Conffederate
Confederate

December 04, 2009

Palin Goes Birther? Probably Not, But Expect to Hear It Repeated

I've not always been a fan of Sarah Palin the politician, but I've been warm to what I can divine of Sarah Palin the person. I've been disgusted with how she has been unfairly savaged by the lip-service feminists of the progressive left, and an army of critics in the media that have made a cottage industry of ripping every aspect of her life—personal, political, or manufactured—to shreds.

I find her authentic "Caribou Barbie" schtick to be refreshing, and her pre-fame accomplishments as a politician to be impressive, just as I find her work-life balance to be admirable. While it infuriates elites and wannabes, she seemed to be the epitome of the "local girl done good." Palin became successful by sticking to her principles, being herself, and working hard. I think she'd make an above-average public servant in the House of Representatives, the Senate, or maybe even the White House... after all she was far more technically qualified for the position than either Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain, being the only one of the bunch with any executive experience in either the private sector or government.

But as much as I'd like to be able to get behind Sarah Palin and be a real supporter, stuff like this simply makes it difficult for people such as myself to put their faith in her.

I don't care if she really believes the validity of President Obama's birth certificate is fair game for debate. I find it entirely possible that she simply mangled an attempt to point out that any "debate" over Obama's birth certificate was as nutty as the "debate" over whether Trig is her son... but I'm not sure.

To stand a chance against the vicious left-wing media, Palin has to be perfect, all the time. She won't get the continual burying of gaffes the media affords the President, and instead of burying her shortcoming as they do his, they'll magnify and echo every mistake.

She can't give them any ammunition. She can't afford to even hint at supporting conspiracy theories. This comment, hopefully taken out of context, will hurt Palin. She can't do this again, and she better explain herself quickly and forcefully.

I'd like to find a politician worth listening to, and those that play to conspiracy theories won't be getting my support.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 4, 2009 10:46 AM
Comments

Sir,

The link provided is from Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the "birther" accusations. Please have a read.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/stupid-conspiracies/188707498434

Posted by: favill at December 4, 2009 10:52 AM

I don't think you got the meaning of her response the way I did. I felt she was saying ANY question you get by the public, within reason, should be considered fair game. If you can quell a storm abou something that you have control over and fail to do so then you are the one at fault. I believe that the term "Birther" is a catchall used by web writers to be derogative and demeaning. I see the term to mean anyone who wants more info on the back ground of the man sitting in the WH. There is a small number of people who believe that Obama's presidency is illegitimate but there is a much larger segment that just want some transparency and openess that has not been forth coming. I think Palin gave an answer that is totally common sense and will resonate with a lot of voters. She is not commenting on the conspiracy implied in the term "Birther".

Posted by: inspectorudy at December 4, 2009 11:03 AM

I dunno. I've found that Liberals I've spoken to (that represent 52% of the population) actually believe that Palin and Fey are the same person.

They believe that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.

They are also easily fooled by a photoshop.

I doubt that the truth of Palin's actual postion is of much concern for those that are so out of touch with reality.

Posted by: brando at December 4, 2009 11:20 AM

No one is perfect. The blogger is right that Sarah Palin would do well not to give any ammo to the enemy (politically speaking). But it won't matter what she says in the long run. The LSM will find something to focus on to discredit her.

I don't understand the conservative tendency to think our candidates have to be perfect in order to be successful. Liberals never expect that of their candidates, not even when the imperfection is a moral failure, not just a verbal gaffe.

Rather than being afraid of the LSM, I think conservatives should just take them on. Sarah does that. And she's not afraid to admit a mistke when she makes one. Why should we be?

Posted by: qr4j at December 4, 2009 11:49 AM


The birthers really have poisoned the waters. While it might be the case that all Palin was saying was that everything is on the table in a presidential campaign (which would have been good advice to maverick), the birth certificate/nationality issue has been so poisoned by the birther nuts that nothing can be said that even remotely connects to the birthers.

