Editorial: Mocking Arguments
I am not a birther. I do not say that as a defense against a pejorative but as a mere statement that this is not an issue that I am personally pursuing. At the same time I am somewhat dismayed that the term birther is regarded as a pejorative at all. I do not believe this is a fair response and I do believe the country deserves an answer to the question of President Obama’s eligibility for the office he holds.
I watch and listen to commentators like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and I have to admit my frustration at the cavalier manner in which these two respectable commentators dismiss those who pursue the president in an effort to make him provide the evidence of his birth. I regard this as a reasonable constitutional argument that could be resolved easily and should have been a requirement for him to file for the office in the first place. It would seem to me that at the point of filing for any public office the person seeking the office should be required to provide proof of identity and verification of any requirement that is legally placed on that office.
What concerns me more deeply is the dismissive attitudes of some toward those individuals who are tenaciously pursuing this answer. It is never adequate to dismiss any political point of view by mocking it. If you have something substantive to say, say it. Tell us your evidence and expose us to your logic that refutes the argument that you disagree with. To do otherwise makes the person mocking the advocate look small. It tells us more about that person than it does the subject of the comments.
I understand that some charges are so outlandish they are beyond reason. No I don’t believe for a moment that George W Bush caused Katrina to hit New Orleans and no, I don’t believe it reasonable for those conspiracy theorists to accuse 911 of being an inside job. But, in the same vain as my earlier comment I would suggest such people submit their evidence and when they demonstrate they have none, I would dismiss the argument. Mock it only after you have disproven it or demonstrated they can’t provide evidence of their premise.
Categories: Politics
Tags: Debate Political Commentary Mocking Birthers
Another great article! Reminds me of a conversation I had recently with my friend Ron. I bet Peter Boyles would appreciate this one.
Reply to this
As you mention, it is a Constitutional requirement. Am I to accept Obama's word along with everything else he's done as honorable. Prove your Constitutional eligibility President Obama. It's that simple.
Reply to this
The man's birth certificate was posted online for all the world to see; the Hawaii Clerk of Court has certified same as valid; it's common knowledge that Hawaii was a state at the time of Obama's birth (1961). Good God, what more proof do you people need?! I don't recall such whining about birthplaces during the presidencies of the previous 43 (white) presidents!
Reply to this
As I clearly stated in my initial article, this is not my issue. I won't even pretend to know all the facts surrounding what has and has not been presented. My article only dealt with the manner in which those who do pursue this issue have been treated by the press and folks like yourself.
I do believe we have a right to expect that at the time a person files for any public office that proof of eligibility be provided. In the case of Barack Obama, it is my understanding that the "official legal evidence" of his birth has never been released. A summary statement was released and an announcement as I understand that appeared in the Honolulu newspaper but I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence that could be called a legal document. I have only heard reports that "others" have seen the document. If you can direct us to a valid copy of the official birth record then I'd ask that you provide it and end the issue once and for all. This is the "more proof" that the birthers need. No, there was no whining about the birthplaces of any of the other presidents because there was no controversy surrounding where they were born and it has nothing to do with his being black and the others being white. Such a statement only serves to hurt your argument and is totally out of bounds.
Reply to this