for writing questionable emails while Rangel is still lording it over the congress with a rap sheet miles long.
“Hounded out of office” by whom? By adverse public opinion - the voters. If the electorate is fine with Rangel, then until such time as the Ethics Committee bounces him we HAVE TO respect the decision of the voters. That’s how a democracy works.
The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites. There’s a VERY GOOD REASON that voters gave Congress to the Dems in 2006, and then did the same with the White House in 2008.
“Duke” Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Richard Pombo, Bob Ney, Curt Weldon, Mark Foley - any of those ring a bell?
Now, I’ll agree that it isn’t fair that voters expect Dem politicians to be a little shady and/or nutty, while perhaps punishing GOP politicians disproportionately for their moral and ethical lapses, but there’s an easy fix for that: Go after the same voters that the Dems do, and leave the hard Right for the Natural Law and Constitution parties.
Or, y’know, practice what they preach. It’s a very simple concept.
BTW neither Keating nor his five senator pals were indicted either [and] Clinton appointed one of them, DeConcini to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Democrats have a long history of putting a fox in to control the hen house…
While the Republicans made one of them, McCain, their candidate for President of the United States. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse…1
Further, three of those Senators chose not to run for re-election, due to the damage done to their reputations through their participation in the affair.
Here IMO is Rough’s take on Obama — a well informed electorate chose him by a large margin.
The electorate did choose him by a large margin, and they were as informed as they ever are - which is to say, to a modest extent; to exactly the extent that they cared to be. The truth was out there.
If that standard falls far short of the situation as you or I might wish it to be… Well, welcome to reality.
1 Yeah, McCain’s no villain, in fact he acquitted himself pretty well vis-à-vis the rest of the Keating Senators - nonetheless…
|Annoying Old Guy
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 22:14|
There’s evidence that the Founders didn’t mean to exclude American citizens, born abroad to American parents, from running for the highest office
Yes, but I also think that the Founders were also concerned about the formation of citizens, as citizen rulers were an essential part of their political outlook. This is a problem for naturalized citizens, particularly those raised elsewhere who then come back just for the election.
But the Constitutional question might have come up anyway with a President McCain
No, those points already came up which, not a bit oddly, was not something at issue for Obama despite McCain fulling release his birth records.
at least three Hawai’ian state gov’t officials have addressed the Obama birth certificate issue
Not very well. Passably one might argue, but in a highly parsed manner and not cross consistent manner. However, doesn’t this just makes it more difficult to understand not doing a full release?
Yes, you’ve asked that numerous times, which is why I keep asking you “what do you expect to find?”
No, the question is “what does Obama expect us to find?”. After all, it’s Obama who is keeping it under wraps, not erp. That’s just a irrelevant deflection. My suggestion answers this question, not yours.
The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites.
You can’t be serious. As you note, it’s that for some reason, members of the Democratic Party are simply not held to any standards. I would note that many people believe that the only reason McCain was in the Keating 5 was so that it wouldn’t be all Democratic Party. I.e., he was a scape goat from the start. I find that plausible.
If you want to compare, why not compare former Senator Ted Stevens and Rangel? Or Stevens and Dodd. Those are interesting. Or heck, Foley and his replacement. Which one had more illicit sex, and which one is remembered? Or Jack Ryan, the guy who was knocked via sealed divorce records to let Obama win. Records which contained a “sex scandal” that involved only his wife, and no sex, and turned out later to have been mostly exaggerations. What do you think Ryan should have done to avoid being a hypocrite or practicing what he preached?
P.S. I wouldn’t call Obama’s margin large. Clear, I think is more accurate.
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:11|
No, the question is “what does Obama expect us to find?”. After all, it’s Obama who is keeping it under wraps, not erp. That’s just a irrelevant deflection.
Not at all, since I don’t care what Obama is concealing with respect to this particular document.
What interests me is what erp thinks is there.
Both you and Brian have posited reasonable theories, but nothing that’d be a big problem for Obama at this stage - just an embarrassment, as Brian points out.
The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites.
You can’t be serious. As you note, it’s that for some reason, members of the Democratic Party are simply not held to any standards.
Democrats are absolutely held to standards, they’re just different standards. Look at Hillary and Lieberman, and how much trouble they got into with the Dem base over their war votes.
The GOP wants to appeal to the socially conservative. Fine. Just be conservative and law-abiding, then. If you want to fool around sexually or with drugs, or cut corners when accepting money, then run as a Dem.
It’s the “campaign Right, live Left” dynamic that’s laid low the GOP, IMO.
If you want to compare, why not compare former Senator Ted Stevens and Rangel?
Two peas in a pod. Both have/had been in Congress for FAR too long, both got lax about their roles as public servants and began to believe that they were entitled to special deals and preferential treatment. (I mean, very special deals and extra-preferential treatment, since all members of Congress feel entitled.)
