Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Tools    





Re: the article Dex posted. Sure, I think there are lots of factors, though I don't think this election is unique in that regard. I think the most important factor is winning about 90% of the time, though, and when a candidate decides not to run I think it's usually because they've decided they probably can't win (or at least, can't significantly elevate their national profile if they run and lose).

I disagree with people who suggest Barbour's announcement was meaningless. How candidates look on paper seems to have very little to do with how much success they ultimately end up having, and I think Barbour could have surprised some people, though obviously we'll never know now.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Those comments he made about the pre civil rights era in the South killed any chance he had.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



I don't think they did; they sounded bad, but the actual quote was vague enough to be easily defended. People dramatically overestimate how these things can sink a candidacy. Think of the things Obama said on the campaign trail about people clinging to guns and religion; it would have been perfectly logical for that to absolutely kill him with independents, but it simply didn't. Bush had plenty of verbal gaffes, and he won two terms.

Reality just isn't that simple.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
I hope Nader Runs again as an independant.



&feature=relmfu
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Well, this issue can really be layed to rest for good now, The White House released Obama's long form birth certificate. Bye Trump.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
he released it 2 years ago.

how this ever got to be an issue is remarkable from an outsiders POV.

it doesnt pass the giggle test.



Ron Paul doesnt have a hope in heck of winning the nom by his belief that both social security and medi-caid is unconstitutional imo.

I do appreciate his consistency though.

&feature=autoplay&list=WLC05DAE75FB41F586&index=3&playnext=1



Pedantically, he released a certificate of live birth a couple of years ago; it has less information on it and can be requested after the fact. Personally, that and the newspaper article were more than enough for me, anyway, but today's release is, in fact, more significant than the information released during the campaign.

But yeah, it was always a bit silly. The problem is, once someone asks, and he doesn't release all of the documentation, his refusal immediately multiplies the interest, as does each day that passes where he refuses to. Obviously it's tough to know which is more important: squashing this stuff right out of the gate, or not being bullied into jumping through these hoops, even though refusing to do so only increases speculation and feeds the paranoia surrounding it. Obviously, in retrospect, he should have released it all at once back in '08 if he was going to do so later, anyway.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Stupid, yes, but not necessarily racist (though I'm sure a racist is way more likely to buy into it). I think it's just misdirected anger, and an unwillingness to accept the results of the election. Democrats said similar things about Bush and Republicans, to a lesser extent, tossed around some crazy conspiracy theories about Clinton, too. This stuff is becoming par for the course.

I saw a poll recently, for example (I can find the link if anyone's interested or wants to verify it) wherein about half of Democrats thought Bush (or "the government") either knew about 9/11 before it happened, or thought he might have. No racial component there, and the claim is several times crazier than your standard Birther line. So I think simple political frustration is probably the simplest explanation in all of these cases. Either that, or people in general just believe some pretty crazy stuff.
1) Racism is everywhere. In this country and throughout the world. It is not in any way "abnormal" to be a racist.

1.i) Denying the existence of racism (the source of these ideas) leads to a rationalization of certain ideas among non-racists in the manner you just committed. The popularity of these statements ultimately becomes the victory of racism since it perpetuates inequality (now among presidents).

1.ii) It's just better to accept that people are racist and take the comments as they are.

1.iii) Some racism is not necessarily itself "unjustified" on a purely practical level to the racists themselves. Racism against Mexicans for example is a function of their immediately negative effect on local communities. Racism against blacks is a result of a large proportion of blacks living below the poverty line. The latter is a function of past racism creating the situation for present racism. It's racism that recreates the conditions for its own re-realization.

2) It's not in any way "abnormal" to think that Clinton-Bush seriously under-reacted to the long known threat from Al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, I hate polls in general, because a phrase like "knowing about" 9/11 before it happened seems like a pretty open phrase. Everyone already "knew" that the WTC itself was a prime target for an attack, and that attacks were imminent since they'd been ongoing for at least a decade before 9/11.

2.i) Again, Al Qaeda and 9/11 can be seen as (partly... or to a large degree) a function of United States intervention in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

3) So what exactly are people articulating when they make these statements which are so easily dismissed as "crazy" by the normal, liberal, tolerant general public? Exactly what they mean, it seems.

