This blog will discuss many issues pertaining to current events and encourages others to discuss and do the same. The goal is to raise the level of discourse and hopefully have a good time sharing thoughts and ideas.
Lou Dobbs, freshly departed from his gig at CNN, stopped by The Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart extended the segment into a three-part conversation that is posted at The Daily Show's website and also right here:
I thought Stewart was pretty good in this conversation, but it wasn't his best. The conversation stayed very down to Earth and Stewart was able to challenge Dobbs on a few key points, but Stewart didn't touch on Dobbs' controversial stance on "illegal" immigration or on his recent birther comments. Stewart also allowed Dobbs to paint President Obama as a "far left" President which, in turn, framed Dobbs as being a centrist. Then again, Stewart is just the host of a satirical comedy show right?
One of the more important points that Stewart did bring up, which I believe is both revealing and central to this conversation, is the past silence of those who are suddenly criticizing the so-called destruction of our freedoms by the government. I have stated this in the past, but it is quite clear that during the last eight years, the tea-partiers and 9/12'ers were totally silent on these issues. It is only now, when there is a black Democratic President in the White House, when there is sudden outrage from the right and being adopted as a viable business strategy by a major "news" corporation.
If you want to take a look at a really interesting interview of Dobbs and a subsequent discussion, I point you to this interview that was conducted by Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in December of 2007. Dobbs is confronted and forced to try and explain apparent inaccuracies that he stated on his broadcast. I will post some of the transcript below, but I highly recommend you follow that link and watch the entire conversation.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it’s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.
LOU DOBBS: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.
LOU DOBBS: Well, it’s actually—I think it’s 26% in federal prison.
AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.
LOU DOBBS: I said about—yes, but I—and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression—
LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn’t, but then I just explained it to you.
AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.
LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.
AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants—
LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.
AMY GOODMAN: —in this country, of prisoners—
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: —are immigrants.
LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.
AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.
LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we’ve established—we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That’s what I was referring to. I did not—I misspoke when I said “prisons.” I was referring to the federal prisons, because that’s the federal crime: immigration. And that—
AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of—?
LOU DOBBS: I’m sure we have. We’ve reported—absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: We didn’t see it.
[...]
AMY GOODMAN: Another guest that you’ve had on the show—now, this is a very important point, and this is one that you would agree that you’ve covered, and that is Arizona—this is very important—the Protect Arizona Now referendum. In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a longtime white supremacist who was also an editorial advisor to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although Virginia Abernethy’s controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper, and despite the fact that Lou Dobbs heavily cover the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating, you never mentioned the affair at all, her controversial selection as head of this group.
LOU DOBBS: And she was featured in how many reports?
AMY GOODMAN: The point is, you covered Protect Arizona Now extensively, and this is certainly significant, when it turns out that the head of the board of Protect Arizona Now is—
LOU DOBBS: And when was the last time she was on the show?
AMY GOODMAN: No, the important point is, you didn’t report the news of this very controversial—
LOU DOBBS: Is it possible—
AMY GOODMAN: —racist woman who headed Protect Arizona Now, which was virtually in every Arizona paper. The question is—
LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?
AMY GOODMAN: —what you report and what you don’t.
LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?
AMY GOODMAN: Of course. This is in 2004. The point is, what you report, Lou, and what you don’t report.
LOU DOBBS: Well, you know, Amy, I don’t know what to tell you, because, you know, based on your focus here today, you have focused on probably three or four reports, as best I can figure, out of more than five years of reporting on the issue. If that smacks at all to you of reasonable proportionate journalism on your part, I mean, God bless you. If that’s what you believe, God bless you. But I think you’re coming from an ideological position that has just absolutely skewed that perception and that perspective.
Traveling prevented me from attending the local tea-party event at the Voice of America Park in West Chester this weekend, but it looks like ThinkProgress was able to capture a fun moment between a birther and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH). As you will see by this video, they were able to capture Schmidt agreeing with this woman before staffers tried to block the ThinkProgress cameras:
As ThinkProgress pointed out, Loveland Magazine obtained a statement from Schmidt in July of this year in which she stated:
“The President is indeed a Citizen of this country. I voted as a Member of the House to certify the vote of the Electoral College electing him as our President. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is our President and has my full respect as such.”
Will the real Jean Schmidt please stand up?
UPDATE: I have sent an open letter to Rep. Schmidt through her campaign website requesting clarification. The text of the letter is below and I will post any response that I receive in full.
from: Chris Johnson to: answers@jeanschmidt.com date: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM subject: OPEN LETTER: Clarification on Rep. Schmidt's Position Requested
Good afternoon,
This past July in Loveland Magazine, Rep. Schmidt was quoted as saying the following regarding the citizenship of President Obama:
“The President is indeed a Citizen of this country. I voted as a Member of the House to certify the vote of the Electoral College electing him as our President. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is our President and has my full respect as such.”
However, this previous Saturday, at the Voice of America Rally in West Chester, Rep. Schmidt was videotaped by ThinkProgress saying the following while interacting with an attendee:
WOMAN: "He cannot be a President by our Constitution"
REP. SCHMIDT: "I agree with you but the courts don't"
You can view the video by clicking on this link. Given that these statements are contradictory in nature, I am requesting clarification on Rep. Schmidt's position regarding President Obama's Constitutional authority to hold the Office of the Presidency. Does Rep. Schmidt agree with the position which she expressed in Loveland Magazine? If so, then why did she express the opposite position while speaking with the woman in the video clip above?
I appreciate your time in clarifying this matter and I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely, -- Chris Johnson [email] The Cincinnati Beacon http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com
UPDATE: Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) has released a statement through her office. That statement is as follows:
Washington, D.C. - “The President is indeed a Citizen of this country and constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is the President and has my full respect. The video clip being circulated by some is part of a longer conversation with a woman who was very upset about a number of things. I, in no way, agree with her belief that President Obama is not a citizen of the United States. I did agree with her view that the constitution should be strictly interpreted. I was trying to be kind to a woman who was trying desperately and passionately to express her views. She has the right to her beliefs, no matter how much I disagree with them.”
While this statement was aimed at providing clarification of Schmidt's remarks in the video posted above, it is odd that Schmidt's defense is that she was "trying to be kind" to a woman who was trying to express her views. It appears that Schmidt's way of being kind to people is to tell them that she agrees with their views, even when she doesn't.
Orly Taitz has been dubbed the "mastermind" behind the birther movement due to her legal attempts in trying to prove that President Obama is not really a U.S. citizen and should therefore not be legally allowed to hold the office of the Presidency.
Max Blumenthal has a new piece over at The Daily Beast highlighting a conversation he recently had with Taitz. Here are some of the highlights:
Almost as soon as Orly Taitz answered her cellphone, before I could even ask a single question, the leader of the movement determined to disprove President Obama’s American citizenship breathlessly told me the president was “connected” to 39 bogus Social Security numbers, including one for a deceased person born in 1890. “If Obama is not stopped, we will be in Nazi Germany!” Taitz, who has a thick Russian accent, shrieked. “Forgery is a criminal matter and he committed it. Obama should be in the Big House, not the White House!”
[...]
Among Taitz’s “biggest supporters,” she said, is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs. “I did Lou’s radio show for half an hour and he was very understanding,” she told me. “He became a supporter and since then he became a supporter of the whole [Obama eligibility] issue.” Indeed, during the July 15 broadcast of Dobbs’ radio show, he praised Taitz’s work, suggested Obama might be “undocumented,” and demanded the president “show the documents” to prove he was born in the United States.
[...]
“This is Nazi Germany! These are brownshirts in action!” Taitz exclaimed when asked about recent segments by Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Jon Stewart mocking her campaign and questioning her credibility. “Anybody who does not take Obama’s word at face value will be harassed by brownshirts like Rachel Maddow.”
[...]
“I realized that Obama was another Stalin—it’s a cross between Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany,” she said.
[...]
Taitz told me that Dobbs invited her on his nightly TV program to discuss the Cook case but wound up calling in sick. Instead, Dobbs’ fill-in, Kitty Pilgrim, covered the story. Pilgrim was visibly embarrassed by the topic, remarking, “CNN has investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president’s birthplace… There is overwhelming evidence that proves the president’s birth certificate is real.”
