-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with Quin Hillyer's endorsement of Andy McCarthy's paranoid National Review rant on President Obama. It does not seperate fact from fiction, but rather substitutes speculation and conjecture for actual reporting, and its sourcing is atrocious.
For instance, McCarthy's source for claiming that Obama's description of his early employment "is bunk" is the Sweetness & Light blog. If you link to the post he cites, Sweetness & Light offers an expired link to another blog, Analyze This, written by somebody claiming to be one of Obama's former coworkers. Sweetness & Light also cites a commenter to the Analyze This blog. Now, it's entirely possible that everything written on Analyze This, including its comments section, is completely accurate. But if McCarthy wants to see Obama's original birth certificate (because the official "certification of live birth" does not provide enough information for him), you'd think he'd want to do more legwork to corroborate his own claims, instead of just lazily linking to another blog and writing without skepticism, "As the website Sweetness & Light details, this is bunk."
At another point, McCarthy writes:
There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.
It's stunning enough that McCarthy, a former prosecutor, would engage in such amateur speculation without backing it up with actual facts. But his favorable citation of Larry Johnson is even more alarming. As Dave Weigel reminds us, Johnson is not a reliable source, but a "now-discredited blogger who blew his credibility last year after insisting, for weeks, that he knew 'sources' who were holding onto a tape of 'Michelle Obama railing against ‘whitey’ at Jeremiah Wright’s church.'" In addition, Johnson erroneously reported that Karl Rove was indicted during the Valerie Plame affair, in a post titled, "Rove Indicted -- Frog March the Bastard." Johnson also has the distinction of having authored a New York Times op-ed titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat" -- which was published just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. It is simply irresponsible journalism by McCarthy to cite the authority of this man.
Right now, Obama's approval ratings are sinking. And it isn't because people like McCarthy are raising questions about his biography. It's because his economic policies aren't working as promised, and Americans are not buying the health care proposals he's trying to sell them. By writing this dreck, all McCarthy is doing is providing fodder to liberals who seek to distract attention from Obama's fading popularity and his disasterous health care plan by arguing that conservative opposition to Obama is rooted in an effort to portray him as somehow illegitimate.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/30/not-a-mccarthyite
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- David Cameron, Seriously
- Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
- The Continuing Crisis
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ECM| 7.30.09 @ 4:49PM
By writing this dreck, all McCarthy is doing is providing fodder to liberals who seek to distract attention from Obama's fading popularity and his disasterous health care plan by arguing that conservative opposition to Obama is rooted in an effort to portray him as somehow illegitimate.
Did you actually read the entire article? He says that he thinks the Obama as non-citizen issue is nonsense and there is no comfort in that for those that insist that he isn't. His over-arching point (which your colleague, Mr. Hillyer, apparently understood far better than you) was that someone that runs around boasting about transparency is anything but (see: no grades released; no real health info released; what he was gong in Pakistan in the early 80s which somehow failed to get a mention in his books; etc., etc.) with the birth cert issue as yet another symptom of it. (And, again, the COLB is *not* a birth cert and, as McCarthy very, very clearly explained, there is a great deal more informatoin on the birth cert. The fact that McCain had to jump through all these hoops and Obama, apparently, does not should also give you pause as the media is quite keen to keep anything that could be even remotely embarassing--a flubbed pitch at a bloody baseball game?!--buried.)
Liberal Reader| 7.30.09 @ 5:05PM
Nice post, Mr Klein.
If conservatives win, they'll win because of political ideas, not because birthers and other ankle-biters score any points with the American people.
American Spectator seems like a house divided when it comes to some of these issues. Klein, Lord, Tyrrell, and a few others write good, thoughtful pieces.
Others are not always so thoughtful or so good. Seems emblematic of what's going on in general on the right.
Willey| 7.30.09 @ 5:48PM
Conservatives will win because democrats have been caught in their own lies and corruption once again.
Mark J. Goluskin| 7.30.09 @ 7:54PM
Excellent, Mr. Klein! It should be noted that the uber-left MSNBC has trotted this "birther" stuff out. And some conservatives are falling right in to it. President Obama was born in Hawaii and that makes him a natural-born American citizen. Also, spot on about the POLICIES of President Obama leading to his tanking among the American people. Please fellow conservatives, we do not need to go down this road.
Captain Steve| 7.30.09 @ 8:06PM
To all the people that say Obama is legitimate, I would like to know if your decision was based on faith or facts? If it’s faith, I’m not persuaded. If it’s based on facts, show them to the world so we can evaluate them for ourselves!