For example, I feel Obama is not an American. Not in the legal sense, but in the cultural sense. Obama grew up with America-hating marxists, lived in Indonesia during his formative years, and studied the Koran. Of course Obama continually misses the heartbeat of America whenever he is off the teleprompter--his heart is not American.

But is Obama legally entitled to be POTUS--it certainly appears to be so. While it was reasonable to investigate his qualifications, particularly because of his rather odd upbringing, going beyond that into conspiracy theories just made things worse.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 4, 2009 12:00 PM

i will vote for sarah in 2012! read her book and also look up her record. she has lots of guts and stands for everything that i do.

be at the polls in 2010! vote out the democrats and rinos.

Posted by: southernsue at December 4, 2009 12:13 PM

I agree with iconoclast about Obama being an "American", also though I have to wonder about a man who spends nearly a million dollars in legal fees to hide what others have allowed to be public.

We know Bush was a C student, yet we know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance. Why the difference?

Its an easily settled question, why waste money to keep it hidden and uncertain? McCain had more scrutiny than Obama. There is also the issue that if, and that's a very big if in my opinion, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be PotUS then we have basically said the US Constitution means exactly squat. THAT is the 3000 pound elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Scott at December 4, 2009 12:14 PM

also, i have even come to question this obama's birth. remember he is half white and half muslim. he is not half american black. he identifies himself with too many dictators and anti-americans. his policies are also anti-american. sarah, if this is what she is saying, has a right to question his birth. also, she is not into political correctness as is so practiced by too many. what is wrong with calling a spade a spade? i am tired of this tip toeing around the anti-american crowd. after all look where we are today in the USA.

Posted by: southernsue at December 4, 2009 12:19 PM

I don't see anything objectionable in what she said. Obama's refusal to produce his original birth certificate is bizarre and fair game. Of course, it's also consistent with his tendency to bury any documentation of his past, including his writings while in school.

The newspaper birth announcements should really settle the matter of where he was born for most people, but it's no crime to point out his refusal to release the original birth certificate.

Posted by: Dr. Horrible at December 4, 2009 12:22 PM

It is also a teaching moment.

Most Americans don't realize that the Constitution says nothing about requiring you be born in one of the 50 states to qualify for the job of President.

Neither does the Bill of Rights apply directly to actions by the States, but rather the Federal government. (Selective amendments have been deemed "incorporated" by the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, but that's the doing of the Supreme Court, and it has been slanted by Leftist justices).

Posted by: Anil Petra at December 4, 2009 12:35 PM

Palin:

"Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. Ive pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States."


I don't understand what you'e talking about here, CY.

Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2009 01:07 PM

"I find her authentic 'Caribou Barbie' schtick to be refreshing".

There is literally nothing "authentic" about a "schtick".


Posted by: Will at December 4, 2009 01:59 PM

In 2004, there were questions raised about Dubya's TXANG service, and John Kerry's medals.

Folks tracked down what they could of Dubya's records (many were lost in a fire at a military archive), and aside from Dan Rather, nothing was found (despite intense efforts) to contradict that Dubya served his time.

John Kerry, to this day, has never released his military records. At best, he showed them to a select few from the Boston Globe, who looked and said, "Yup, looks alright to me!"

What we now see is the same double standard, applied to Palin and Obama. Palin's relationship w/ Trig is somehow open to question with a "I'm not ACCUSING, I'm just SAYING" kind of defense. But any question about Obama, not necessarily where he was born (I think that he is legally entitled to serve as President), but also his school records, his board duties w/ Ayers in Chicago, etc., are all somehow beyond the pale of research and investigation.

How many people did AP assign to fact-check Palin's book? How many did they assign to Obama's book?

Posted by: Lurking Observer at December 4, 2009 03:53 PM

Scott writes:
"I agree with iconoclast about Obama being an "American", also though I have to wonder about a man who spends nearly a million dollars in legal fees to hide what others have allowed to be public.

We know Bush was a C student, yet we know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance. Why the difference?

