Democrats Force ‘Birther’ Issue to Rise Again: What Gives?
I believe that the president was born in Hawaii. But am I the only curious cat who thinks it's rather odd for that state's newly-elected governor, plus Chris Matthews of MSNBC, both liberal Democrats, to have just forced the "Birther" issue to rise again?
December 29, 2010 - 11:12 am
For the entire campaign season of ’07-’08, the nation witnessed hordes of “journalists” hot on the trail of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe costs, her final pregnancy and childbirth, and her unwed daughter’s pregnancy. We American voters were privy in ‘08 to seeing the complete, suicidal destruction of a once-heralded media enterprise. Rather than take the responsible position of delving into the very, very important and pertinent non-disclosures of a presidential candidate, these media buffoons chose to lampoon the lady from Alaska with adolescent-styled mischief. The campaign coverage was so bad, so childish, so without real substance that on election day, voters still knew next to nothing of substance about the man who would be their next president.
Which brings us back to the original question as to why on earth the Democrat duo of Abercrombie and Matthews would want to raise the all-but-dead “Birther” issue. The country has beyond-huge problems on its plate and Obama has two years to go before his reelection bid.
As much as I detest Chris Matthews, he makes a very salient point, when he asks why on earth the president hasn’t just released the darned document. Barack Obama has been the defendant in more than a dozen eligibility lawsuits since 2008. He has employed legal counsel to answer every one of them; lawyers do not serve free for millionaires like Obama. The cost of supplying the long-form, original birth certificate, which has been said by many officials to be on file in Hawaii, is approximately $15. No matter how one does arithmetic, $15 is bound to be less than Obama has paid lawyers to prevent the release of said document.
Now, we have the governor-elect of Hawaii saying that he will take pains to have state law revised which will enable him to legally release “certain details” contained on the original birth certificate — presumably prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is possible, I suppose, that there are details on that birth certificate which belie the Obama narrative, details that might prove a substantive embarrassment of some sort.
A president elected on the strength of a narrative must protect that narrative at all costs. Abercrombie and Matthews are merely carrying water for the Obama narrative and attempting to divert the public’s attention from more substantive issues, namely the remaining dearth of real background data on the 44th president of the United States.
Journalism certainly isn’t what it used to be. Nor is it even a shade of what it’s supposed to be. Shame is too mild a word.
For all the modern press notables that slam Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity, there isn’t a single American journalist who has demonstrated even a speck of the stuff when it comes to Barack Obama. It’s a purely disgusting state of affairs.