4) In just about every post in this thread, somebody is calling somebody else "crazy", "nuts", or "loony". I also hear it being said on the news every single day about people on both sides but mostly at the Tea Party and "redneck", "racist" southerners.

4.i) The desire to exclude opinions---to render them moot with the word "crazy" is really the problem here. When someone's opinion is called "crazy", they are in a sense not even wrong. Their opinion doesn't even obtain the status of being a statement which can be evaluated as such. It is simply dismissed entirely from the discourse.

5) Racism is an attitude towards reality, an opinion. 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" is another attitude or opinion. Neither of which are even close to being unreasonable as I tried generally to show. The problem arises when they are dismissed as being non-opinions. This is anti-thought and anti-democracy at its purest.



1) Racism is everywhere. In this country and throughout the world. It is not in any way "abnormal" to be a racist.
In this context, I'm taking "racist" to mean "really racist" or "overtly racist," not racist in the sense that all of us harbor innate prejudices towards anyone different from ourselves, even if only on a subconscious level. Monkeypunch used the phrase "incredibly racist," so I think it's clear he wasn't talking about these sorts of built-in, hazy prejudices.

1.i) Denying the existence of racism (the source of these ideas) leads to a rationalization of certain ideas among non-racists in the manner you just committed. The popularity of these statements ultimately becomes the victory of racism since it perpetuates inequality (now among presidents).
1.ii) It's just better to accept that people are racist and take the comments as they are.
Unless they're not rationalizations and are, in fact, accurate. These points are logical, but they presuppose that the first point (that the motivation is largely racist) is true.

1.iii) Some racism is not necessarily itself "unjustified" on a purely practical level to the racists themselves. Racism against Mexicans for example is a function of their immediately negative effect on local communities. Racism against blacks is a result of a large proportion of blacks living below the poverty line. The latter is a function of past racism creating the situation for present racism. It's racism that recreates the conditions for its own re-realization.
Yes, absolutely. This is true in every direction, as well: a minority can rightly resent racism and become more hostile to an oppressive majority, thus giving the majority more valid reasons for being racist because they're now being resented. This is particularly true if some of the people in the majority were not racist before, but were nevertheless treated with the same suspicion. It flies in every direction and self-reinforces all the time.

It is also, I think, as often based in misinformation or generalization as it is sheer prejudice. If I really believed, for example, that Mexican people were coming across the border, cashing welfare checks, and then going back, I probably wouldn't like most of them very much. I don't, however. I think a lot of people seem racist for reasons like this, when in reality their error is a factual one.

2) It's not in any way "abnormal" to think that Clinton-Bush seriously under-reacted to the long known threat from Al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, I hate polls in general, because a phrase like "knowing about" 9/11 before it happened seems like a pretty open phrase. Everyone already "knew" that the WTC itself was a prime target for an attack, and that attacks were imminent since they'd been ongoing for at least a decade before 9/11.
Agreed, but that's exactly why I cited the poll: not to suggest that lots of people necessarily believe in a conspiracy, but to point out that the polls about the number of people (or Republicans, specifically) who bought into Birtherism were always silly and flawed and in all likelihood dramatically overstated the ideas popularity. There are other reasons for this, too, but I won't get into them now.

2.i) Again, Al Qaeda and 9/11 can be seen as (partly... or to a large degree) a function of United States intervention in Afghanistan during the Cold War.
Oh dear, straying terribly close to "chickens coming home to roost" territory here. Regardless, I think you can make a very good case that the things which offended Al Qaeda become inevitable (at some speed) once we abandon the idea of isolationism. The things that anti-war protesters were often suggesting we do to contain Saddam Hussein, for example, rather than invade, were some of the same things directly instigating Al Qaeda. Get involved at all and you're going to find yourself in some no-win scenarios, I'm afraid.

3) So what exactly are people articulating when they make these statements which are so easily dismissed as "crazy" by the normal, liberal, tolerant general public? Exactly what they mean, it seems.
I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying we should take the claims about citizenship at face value and not read racism into them.

