A Stroll Down Extremism's Memory Lane

Thursday, February 4. 2010

A Stroll Down Extremism's Memory Lane

President Obama today rightfully took a shot at those who question his US citizenship in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast -- comments which will undoubtedly get a lot of media play.

I wonder how many of those media outlets and pundits will recall a tidbit from a CBS News/New York Times poll which questioned 1,085 delegates to the Democratic Party's 2004 national convention?

In response to a question asking Democratic Party delegates whether they felt George W. Bush was legitimately elected in 2000, fully 91% of respondents said he wasn't. The poll also noted the response rate of self-identified Dems overall, 78% of whom thought Bush's 2000 election was illegitimate (question 56).

Here is the question, with % of responses:

q56 Regardless of what you think of George W. Bush now, looking back to 2000, would you say George W. Bush legitimately won the 2000 presidential election, or not?

2004 Democratic Delegates
Legitimately won 7
Did not win legitimately 91
DK/NA 2

JUL04C Democratic Voters
Legitimately won 18
Did not win legitimately 78
DK/NA 4

I feel certain that the media will point out the findings of this poll in an attempt to compare them with the president's comments.

Here is a video clip of President Obama's comments today:

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 10:52 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Tom, please stop trying to confuse them with facts; they have closed minds!

#1 Bob on 2010-02-04 13:54 (Reply)

Civility? Is that what you call it, Mr. President, when you pointedly use your middle finger to scratch your face while talking about your opponents?

Not questioning people's motives? Would that be when you describe voters who do not support you as deluded souls who "cling to their guns and their religion"?

Obama resembles Lillian Hellman, of whom it was said "everything she says is a lie, including the words 'and' and 'the'."

#2 pst314 on 2010-02-04 22:57 (Reply)

FWIW, it's entirely possible to believe that W was elected legally but not legitimately, that an electoral college victory without a popular majority is an illegitimate result.

But I would hazard that most of the Dems surveyed were talking about hanging chads and imaginary ballot boxes dumped in the swamps.

#3 John Bragg on 2010-02-05 06:24 (Reply)

If you go back to October 2000, the media was filled with stories about how Bush could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. No one seemed to consider the alternative.

http://bit.ly/bIQPiK

http://bit.ly/cXuz3J

And all the Democrats were perfectly prepared to tell Bush he lost. As for the Florida recount...

http://bit.ly/QJ0Hp

Gore could only have won if judges had demanded a kind of recount they never ordered and a standard that wasn't used.

#3.1 Michael on 2010-02-05 06:39 (Reply)

The popular vote is of no consequence as their is no requirement under the Constitution that any state conduct a popular vote for president. The states can select any method they want to determine their electors. In the disputed 1876 election, Colorado, being a new state, did not have time or money to run a statewide popular election for the electors and they were chosen by the legislature. I believe in the early years of our republic other states may have used the same method. To declare an election illegitimate because of the popular vote just won't stand when there is no requirement for a popular vote. The only votes that count are in the Electoral College.

#3.2 DRH1951 on 2010-02-05 06:41 (Reply)

Legitimate and legal are in this context, at least, synonymous. Saying Bush was legally but not legitimately elected president in 2000 is like saying that billiard ball is a sphere but it's not round.

#3.3 Neal Scroggs (Homepage) on 2010-02-05 08:01 (Reply)

For it to be "right" for Obama to "take a shot" at those who ask quite legitmate questions, he would have to prove that they are wrong.

It would only be "right" if the the issue was resolved by actual facts.

The same would apply to you.

Attacks on people in lue of proof ss not "right". It is mpst patently wrong, and I am rather surprised that you cannot see this.

Beyond that. I hardly see the propriety of the POTUS "taking shots" at anyone.

You have an odd notion of what is "appropriate". You seem to be catching some sort of liberal virus or something.
Shame on you.

Also, one of the commenters gives out some nonsense about "not confusing people with the facts". Just what facts is he talking about. No "fact ahve been presented in the matter of Obama;s citizenship.

That is the whole problem. The public has been excluded from the facts. It is but a simple matter to deal with this. Why does the administration not deal with it?

#4 hattip on 2010-02-05 07:30 (Reply)

The Constitution requires that the President be a "natural born citizen". That's the issue. Obama is using the "distraction" (one of his favorite words) to shift the topic to whether he is an "American citizen", few people question that.

Obama's father was a foreigner. His mother was not at the age to make Obama a "natural born citizen" according to many lawyers, Republican and Democrat.

And then there's the question, why has Obama spent an estimated $2 million dollars to prevent this issue from getting into a court.

Dismissing this issue is to dismiss the Constitution. Let's look at the evidence.

#5 Jabba The Tutt on 2010-02-05 07:44 (Reply)

Obama is trying to make "civility" a test of free speech in an attempt to silence his critics instead of answering them with unequivocal facts.

The fact is the President has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep his past mysterious. He has yet to produce an actual legal birth certificate, duly notarized and witnessed, the kind the State Department requires in lieu of naturalization papers when applying for a passport. He has also made his academic records a matter of state secrecy. This is particularly galling to me, considering that every government-funded position I've ever applied for requires an official transcript.

When the his presidency ends (which is looking more and more like January, 2013) what will be archived in the Obama Library? Nothing much of any consequence I suppose. Just figuring out the identity of this person who ruined America for a generation is going to be a major topic of scholarship.

#6 Neal Scroggs (Homepage) on 2010-02-05 08:29 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Thursday, February 4. 2010

A Stroll Down Extremism's Memory Lane

Stephan Challenge

Search

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Thursday, February 4. 2010

A Stroll Down Extremism's Memory Lane

Stephan Challenge

Search

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites