A poll of 400 Republican primary voters revealed that 51% of them believe that Obama was not born in the United States. 28% believe that he was born in the United States while 21% were unsure of his place of birth.
This is hardly surprising. First, the birther movement has been quite active in pushing this idea and it has also gotten support (if only via innuendo) from Republican leaders. Second, Obama is disliked (or even hated) by most Republicans and people are inclined to believe negative claims about people they dislike-even when actual evidence is lacking. Third, Obama’ “exotic” background (non-American father, time spent outside of America and so on) help create the impression that he is not a proper American. Fourth, some folks on the left (such as the fine folks at MSNBC) have been harping on the birther movement and their attacks might, ironically, serve to encourage people to accept it as correct-or at least to feel sympathy in response to their dislike of these left leaning folks.
While I am well aware that most people are poor at critical thinking and reasoning, the fact that 51% of those surveyed hold a belief that has been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt and that only 28% believe in a claim that has been established as true beyond a reasonable doubt worries me. After all, this would seem to indicate that these people base their beliefs on something other than evidence and reason and this bodes ill in regards to their ability to assess the candidates they will be voting for and against.
Of course, it is well worth considering that some or even many of the people surveyed gave the response they did based not on their actual belief but based on their dislike for Obama. If so, this would not be a case of people simply denying facts and holding to a delusion. Rather, it would be an indirect way of expressing their dislike of the man. This does have a certain plausibility and is worth considering when pondering the implications of the survey.
WTP says
February 17, 2011 at 8:38 pmSigh…And what percentage of Democrats believe Kennedy assassination and 9/11 conspiracy theories? And which are more “false beyond all reasonable doubt”?
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 7:14 amThe thing is, the rumors are easily dispelled by Obama. Mike, along with the rest of the lib herd, tries to make the opposition out to be crazy for asking that a person present credible evidence in order to fulfill a job requirement.
Hell, why should anyone need a resume or college transcripts? And yes, Obama’s background does induce more questions than usual. So what?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 11:14 amSimilar problem. The “truthers” are comparable to the “birthers.” There are certainly legitimate reasons to be critical of Obama and Bush and hence little need to make up stuff about them. I do wonder why some folks feel the need to add on made up “charges” when there are sufficient grounds to criticize on the basis of facts.
WTP says
February 18, 2011 at 5:11 pmSo would I be correct to assume that, should the subject of the JFK assassination or say Oliver Stone or Michael Moore, come up at the next gathering of your peers you would be comfortable expressing the same amount of disdain for such? Would it not indicate that such people base their beliefs on something other than evidence and reason? Wouldn’t this bode ill in regards to their ability to assess truth and reason, or to their ability to guide the intellectual development of our younger generation? I know, I know…these are old issues that no one really cares about anymore. But perhaps you yourself might bring it up in this same context, you know, given your concern that so many people are poor at critical thinking and reasoning.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 5:34 pmOf course. While I enjoy a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, I give them the credence they earn-which is generally little to none. I am willing to consider the possibility of such things, but rational people believe on the basis of the weight of evidence and not on likes or dislikes.
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 11:06 pmThe truthers charge mass murder. The birthers say Obama isnt natural born. See the difference?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 19, 2011 at 1:10 pmThe charges of one are more serious than the other. However, both are epistemically unfounded. Or, in informal terms, bullspit.
T. J. Babson says
February 17, 2011 at 9:12 pmCan someone provide a link to the survey? In particular, I’d like to know exactly how the question was phrased.
T. J. Babson says
February 17, 2011 at 10:31 pmIt would also be useful to know who payed for the survey, why they were performing it, and whether a professional organization performed it.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 11:17 amHere is a link to Rove’s comments on the survey and the survey itself. I agree with Rove on the point that the birther rumors need to be dropped by everyone. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49748.html
WTP says
February 18, 2011 at 5:13 pmYes, notice the number of prominent Republicans distancing themselves from this issue. Just like the Democrats vs. the Truthers back in 2006.
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 3:18 amActually, Obama is making me into a Birther. Produce the certificate. Is it that difficult?