4) In just about every post in this thread, somebody is calling somebody else "crazy", "nuts", or "loony". I also hear it being said on the news every single day about people on both sides but mostly at the Tea Party and "redneck", "racist" southerners.
4.i) The desire to exclude opinions---to render them moot with the word "crazy" is really the problem here. When someone's opinion is called "crazy", they are in a sense not even wrong. Their opinion doesn't even obtain the status of being a statement which can be evaluated as such. It is simply dismissed entirely from the discourse.
Agree completely; it's very upsetting. Not that people think other people are crazy, but that these labels are increasingly accepted as a substitute for argument. I think about 75% of The Daily Show is based around this idea these days: just show a big dumb Republican saying something and cut to a shot of Jon Stewart's eyes bulging in disbelief. <Applause>

Granted, this is a fine line. There are things like, say, Holocaust denial, that shouldn't be engaged. It's not always clear when people need to be taken seriously and corrected, and when they simply need to be dismissed, though even then I'd say ignoring them is probably better.

5) Racism is an attitude towards reality, an opinion. 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" is another attitude or opinion. Neither of which are even close to being unreasonable as I tried generally to show. The problem arises when they are dismissed as being non-opinions. This is anti-thought and anti-democracy at its purest.
The fact that 9/11 truthers actually possess an opinion does not make it just like other opinions. Not all attitudes and opinions are created equal. Some are based in sound reasoning, others are based in emotion and paranoia. I categorically reject the idea that an opinion always deserves any base level of respect or engagement simply by virtue of it being held by someone.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Pedantically, he released a certificate of live birth a couple of years ago; it has less information on it and can be requested after the fact. Personally, that and the newspaper article were more than enough for me, anyway, but today's release is, in fact, more significant than the information released during the campaign.

But yeah, it was always a bit silly. The problem is, once someone asks, and he doesn't release all of the documentation, his refusal immediately multiplies the interest, as does each day that passes where he refuses to. Obviously it's tough to know which is more important: squashing this stuff right out of the gate, or not being bullied into jumping through these hoops, even though refusing to do so only increases speculation and feeds the paranoia surrounding it. Obviously, in retrospect, he should have released it all at once back in '08 if he was going to do so later, anyway.
right the ol presumed guilty until proven innocent thing.

meanwhile i don't recall any presidential candidate ever being questioned as to his birth so vehemently.

why is that?



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
as to 9/11, its worth noting 2 facts that should bring you pause.

1- muslim radicals with box-cutters didn't order NORAD to stand down, and ignore long established protocols for this exact event.

and

2- More $$ was allocated and more Fibbie man-hours were assigned to determining whether a sitting president got a hummer from an intern, than the investigation exploring the events of 9/11.


thats not crazy talk. thats real talk.



I was recently reading about that and there seems to be some technical things that would disqualify him as President if he wasn't born in the United States . . .
I'm curious about what "technicalities" that would be. As I recall, it stipulates the candidate must be 35 and a natural citizen of the US, which does NOT mean he or she must be born within the boundaries of the US or its territories. Even if just one of your parents is a US citizen--even a naturalized US citizen--you, too, automatically become a US citizen at the moment of birth, no matter where that birth occurs. Seems too simple and straight forward to have "technicalities."

One of the complaints I had heard was that he submitted a certified copy of his birth certificate instead the original, but hell who has their original birth certificate these days? Everytime a government agency wanted my birth certificate, I had to order up a new copy as I could never remember where I put the old one.

I do wonder why Obama decided now to provide more detailed information about his birth. I mean, if he were gonna respond to the cockeyed critics, why not do it years ago instead of letting them beat that dead horse for so long? Were I him, having waited this long, I'd tell them to go fk themselves and never released it.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
I agree Ruf. he certainly could have had a more dramatic reveal...say at the Debates with Trump or Bachman or whomever makes a mention..boom with teh perry mason moment.

game set match.



People dramatically overestimate how these things can sink a candidacy. Think of the things Obama said on the campaign trail about people clinging to guns and religion; it would have been perfectly logical for that to absolutely kill him with independents, but it simply didn't. Bush had plenty of verbal gaffes, and he won two terms.

Reality just isn't that simple.
But sometimes it is. Muskie got tearful responding to an attack on his wife and the next day he was out of the running. Nixon got maudlin about not giving back the "political gift" of the dog that his children loved, and Eisenhower decided to keep him as VP on his ticket. And who can forget the frontpage photos of the Democratic candidate looking like Snoopy in a military helmet aboard an Army tank? Both the political graveyards and lines of those who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat are filled with candidates who did or said the right or wrong thing at the wrong or right moment.



I agree Ruf. he certainly could have had a more dramatic reveal...say at the Debates with Trump or Bachman or whomever makes a mention..boom with teh perry mason moment.

game set match.
Like the new sheriff said in Blazing Saddles, "Let me just whip this thing out!"



meanwhile i don't recall any presidential candidate ever being questioned as to his birth so vehemently.
I don't remember a presidential candidate ever being questioned about his place of birth or citizenship at all, and I've been around since Truman. Even in all the histories I've read going all the way back to the Revolution, I don't recall a candidate's basic qualification to be a presidential candidate being questioned at all.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Do you think there would have been this noise about Romney's father?

George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[48] George Romney therefore had no allegiance to a foreign country.

I don't want to print it, but there was supposedly technical crap about Obama because his father wasn't an American citizen and his mother hadn't lived in the United Staes long enough because she was still in her teens when she gave birth. Who cares?

I used the word crazy to refer to the birthers and their obsession with the birth cert long after it was a dead issue and allegations Obama was a secret Moslem. I wasn't calling anyone's political views crazy. But believing that nonsense qualifies in my book.



meanwhile i don't recall any presidential candidate ever being questioned as to his birth so vehemently.

why is that?
The attempt to delegitimize leaders is not new, it just takes different forms at different times depending on each leader. Bush was dogged by complaints that he'd stolen the election because it was very close. He was also dogged with all sorts of other clumsy attempts to impeach him or get him out of office somehow. With Obama, he had a foreign father and a sister born overseas, so it was probably a more natural fit for conspiracy theorists.

The circumstances of each attempt to undermine may be unique, but it's really the same political frustration underneath. They vary based on how well they fit some stereotype or preconception about the leader, as well as how that leader responds to it.

as to 9/11, its worth noting 2 facts that should bring you pause.

1- muslim radicals with box-cutters didn't order NORAD to stand down, and ignore long established protocols for this exact event.
It's weird to be talking about silly conspiracy theories and then turn around and throw out a question like this, because questions like this are exactly how they catch on in the first place. Even the phrasing -- how the claim "should bring you pause" -- is vague in the same way that allows conspiracies to thrive. The standard defense is always the same: someone's "just asking questions." But the questions are almost never neutral or benign; there's usually an answer, or the suggestion of an answer, embedded within them.

Indulging the question for a moment, though: it's already been explained in in a Popular Mechanics article, which is probably the single most famous and oft-cited 9/11 Truther debunking yet produced:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...planes#nostand

For good measure, NORAD released 30 hours of the tapes from 9/11, some of where you can hear here:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/492112...tapes_on_live/

If this question did give anyone "pause," the pause was apparently a very short one, because it only took me a couple of minutes to find this information. Which begs the question: if these questions are so serious, why don't the people posing them ever seem to look around for contradictions?

2- More $$ was allocated and more Fibbie man-hours were assigned to determining whether a sitting president got a hummer from an intern, than the investigation exploring the events of 9/11.
The man hours were spent determining whether or not a sitting President lied under oath. The sexual act was not in dispute for very long.



But sometimes it is. Muskie got tearful responding to an attack on his wife and the next day he was out of the running. Nixon got maudlin about not giving back the "political gift" of the dog that his children loved, and Eisenhower decided to keep him as VP on his ticket. And who can forget the frontpage photos of the Democratic candidate looking like Snoopy in a military helmet aboard an Army tank? Both the political graveyards and lines of those who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat are filled with candidates who did or said the right or wrong thing at the wrong or right moment.
This is, of course, assuming we even have the whole story. But as a general rule, I think people are far more likely to oversimplify politics than the inverse. Especially looking backward.