There is no one voice that speaks for all conservatives, but over the years, National Review has come close.
Their word on Barack Obama’s birth and citizenship is here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=
Good heavens! The Obamabots have suborned NRO!!!
Not by much EddyTeddyFreddy.
The piece can be summarized thus: “Yes, Obama is an American citizen, but he will enslave us.” Also, the bit that made me go “Oh Really?” was saying that birthers were “not a uniquely conservative phenomenon”. Sure, if you think the democrats that you can count with your fingers that are birthers are a meaningful item.
It’s good to see conservatives having the guts to tell their base to avoid nutzy things, but it seems that they still had to sugar coat (for conservatives it is sour coat!) the message.
Um, as the article points out, the birthers were born in the camp of Clintonites, and there are plenty of Democrats in these here parts who are suspicious of Obama’s birth certificate, I can attest from personal knowledge. Fear of someone different doesn’t just run in the Republican circles. 
I think Hilary got a little more support than that.
Regards,
Shodan
More, the article likes to point out all the liberal nutters such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists suggesting the Birther side is not all that bad in comparison. What it misses is that I am unaware of numerous congresscritters siding with the 9/11 nutters. Big difference.
I think NRO realized that their more “normal” message of reasons to hate Obama was getting swamped by Birthers and that the Birthers allow the left to paint all conservatives as nutters. If they get that wrong what else can we trust them on? Again this was abetted by numerous congresscritters standing behind the Birthers. It made it all too easy to dismiss the right wing echo chamber.
As a matter of strategy I think the NRO (or someone with indisputable conservative bonafides) needed to put a stake in the heart of this particular distraction so they can refocus the political dialogue on more substantive issues where they have a leg to stand on.
Well, you point me at the democrats flinging a birth certificate to their congress critters and then I would agree.
For practical purposes the democratic birthers are now a non issue. And this goes also to Shodan, although every time I see his greeting and sig I think it is equal to ;). Hard to take him seriously.
What’s with the uptick in attention for the birthers lately? The theories been sort of around since the election, but it seems like I’ve been seeing a lot more references to it lately. Is it just a slow news cycle or is there some other reason?
As grudging and backhanded as it is, at least it’s a concession of reality. I guess they want to try to preserve some kind of fundamental journalistic credibility. They’re full of shit when they try to downplay the birthers as a tiny minority of conservatives, though, and the comparison to truthers is not entirely valid in that they are a group who has never had ANY real currency outside of internet nutters. The birthers are mainstream. They’re being supported and encouraged by talk radio, by Fox News and by elected officials. The truthers never got the time of day in the mainstream.
Easy coverage, I think - that recent town hall gave everybody an excuse to talk about it again. And a group of Republican representatives are sponsoring a bill that would require candidates to turn over birth certificates, although I don’t think that’s new.
You don’t think we elect, like DEMOCRATS from this here state, do you?? :eek:
Actually, we do; mine is. But only cause he’s been around since like Ring was a pup and he’s from the local mill owning family. 
There was that video of the Birther woman ranting at her Delaware congressman during a town hall meeting and succeeding in gaining control of the meeting for a few minutes. Others in the audience applauded her and booed the congressman when he said Obama was a US citizen.
Then you have Lou Dobbs on CNN suggesting there were unanswered questions pertaining to Obama’s birth despite a woman who sat in for him on his own show thoroughly debunking the Birther claims.
Then there is the congressman who when asked by Chris Matthews if he felt Obama was a US citizen who first dodged then said “as far as I know” when pressed.
Then there is a bill proposed in congress demanding any presidential candidate in the future provide a birth certificate. While it would not affect Obama (only future candidates) it is a swipe at this issue.
Then you have a video where a HuffPo reporter tried asking congresscritters entering the Capitol building what their opinion on Obama’s birth status was with varying answers to non-answers (some literally ran from the reporter) none of which definitively said Obama was a US citizen.
Probably a lot more but definitely been in the news which clearly spurred the NRO to weigh in to defang it.
Does anyone have any idea where the author of that article got the idea that one in three Democrats sided with 9/11 conspiracy theorists? I’ve never heard that and it sounds really hard to believe.
It’s somewhat misleading, according to wikipedia, in 2007, 31% of Americans in general thought that the gov’t either caused the attacks or let them happen. I suspect that’s the souce of the one-in-three number.
2007 was also about the height of anti-Bush feelings in the US as well, though, so I suspect that may have driven the results somewhat and the percentage would be lower today
Blaming Democrats for birthers is kinda like blaming them for Willie Horton. Sure, it came up early in the primaries when the Dems were competing among themselves for the nomination, but at this late date, who’s still harping on it?
Guess it depends how you add it up. From your link:
So, only 4.8% actively believed the US government planned the attacks.
Further, I see nothing to suggest this was a liberal only statistic (i.e. that all of those people were lefties).
Nice bit of insinuation there. :rolleyes:
Insinuation? How so? The first questions about Obama’s birth were raised by people who were partisans of then-Sen. Clinton. That’s a fact. Don’t need to insinuate anything.
The NRO article said that one-in-three believed it was done with the “foreknowledge” of the Bush administration, so I think adding up both numbers makes sense. That was actually one of the reasons I suspect that that poll was the source of the NRO’s numbers, throwing in the foreknowlege language lets them lump together people who thought the gov’t saw it coming with the smaller group who think the gov’t actually perpetuated the attack.
That was my point. The NRO is being misleading in saying one-in-three dems were found to believe such things, it’s probably true, but it’s also true of the general population.
Just as I said. :rolleyes:
The concept originated with some lone whackjob, not with “the ‘camp’ of Clintonites”, and certainly not, as you so eyelash-flutteringly deny insinuating, with the Clinton campaign.
But hey, it worked on Shodan.