Taitz told me Dobbs assured her after the broadcast that he would bring her back on his program for a sympathetic treatment. But Taitz’s appearance was canceled when CNN President Jon Klein declared Dobbs’ questioning of Obama’s citizenship a “dead story,” then told Variety’s Brian Lowry, “It would not be legitimate for Lou or anyone else at CNN to explore whether Barack Obama is an American citizen.”
How much traction are people like Taitz getting within the mainstream? According to a new Kos/Research 2000 poll that was just released, 28% of Republicans think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, 30% are not sure, and 42% believe that he was. That means 58% of those polled either outright endorse the viewpoint of Taitz or are not sure.
Couple that with the legitimacy that members of Congress are giving to this movement and you really have to wonder about the driving motivation behind this movement.
I posted an entry last week about the resurgence of the "birther" movement and Jon Stewart's insightful and hilarious take on the topic.
Despite being repeatedly debunked, there are still a group of people in this country that insist on advancing the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is illegally occupying the office of the Presidency. CNN host Lou Dobbs was one of the most visible members of the so-called mainstream media to raise questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate:
Then, when Dobbs was criticized for advancing this argument even in lieu of evidence to the contrary, he lashed out at the "Limp-minded lily-livered lefties" who were "attacking" him:
CNN's President, Jonathan Klein, tried to reign in Dobbs:
"Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead - because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."
but apparently, in an interview with Greg Sargent, Klein appears to be backing off strong criticisms of Dobbs:
“Look, Lou’s his own show, and CNN in general has repeatedly and thoroughly reported on the facts behind this situation,” Klein said to me, adding that Lou had merely hosted “a few conversations with people representing a wide range of opinions.”
Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
Hmmm, I wonder why this is a "phenomenon that for some people...won't go away", maybe because people like Lou Dobbs continue to host guests who raise these questions? By pretending that there is some sort of debate on this issue and continually hosting guests who baselessly give these claims, Dobbs only gives a kind of legitimacy to these arguments - regardless of whether he personally believes the claims or not. In the clip from Media Matters, Dobbs is even proud that he had the "temerity" to "actually raise a question of this great president."
Dobbs is not alone either. There are actually some members of Congress who either endorse the claims of the birther movement outright or will give you a vague statement like "I understand that some people are concerned about this issue and I will leave it to them to get to the bottom of it." Statements like these are nothing more than a wink and a nudge to a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party. Take a look at Politico's coverage of a statement made by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (emphasis mine):
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.
"They have a point," he said of the birthers last week. "I don't discourage it. ... But I'm going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America."
Inhofe put out a statement Monday clarifying his comment:
"The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. president be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens," he said. "My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama."
Two noteworthy items about the quote. The first is the obvious, that Sen. Inhofe doesn't discourage the birther movement from raising these questions. The second is the wording of Politico's coverage - "Sen. Inhofe has also tried to find the elusive middle ground...". What "middle ground" is there to find? How is there a middle ground between something that is true and something that is not?
Mike Stark has been making the rounds in Washington in recent days to speak with members of Congress on the issue of health care on behalf of Firedoglake. In his spare time he has been asking Republican members of Congress if they believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Watch the varied responses he gets (including one Congressman taking off in a sprint):
and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' take on the issue today:
Remember during the Presidential election campaign when some people began advancing the notion that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States? Well, they are back and the "birther" movement is madder than ever:
Notice how Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) gets booed when he defends the fact that President Obama is an American citizen? I also enjoyed how the crowd erupted into a spontaneous recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance after Castle wouldn't agree with them that Obama isn't an American citizen. Sometimes real life is stranger than fiction.
Jon Stewart, fresh off a victory as "America's Most Trusted Newscaster" in a TIME magazine online poll, devoted a segment to the birther movement last night on The Daily Show. While a debate over what the TIME magazine poll means for journalism in America is a topic for another entry, the underlying points below the birther segment are kind of sad if think about it. tristero put in nicely over at Hullabaloo:
Until the so-called news media stops providing access to jokers like the birthers, then the best news reports in America will be produced by a professional comedian.
and as you can see by the following clip, not only is the so-called news media providing access to the birther movement, some (like Lou Dobbs) are actively advancing their claims. It should be no surprise that a media who is having problems establishing if the President was born in this country, is the same media that helped lead this country into a war.