I had to produce a birth certificate to enter the miltary, and yet the Commander in Chief doesn’t have to, even though it’s a constitutional requirement that he was born a US citizen.
Even if he is a natural born citizen, the president should be required to prove he actually meets the stated requirements. The standards for being a cop are higher than being president.
To be considered as a police officer in most departments:
1) Polygraph
2) Extensive background check
3) Produce a birth certificate
4) Have a college degree (Truman didn’t have one)
5) Have no criminal record
6) In Tallahasee where I considered applying, one can not have a trafic violation within 6 months of application. I did, so I didn’t apply. I’ve only had 3 tickets in my 40 years of life.
7) Have an excellent credit rating.
8) be in above-average physical condition
How many presidents could get by all this?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 11:19 amIt has been provided and his citizenship has been properly certified. As Rove points out, this is a needless distraction from real issues. While I generally don’t agree with Rove, I do agree that it is well past time that the birther issue was put to death.
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 11:07 pmI’m not distracted. He’s a bad president no matter where he was born.
magus71 says
February 20, 2011 at 11:23 pmNot to beat a dead birther, but Mike, I think yyou’re rally overstating how much proof the president has offered. I know the law doesn’t require him to do it, but it seems in everyone’s best interest if he produces the certificate he has–even if his real name is Barry, not Barack.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833
“Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health”
“For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.”
“WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.”
Michael LaBossiere says
February 21, 2011 at 12:59 pmThen why has no one with any actual credibility or authority in the Republican party done anything? After all, McCain could have just said “hey, sucker, you are not qualified…I win!” Why did he not do that? Why have none of the top Republicans done anything? Are they all in on the conspiracy?
kernunos says
February 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm“Then why has no one with any actual credibility or authority in the Republican party done anything?” – Because at this point a politician cannot touch this issue with someone elses ten foot pole. It would be political suicide.
FRE says
February 18, 2011 at 3:36 amTo evaluate the significance of the statement that 51% of those Republicans surveyed believe that Obama was not born in the U.S., more information is required. We need to know how the Republicans surveyed were selected, how the questions were presented, and exactly what the questions were. However, in spite of that lack of information, the figure is still alarming.
Recently, on Meet the Press, the (Republican) Speaker of the House stated that while he believed that Obama was born in the U.S., it is not his responsibility to educate people regarding that matter. In other words, he believes that he has no responsibility to inform the public properly so that the public will make rational decisions. Thus, he is willing, or probably more accurately, happy, to conspire to keep a significant percentage of the public misinformed. That is irresponsible and to me, it indicates that the Speaker of the House is not fit to serve in Congress.
When they can easily do so, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to make a reasonable effort to correct clearly incorrect beliefs that the electorate may have.
WTP says
February 18, 2011 at 9:17 amAgain, where has the “responsibility of our elected officials to make a reasonable effort to correct clearly incorrect beliefs that the electorate may have” been throughout the Kennedy assassination nonsense that has been going on for nearly 50 years or the 9/11 complete idiocy that, supposedly, something like 50% of certain populations believed over the last 7-8 years or so?
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 7:16 amMike,
What is your proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Obama’s citizenship?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 11:21 amWell, there is that certificate of live birth, there is the fact that his mother was an American citizen, there is the fact that the serious Republican leadership accept that he is citizen, and so on. While this might be a vast conspiracy involving folks ranging from Karl Rove to the governor of Hawaii, this seems unlikely.
FRE says
February 18, 2011 at 3:48 pmIn addition, there was a birth announcement in at least one newspaper in Hawaii when he was born. It’s hard to see how that could have been faked after Obama entered politics.