Its an easily settled question, why waste money to keep it hidden and uncertain? McCain had more scrutiny than Obama. There is also the issue that if, and that's a very big if in my opinion, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be PotUS then we have basically said the US Constitution means exactly squat. THAT is the 3000 pound elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned."

A few questions/points:

1.) Since you "have to wonder" about Obama because of his legal fees, do you also "have to wonder" about Sarah Palin, who cited the ~$500,000 in legal fees as one of the reasons for her resignation?

2.) Re: Your point that we "know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance," despite the fact that we know W. was a C student--

Considering the fact that he was President of the Harvard Law Review, I think we can safely assume that Obama did pretty well in school.

3.) "3000 pound elephant in the room"? Seriously? Get your idioms straight. It's either the "elephant in the room" or the "800 lb. gorilla," not the "3000 lb. elephant in the room."

Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 4, 2009 04:59 PM

>>"Considering the fact that he was President of the Harvard Law Review, I think we can safely assume that Obama did pretty well in school."


That's a painfully ignorant comment. You don't get elected President of the Harvard Law Review on the basis of your grades.

Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2009 05:22 PM

Under the category of painfully/willfully ignorant, this is a contender:

1.) Since you "have to wonder" about Obama because of his legal fees, do you also "have to wonder" about Sarah Palin, who cited the ~$500,000 in legal fees as one of the reasons for her resignation?

Since O's legal expenses were known to be due to his fetish for hiding his background (as stated in the comment) while Palin's expenses were known to be due to local legal costs resulting from lawfare waged against her by activists.

Do try to keep up and not embarrass your side any more than you have to with such inane comments.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 4, 2009 05:38 PM

Troy, will you ever get over Bush? As a conservative and one who voted for Bush twice, I can assure you that he ranks up there with one of the worst of our presidents. The only thing is that he was far better than Gore or Kerry. If he had run against Obama I would still have voted for Bush as in 8 years he did less damage than Obama has in 10 months.

As to Palin, I like her is a quirky way. It is good to see a strong woman stand up against a nation of liberal fools. But I do not think she is presidential material. Of course neither is Obama. But after Obama finishes wrecking this country we will need a very strong male to right the wrongs. If we could only get someone with some of the values of Palin but more smarts.

Posted by: David at December 4, 2009 06:08 PM

Steve, Obama was selected to be an editor of the Law Review after his first year of law school on the basis of a writing competition and his grades.

Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 4, 2009 06:11 PM

David,

I'm over Bush. If you re-read my post, you'll notice that I was responding to a comment written by "Scott," who brought up the issue of W's grades. I even copied-and-pasted his entire comment at the beginning of my post. I'm not sure how you managed to misinterpret my response to "Scott" as a suggestion that I'm not "over Bush," but you somehow did it.

Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 4, 2009 06:18 PM

CY,

What conspiracy theory did Palin endorse or put forward--or even hint at?

She talked straight, without fear--that's what the public favorably responds to--not pussyfooting around because some bad man in the media will say MORE bad stuff about her, jeez!!!

Posted by: mockmook at December 4, 2009 08:25 PM

She'd be a lot easier to take seriously as a representative of anything if she hadn't quit her job as soon as the going got a little tough.

Posted by: beet at December 4, 2009 08:34 PM

"Palin became successful by sticking to her principles, being herself, and working hard."

Ha ha. She quit as governor.

Posted by: kyle at December 4, 2009 10:22 PM

My god, the ignorance and utter stupidity on display in some of the comments on this post (Southern Sue, for example) makes me weep for the future of this country and its educational system. Then I remember this: The type of people who rabidly rally around figures like Sarah Palin (these types usually don't know anything specific about her politics - they just like her spirit!) and attack the President not on his ideas or policies but on some completely arbitrary and absurd notion of what it is to be "American" are going to ruin the Republican Party. In fact, they are already well on their way.

Posted by: Anna at December 4, 2009 11:30 PM

Jeez con yank, the woman says anything the electorate has a question about should be fair game and you call her out? Stop wee weeing. Palin's gutsy, and the only significant pol speaking up - boldly, and apparently all alone - for conservative i.e. true American values.