What do you think Ryan should have done to avoid being a hypocrite or practicing what he preached?
What I think is that Jack should have made absolutely certain that Jeri would support him before he made his bid. If Jeri had immediately announced that she was “misunderstood” during the divorce proceedings, and that she 100% endorsed Jack for the U.S. Senate, then it might have blown over.
Barring that, he shouldn’t have agreed to unseal the documents. He was trying to thread the needle of appearing to be open, yet also continuing to conceal, and his luck turned bad. Them’s the breaks.
I wouldn’t call Obama’s margin large. Clear, I think is more accurate.
Yeah, I was considering what to call it. It wasn’t anywhere near a Reagan vs. Mondale blowout, but it also was less contested than a comfortable-but-close 51%-49% win.
Obama got double the number of Electoral votes and carried 25% more states than did McCain, and received 16% more popular votes. The spread between Obama and McCain was 7.2%. That seems “large”.
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 18:46|
Obama doesn’t want any of his past made public. Clearly said at least a half dozen times.
That’s right, but whilst being insistant that such is sinister, you also refuse to elucidate what you think is his motivation for so doing. That leaves your position summarizable as “I have a formless anxiety about Obama.” Also known as ODS.
Odd that you don’t care what the president’s motives are, but want to know what an anonymous geezerette retiree in Florida is thinking.
I’m not talking to the President, I’m talking to you. Therefore, I want to know what you think.
Further, with regard only to the specific issue of his birth certificate, there’s nothing there that would shock me, or that could dislodge Obama1, so why should I care?
Now, if it could be shown that Obama’s mother wasn’t an American citizen, or possibly had renounced her citizenship, then Obama could be in deep trouble.
Obama won and we’ll be paying the price for that for years to come.
And reaping the benefits, such as muting and blunting those who make a living from racial tensions, and having a clear one-up in moral superiority over Western Europe and the rest of the world.
Plus, we actually DID overcome!!!!!!!! Truly, free at last.
That’s worth celebrating. That our culture is so inclusive and elastic is ultimately going to be the wellspring of strength that kills Islamic expansionism - it’s too brittle to stand against us, in the fullness of time.2
Finally, we’ll also have the immediate and practical benefit of having more candidates from which to choose for high offices, as more people of color will feel that winning races is possible. More choice is good.
Just found this in the Canada Free Press. Too bad we don’t have a free press here at home.
*sigh* JB Williams, like you, has an active contempt for the American electorate, similar to the classic Euroweenie headline in 2004, after Bush the Younger’s re-election: “How can 59054087 people be so DUMB?”3,4
Williams also misunderstands both the process and nature of what he’s discussing. As to process, he writes:
Maybe it is “crazy” that “birthers” are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?
Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver’s license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?
Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?
But that’s not true. I got my bank account by showing my driver’s license, and to get my driver’s license I merely showed my birth certificate. (Yes, it’s tougher after 9/11, but most Americans had bank accounts and driver’s licenses before 9/11, and I’ve never been asked for more than my license when renewing it.) As for a job, one can show a driver’s license and SS card, OR a passport, to satisfy I-9 requirements - and Obama has all three of those documents.
Which pretty much guts Williams’s point in that passage.
As to the nature: Williams is concerned that Obama couldn’t pass a backround check for a security clearance.
But who grants security clearances? Bureaucracies do. And for whom do bureaucracies ultimately work? (Even though they often forget this, and have to be periodically curbed.) The people - the citizenry of the U.S.
Now, in the businesses that I’ve owned, we’ve had certain policies and procedures for employees. Did those apply to me?
No, they did not, although I often followed them to increase employee morale. The point of the policies was to (attempt to) ensure that business was conducted in a manner that was consistent with my desires. The policies are to benefit me, and I can change or circumvent them should I decide that another method or approach would be better.
Similarly, the ultimate goal of security clearances is to safeguard the American citizenry. But the American people decide on what procedures are to be used, what safeguards are to be enforced, and what the ultimate goals and aims of such policies are.
THAT is why security is always a POLITICAL issue: Whom and where should the CIA or FBI watch, arrest, question or kill; torture or no torture; assassinate foreign peoples in their own lands or not; disclose U.S. documents and activities - or not…
So if the American people, who are their own Overlords, choose to make a security risk their leader, who can gainsay that?
It may not be wise, but that’s democracy. (Or Republicanism, if you prefer.)
Stevens and Rangel may be two peas in a pod, but only one was forced out of office. The other still chairs one of the most important committees in Congress.
Maybe not for long.
Anyway, my understanding of the Ryan issue is that Ryan did not agree to unseal the records, that it was done against his and Jeri’s wishes.
Both Ryans agreed to a partial unsealing of the records, and left the extent of the unsealing up to a court-appointed child advocate and a judge. Things didn’t go as well as Jack had hoped.
I also think it’s a bit of a high standard to say a divorced GOP candidate can’t run unless his ex-wife is 100% behind him.