WTP says
February 18, 2011 at 5:23 pmNot a birther, but it could have been faked for the purpose of establishing citizenship for one’s baby at the time. Not for the very far fetched idea that he might want to be President some day but perhaps for the simple convenience of traveling in and out of the US. Or perhaps to hide something from the grandparents. Could be any number of reasons. The newspaper announcement was dated a week or so after the birth. Could be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons it was late. Or even that in the context of the time, it wasn’t late at all. Lots of things could be. But let’s admit one thing that is significantly different about this event than the other two I mention…no one alive today, obviously aside from Obama himself, can reasonably vouch for being present at the event. Much more hard evidence exists for events that are far more widely disputed. Just saying…
Michael LaBossiere says
February 18, 2011 at 5:33 pmTrue, it is not impossible. But there does not seem to be any positive evidence for the claim that he was not born here. As such, the claim that he was born here seems to be the one that is most rational to accept.
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 11:10 pmThe certificate provided is not the full certificate. it doesn’t have a doctor’s name and othe rinfo that full certs have.
Not a birther either, but questions do not seem unreasonable to me, especially when Obama himself could show his certificate.
My point all along is that this seems liek something Obama could easily dispel. Why doesn’t he do it?
Asur says
February 19, 2011 at 2:27 amResponding to the absurd legitimizes it.
You might think that it’s worth dispelling any misconception as a matter of principle, but there’s no practical benefit to doing so here; no one who believes this today will become an Obama supporter tomorrow regardless of what he shows them.
Giving in to this would be a display of weakness on his part; given the issues of actual importance facing him, he takes the time to argue with a fringe conspiracy theory? He must not be working hard enough — at least, that’s what you’d then hear people say.
Really, I hope that the Birther movement actually grows. It has the potential for hilarity if the GOP leadership ever tries to act on it, however remote that chance is. One can hope.
magus71 says
February 19, 2011 at 11:33 amResponding to the absurd does not legitimize it. If someone in my chain of command were to accuse me of not being natural born and thus having an issue with my security clearence level, I’d simply pull out my birth certificate and settle the issue. Something the president hasn’t done. Is he too good for this?
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9490/obama-could-debunk-some-rumors-releasing-his-birth-certificate
“Giving in to this would be a display of weakness on his part; given the issues of actual importance facing him, he takes the time to argue with a fringe conspiracy theory?”
You know, it’s funny, because I considered today that this is probably exactly why Obama will not prove he’s elligible for his position; he’s too good to be accounatable, like all of us must be.
“One can hope.”
Ah yes. The real motivation for this article and why Democrats, as with Sarah Palin simply must keep this story alive. By having an opponent they can portray as crazy, (is it crazy to have to prove you’re qualified for the job?) it takes the focus off the fact that they’ve done a terrible job at governing on all fronts. Can someone name one major aspect of America that is not in serious trouble?
Here’s something that all the birther talk won’t cover up: 10% unemployment–still. Two wars–still.
I think that Obama needs this and feels above the bureaucratic requirements of mere mortals.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 19, 2011 at 1:16 pmI think that the sane and rational among us should agree to focus on the substantive issues you mention and set aside the birther matter.
kernunos says
February 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm“I think that the sane and rational among us should agree to focus on the substantive issues you mention and set aside the birther matter.”
Then why do you keep bringing it up Mike?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 19, 2011 at 1:17 pmTrue-engaging an absurd idea does provide it with a degree of legitimacy. At the very least, it says that it is worth engaging. That said, politics often does require engaging the absurd-otherwise people think that a lack of response is evidence that the claim is true.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 19, 2011 at 1:12 pmHe has. I think time is better spent on criticizing what he has done rather than beating that undead horse some more. If he is not really a proper citizen, then we have to accept that Palin, McCain, Rove, Boehner, Romney, Bush, and others are in on the conspiracy.
magus71 says
February 19, 2011 at 11:21 pm“I think that the sane and rational among us should agree to focus on the substantive issues you mention and set aside the birther matter.”
Well, you wrote this article.
magus71 says
February 18, 2011 at 11:12 pmI’m not one of the 51%. So NOW you cite Karl Rove? Do you think he’s credible, Mike?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 19, 2011 at 1:14 pmKarl is a smart guy. Tricky and capable of duplicity, but when he makes a point that stands up to assessment, then I agree with him. I endeavor to not let my likes or dislikes impact my assessment of claims. In this case, I think Rove is right: there is no legitimate foundation to the claim and the Republicans would be better served by focusing on the evidence that Obama should not be elected in 2012.
