Birther movement is just one more conspiracy theory

Some people deny that the Holocaust ever happened. Some people deny that the USA actually put people on the moon. Some people believe that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Some people believe that 9/11 was part of a Bush plot. And some people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus not eligible to hold office as president.

None of these beliefs are based on fact. In situations with political implications, some people believe what they want to believe, factual or not. It is not a question of intelligence or education. The non-believers are just as smart as the believers and just as well educated. I don’t know what causes this, but something happens akin to fanaticism which mutes the logic and substitutes emotional preference for the facts.

Managing Editor Miele, complained vigorously in his “2 cents” column of Feb. 27, and I think rightly so, that Montana legislator Wagner was unfairly attacked in an interview by Anderson Cooper, involving Wagner’s HB205, which would require candidates for federal offices to prove their eligibility for holding the office to which they aspire.

This would include in the case of a candidate for President: “a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate or other document that has equal effect under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the candidate was born...” The proposed law apparently never attracted any co-sponsors, missed some procedural deadline according to the legislature’s website, and therefore died.

It seems unlikely that any state can add to the qualifications for office set forth in the Constitution. But even if HB205 would have become law, it would not have made any difference to Obama in 2008 or 2012.  The Certificate of Live Birth for Obama was posted online long before his election. That photo, which I believe appears in many places even now, including the blog “Outside the Beltway.”

While noting the birth of Obama in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the names of his parents, the certificate states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the facts of birth in any other court proceeding.” In other words, it would have fully complied with Wagner’s HB205 had that become law.

Mr. Miele reports that 10 states have had “birther” legislation offered, and the Inter Lake of March 2 indicates that Georgia has passed such a law. The fact that remains is that Republican leadership is backing away from the “birther” claims. Speaker John Boehner has said: “The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there; that’s good enough for me.” Eric Cantor, House majority leader, has said: “I think our president is a citizen of the United States.” Sen. Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the Senate, has said the same thing. Even Sarah Palin has urged her followers to steer away from “birther” claims.

Here’s an exchange between Juan Williams and conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly on his program of Feb. 14:

Williams: “Why are there nine congressmen, Republican congressmen I think, who have introduce some kind of legislation to question whether Obama is an American citizen?”

O’Reilly:  “You want me to answer that question? Because they are pinheads and they are playing to the crowd. It has nothing to do with the business of the nation.”

Perhaps the strongest Republican rejection of “birther” claims is by Karl Rove, the architect of the George W. Bush presidential election victories. Rove said on Feb. 17: “The GOP must denounce “birthers,” not coddle them.” He compared the present situation to times past when the party was associated in the minds of many, with the “John Birch” society until they were confronted by William F. Buckley.

You can see the caution now in the congressional GOP leaders who are separating themselves from the “birthers” but not condemning them because they think that will drive away votes. Rove, however, knows that close presidential elections are determined by the independents, the swing vote, not emotionally attached to either party. They are turned off by extremism and he believes that is what “birthers” represent.

Mr. Miele is encouraged by the fact that “birther” legislation is pending in 10 states, but that leaves 40 states where it has not even been introduced. Let’s not forget, the “Clinton machine” was the first to consider the question in the Democrat primaries of 2008. Can anyone really believe that they would have passed on any reasonable possibility of derailing the Obama campaign?

Where I think Miele is wrong though is his claim that there is no remedy for a potentially unqualified president, based apparently on the fact that a few crackpots have had their cases thrown out of court. If the GOP wanted to contest the matter, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court would ultimately find that they do have “standing” — remember what happened in Bush v. Gore, and the present court is even more conservative than the Rehnquist court which stopped a Florida recount and enabled a quick elevation of Bush.

The biggest problem with the “birther” position is that it has no truth in it. I think Rove is right on this isssue. The more the “birther” position is promoted, the more it will demonize the GOP in the minds of independents.