Posted by: Jayne at December 4, 2009 11:34 PM

Troy

I enjoyed the assertion you had for Obama's grades. Please do tell us more..we are dying to hear it. And read the cite that proves O had such stellar grades. Which would explain why O never actually, you know, wrote an article for the review he was editing. The first ever to have had such an omission.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 4, 2009 11:55 PM

As an anarchist, I will gleefully vote for Sarah Palin...both times, first on Dancing With The Stars and then for President of the United States.

Posted by: Grandma Beejay at December 5, 2009 01:03 AM

qr4j,

Do tell, what mistakes has Sarah Palin admitted to? My count is zero, please illuminate.

Posted by: Rex at December 5, 2009 03:14 AM

last time I read, Palin correctly knew the number of states in the USA, the number of letters in the word "jobs", was not in bed with convicted felons like Rezko (as was Obama), nor had been shown to be a plagiarist and liar (like Biden).

Palin did manage to defeat the corrupt (Republican) machine in Alaska as well as get a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline done that benefited all Alaska and USA citizens.

Obama was able to run a $160 million fund into the ground with no positive results (similar to how the USA economy is being run into the ground) and Biden managed to spend a 30 year career in the Senate without holding any significant chairmanships (similar to his current status).

tell me again why Palin would have been so much worse than Obama? Without resort to a Tina Fey skit please.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 5, 2009 12:35 PM

Your post is funny. I love how people think it is the best political move to disown 58% of their base. Since polls so that 58% of the Gop base thinks the BC issues is a valid issue. You and other bloggers think it is a bad issue to bring up. why is that? because you are afraid of the media. The fact is that a true boneheaded political move would be to call 58% of your voting base nuts, idiots, morons. Just like the GOP elites did during the amnesty debate you think the Gop leadership should do with the BC issue. why because you think it is nuts? The GOp leadership thought it was nuts to be against amnesty.


The fact is if you are asking to lead your party you should adress the issues that the majority of your party wants addressed. I could see you POV if the birthers were a small minority of the party or even a larger minority like the turthers. however those that have concerns about the BC is a large majority of the GOP to ignore their concerns would be a very very bad move.

finally I am not a birther. Don't think it is a issue but at least I am not stupid enough to call 58% of my party stupid. you seem not to understand that concept.

Posted by: unseen at December 6, 2009 03:21 PM

"Steve, Obama was selected to be an editor of the Law Review after his first year of law school on the basis of a writing competition and his grades."

Interesting that this commentator doesn't mention the impact of Affirmative Action on this process. As of the 1970's Harvard began to incorporate "other factors", such as an applicant's "diversity", when selecting the President. From the New York Times:

"The [merit-based] system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."

IOW, barring some spectacular academic failure, it was possible for one to become an editor based on grades OR the writing competition. Furthermore, the selection process was not "blind:
students voting for the editor would have been aware of the race of an applicant. Harvard's students and faculty were embarrassed by the lack of minority editors prior to the mid-1970's; as of 1990, there was probably still pressure to promote "diverse", as opposed to competent, candidates.

And regarding his grades, keep in mind that taking easy, multi-culti first year electives is a surefire way to boost your GPA. Does anyone honestly think that an "A" in, say, Queer Studies and the Law, Race and the Law, etc is the equivalent of one in, say, a securities course? Without his transcripts there's no way to know for sure whether or not his course load was intellectually rigorous.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at December 6, 2009 04:24 PM

anna,
thanks for the response to my comments. again, i will vote for sarah in 2012! also, be at the polls in 2010 and vote the democrats and rinos out!

also, when obama's policies are implemented you will go down with the rest of us. no one will be immune from this horrible mess that this horrible administration is trying to thrust upon us all.

i know how you feel that your side is right. however, our situation in the USA will not change until we elect people that know economics and have some kind of morals.

Posted by: southernsue at December 7, 2009 12:46 PM