It’s not that a candidate with “history” can’t run, it’s that it’s FOLLY to run without ensuring that any baggage is, or can be, neutralized.
Surely Jack knew about the charges that Jeri had made during the divorce proceedings - shouldn’t a careful candidate have thought “hmm, what if that stuff gets out? What’s my plan for that?”
But he didn’t have a plan, despite his foreknowledge. Epic fail.
Here’s one strategy: Release first, so that it’s self-disclosure and not a shocking surprise revelation. When Jack announces for the Senate, have Jeri there to say “I was bitter during the divorce, and I said some things that I now regret, and Jack will make a fine U.S. Senator.” Then it probably blows over.
1 IMO. If it turns out that he doesn’t meet the “natural born citizen” criteria, then I suspect that we’ll just change the standard. After all, in the 21st century it’s a bit short-sighted to require that the POTUS have simply been born in a specific geographic location. As AOG commented up-thread, what we really want are people who are born as American citizens, and who are culturally American. Birthplace immaterial.
2 That quality is also why the U.S. of A. are likely to retain global leadership throughout the 21st century. We get bogged down but not paralyzed by cultural conflict, unlike Europe, and we absorb newcomers, unlike Asia.
3 Daily Mirror, November 4th, 2004
4 Yes, you say not, writing “I never said voters are uneducated” - but you also insist that they’re ignorant of the issues which upset you. Perhaps they are aware, and simply disagree with you about the importance of such things?
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 21:44|
Rough, I surrender to your supernatural ability to read my mind and condemn me not only for things I haven’t said, but things I’ve never even thought about.
I can’t read your mind, but I can read your comments. When you wrote that “Here IMO is Rough’s take on Obama — a well informed electorate chose him by a large margin,” I thought that it was sarcasm.
But I apologize profusely if you meant it literally, and intended to praise the electorate for their sagacity.
Obama has done more to inflame racial tensions so far than Bush did in 8 years.
It’s a turning point, a time of turmoil. After things calm down, race relations will be better.
The 60s were also a time of turmoil, but race relations were better after than they were before.
As for any perceived moral superiority over Western Europe…
It’s not just “perceived”.
Choosing a somewhat-black person to lead America is the culmination of the dream of equality in society, and that dream was the yearning of our better selves.
No lions shall be laying down with lambs, because the human mind is wired to be tribal, but at least one deep-seated prejudice has been overcome, and our hands have been washed completely clean of the abominable stain of our historical chattel slave-keeping. That is worth celebrating.
(Which is not to say that Obama had anything to do with the abatement of prejudice; he’s simply the one who benefitted from its ebbing - a marker by which we see that the turn has come. Nor does it mean that blacks aren’t still going to get a rougher deal in the Southeastern states than do whites. But one could say exactly the same of Mormons and Catholics in the South, vs. Baptists.)
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 02:01|
…had Obama not been half black his absent history and pathetic resume would have been a complete non-starter. Instead, he got the votes of many people just like you who voted to “erase the stain of slavery” and other guilt induced decisions.
If Obama got the votes of people “just like me”, then he got a lot of votes from people who saw McCain as an honorable and storied man who was EXACTLY the wrong nominee for the times, nominated despite several situationally-superior candidates being in the race.1 If the RNC insists on shooting itself in the foot, then there’s nothing that people “just like me” can do about it - except vote for other-than-GOP candidates. (Which we have, in huge numbers, during the past two national elections.)
Racism is wrong or it is not, it is not context dependent.
You’re kidding, right? A LOT of wrongs are dealt with in context-dependent ways. “The lesser evil” is what we call it. Edwards vs. Duke in Louisiana, for instance.
Or we could compare it to manslaughter vs. murder. Racism today in America is like manslaughter, whereas in the past it was like murder (and at times it actually was, literally, murder). So it’s better now, even if it’s still wrong.
[W]hat is the average white in the street to think when, after electing a black man and doing all that stain erasing, any criticism of Obama’s policies is met with “racist!”. Perhaps that whole “one up stain erase” meant absolutely nothing?
Or that a changed zeitgeist takes time to be fully reflected. Old habits die hard, and there are entrenched factions whose power base depends on the old ways. They won’t willingly acknowledge the new era.
NOW is still around, even though few young women actively support them. Ostalgie still exists twenty years after Germany reunified.
Who said the US as a nation was still deeply racist?
You did. “Obama was elected because of his racial background, not without regard to it” can’t be read any other way.
Obama’s background has no “stain” of slavery, unless you count that his father’s ancestral tribe were slavers…
We’re discussing American society, which ancestrally were slavers too. Obama’s background is that of growing up black in America during the seventies - which, as I’m sure you recall, were a time of racial strife.
1 Indirectly related: As Chris Good writes in the Atlantic about a Matt Lewis Politics Daily column - “The Head Says Romney, But The Heart Says Palin.”