If Obama has a long-form, why doesn’t he show it? If he doesn’t have one, why not? People that hide things, usually have something to hide. He works for us. We have a right to know! We have a right to demand it!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to send a message to Obama and to EVERY OTHER POTENTIAL VIOLATOR OF OUR RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
Darii| 7.30.09 @ 8:18PM
ECM, in Klein's defense, his ultimate point, after his critique of McCarthy's piece, is that conservatives shouldn't even be focusing on this issue right now. Obama's murky past is a big strike against him, however that is not the basis on which he will be defeated.
Conservatives should focus on the things Obama is doing right now. The prime opportunity for questioning Obama's background was the campaign. Unfortunately, America didn't seem to mind (or be aware of) the various fraudulent stories in Obama's past. Currently, we can point out his tendency to make things up to "connect" with constituencies. But this point can be made without dragging the birth certificate brouhaha and all the baggage it entails.
PKane| 7.30.09 @ 8:58PM
Bravo Mr. Klein.
Aren't we conservatives supposed to be the realists? The ones who learn from history and pour cold water on wild eyed ideas that have been proven not to work?
The bottom line is that people DO NOT CARE about a president's past once he's been elected to office. Barack Obama IS the president - you can can not change that fact for another 3 years. And when he runs for reelection he will be judged on his performance in office.
This was true in 2004, when nobody cared about George W. Bush's 30 year old service in the National Guard. It was true in 1996 when nobody cared about Bill Clinton's 20 year old land deals or past womanizing.
All people care about is when he is doing NOW.
Besides, what do you actually expect to happen with all of this? Suppose there is some issue with his birth certificate? What is the end game here? Is the dream that the Supreme Court will invalidate the 2008 election and Obama, who was elected by a decisive margin of the electorate, will just shrug and go away?
Do you not see the absurdity of all of this? Did you sleep through the Bush years, when we used to laugh at the crazy moonbats who went around babbling nonsensical conspiracies about Bush?
Perhaps you were not around in the 1990s, when conservatives defeated Bill Clinton's liberal agenda by debating the issues, won back the house and senate and then completely squandered their gains by dredging up a scandal.
Obama is an extremely skilled political opponent and he has the good will of the majority of the American people. If we are going to defeat his disaster of an agenda then conservatives need to focus on what he is doing NOW.
If we do that effectively Obama can be defeated in 2012. Once Obama is safely out of office you will all have plenty of time to set the historical record straight.
PKane| 7.30.09 @ 8:58PM
Bravo Mr. Klein.
Aren't we conservatives supposed to be the realists? The ones who learn from history and pour cold water on wild eyed ideas that have been proven not to work?
The bottom line is that people DO NOT CARE about a president's past once he's been elected to office. Barack Obama IS the president - you can can not change that fact for another 3 years. And when he runs for reelection he will be judged on his performance in office.
This was true in 2004, when nobody cared about George W. Bush's 30 year old service in the National Guard. It was true in 1996 when nobody cared about Bill Clinton's 20 year old land deals or past womanizing.
All people care about is when he is doing NOW.
Besides, what do you actually expect to happen with all of this? Suppose there is some issue with his birth certificate? What is the end game here? Is the dream that the Supreme Court will invalidate the 2008 election and Obama, who was elected by a decisive margin of the electorate, will just shrug and go away?
Do you not see the absurdity of all of this? Did you sleep through the Bush years, when we used to laugh at the crazy moonbats who went around babbling nonsensical conspiracies about Bush?
Perhaps you were not around in the 1990s, when conservatives defeated Bill Clinton's liberal agenda by debating the issues, won back the house and senate and then completely squandered their gains by dredging up a scandal.
Obama is an extremely skilled political opponent and he has the good will of the majority of the American people. If we are going to defeat his disaster of an agenda then conservatives need to focus on what he is doing NOW.
If we do that effectively Obama can be defeated in 2012. Once Obama is safely out of office you will all have plenty of time to set the historical record straight.
The details| 7.30.09 @ 9:11PM
The post from someone who claims to be a former BHO co-worker isn't that difficult to find, if you know about these internet things:
peekURL.com/zfaey2h
Regarding Larry Johnson, he didn't exactly do a great public service by distracting people about this topic. But, at least he's got plausible deniability, huh?
As for Weigel, he's frequently lied, misled, or just made things up concerning this issue. Do a find for his name at my name's link for the details.