FRE says
February 20, 2011 at 2:07 amFine, except that their principal focus should be doing what is best for the country and the citizens, not on defeating the president. Defeating the president should be no more than secondary if they really feel that that would be desirable.
magus71 says
February 20, 2011 at 11:02 pmThe president is the orginator of much of the problem.
FRE says
February 21, 2011 at 2:09 amActually, George II is the source of much of the problem. Obama inherited some very difficult problems from George II. Part of the problem is that Obama caves in too easily instead of pushing hard.
magus71 says
February 21, 2011 at 9:01 amHow much longer can you blame George II? This is the only president I ever remember blaming anything on a previous president.
Where is the measurable evidence that this president is doing well? Is it just a feeling? The way we measure things; polls and statistics, show that he is doing poorly. The statistics seem to support the sentiment of the polls. At what point will these be Obama’s issues?
Michael LaBossiere says
February 21, 2011 at 1:00 pmBlame the previous president is an old game. Nothing really new here. The next president, if it is not Obama, will blame Obama. Also, George did hand Obama two wars and a flamed out economy.
T. J. Babson says
February 21, 2011 at 12:31 pm“Obama inherited some very difficult problems from George II.”
True, but no worse than Reagan inherited from Carter or Nixon from Johnson.
magus71 says
February 21, 2011 at 11:56 pmTJ said: “True, but no worse than Reagan inherited from Carter or Nixon from Johnson.”
Yes, and there’s my point. If Obama were a great president could he at least make a dent in our problems? And please Mike, don’t say things weren’t better under Reagan than now. That would take a willful suspension of disbelief that even a stoned hippie would have trouble with.
And if the argument is that things would have been even worse than if Obama had not made the decisions he did, how would you measure that? How do you know? You’d be guessing. Couldn’t anyone say this no matter how bad things got?
As far as two wars go, Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan. Bush said repeatedly we wouldn’t nation build. Then Obama used Afghanistan as a political tool for election votes, in order to make Bush look like he’d fought the wrong war. Analysts who actually know real stuff about war knew this was foolish. We’ve wrung every bit of good out of Afghanistan we can and now we’re a destabilizing force and we’re distracted form our strategic goals. We won in Afghanistan, but Obama doesn’t know what military victory looks like because there was no Taliban general saluting smartly and signing capitulation documents on board the Battleship Missouri.
So, were Obama an even adequate president, he would not have escalated the war for political gain. We’ll be completely out of Iraq in July. The wars would be done and Obama would look like a hero.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 22, 2011 at 4:46 pmThings were better under Reagan. While his economic approach was flawed, he was certainly quite the president and was willing to do what it took to get things done. Even if this involved raising taxes and making deals with the Soviets. I would say that while Reagan was guided by his principles, he did not blindly follow a dogma.
kernunos says
February 21, 2011 at 2:54 pm“Karl is a smart guy. Tricky and capable of duplicity, but when he makes a point that stands up to assessment, then I agree with him.” So Karl is a liar except when he agrees with you?
Anonymous says
February 21, 2011 at 3:07 pmThats not what he wrote.
magus71 says
February 21, 2011 at 11:45 pmYes, that’s what he wrote. He does the same thing when talking about Christianity and the Bible. Mike believes the Bible is mythology, and yet frequently employs it in arguments against Christians.
Michael LaBossiere says
February 22, 2011 at 4:47 pmIt does contain mythology but also holds many appealing moral principles. Also, it is fine to hold people to the principles they themselves profess.
T. J. Babson says
February 18, 2011 at 10:55 am
Glen Woodfin says
February 22, 2011 at 10:23 amI have seen the movie’ “Wag the Dog”? Rings many bells when it comes to the issue on the presidency..
Glen Woodfin says
February 22, 2011 at 10:24 amI have seen the movie’ “Wag the Dog”. Rings many bells when it comes to the issue on the presidency..