Getting Bin Laden and birthers: trivia and profundity

My column appearing in the on line version of the Sky Hi Daily News yesterday (http://www.skyhidailynews.com/) appears below.

 

Today a more edited version appeared in its print version juxtaposed with my conservative counterpart's column, still birthering and calling our President by his middle name, Hussein. For your amusement, you can view the print page at http://www.skyhidailynews.com/, click the E edition and go to page 7. (May 4 2011 e edition)

 

My mother was from Missouri and she passed down to me a degree of skepticism. I confess that I am also skeptical of the skeptics.

“Show me” has always been the best antidote for skeptics, and President Obama gave us a high dose with history-making high drama that delivered the body of Osama Bin Laden and a birth certificate. Trivia and profundity exploded before our eyes.

I once served as head of an investigative unit in a district attorney's office. I learned that one “could make a case” for just about anything, but that proving a case “beyond a reasonable” doubt to a jury was a different animal. There is a great difference between speculating and proving what actually transpired

Lacking any proof that President Obama was born in Kenya and seeing a great deal of evidence he was born in Hawaii should have been a clue for most reasonable people that the “birther theory” was a work of fiction. Undeterred, the birthers became absorbed about disqualifying him by raising suspicions that he was not an American. Some insinuated he was even a secret dangerous Muslim and his Kenyan birth somehow made it true. Every time evidence surfaced that contradicted their fervently held beliefs, they concocted new plausible and implausible scenarios to explain it away and to make their case.

Later, politicians and journalists gave time to “both sides of the issue,” in itself giving equal credence to the theory, and many of them benefited from the increasing poll numbers and audience share. The movement spread beyond a core of ultra-conservative believers to the mainstream of Republicanism, and polls showed 38 percent of all Republicans believed in it to a degree. “Birther” legislation was gaining traction in many state legislatures, and even the Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer felt it went too far in her state, as she vetoed it. A Swift Boater was preparing to publish a birther book, most likely to lay the groundwork for another dirty tricks campaign in 2012.

The birther myth reached a crescendo last month. Donald Trump had embraced the birther line and he soared in the polls as he dominated media. Serious issues — Libya, Arab spring, deficits — were drowned out. He, like others, insinuated that Obama's failure to produce the long form of his birth certificate was the ultimate proof of his guilt. He must be hiding something, right?

The press and many in the public, had fallen for the glitter of Trump trumpeting Trump. Had anyone noticed Trump had put forth some cockeyed positions on foreign policy and delayed scrutiny of his fitness to be president? Trump advocated seizing the Middle East oil fields, and no one even questioned the wars that would result, or the legitimacy, ethics and impact on world opinion. Trump's lifestyle past is right up there in a class with Berlusconi of Italy. Dropping the F bomb at a rally last week was hardly evidence of a presidential temperament.

Last week, the president produced a certified copy of the long form of the Certificate of Live birth. It filled in the blanks the birthers used to bolster their case: the hospital's name, the doctor delivering him, the dates, and the signature of his mother. Certified copies have standing in court over any claims to the contrary. Proof such as this would be all a district attorney would need to feel confident he would have a winning case.

How trivial this all seems now in light of the president's announcement Sunday night that Bin Laden is dead. Our forces got him, and the president was deeply involved in getting justice done. Will this lay to rest the dark mutterings of those who questioned whether Obama was one of us and “really on our side?” Some will continue to believe what they want to believe. Facts never influenced them before. However, for most reasonable people it probably will. He showed us.

For more commentary, go to http://www.mufticforum.com/

Redefining Obama: Obama got Osama fallout

Obama getting Osama was an event of high drama and much will be made of the immediate effect on national pride, national security, Afghanistan policy, relations with Pakistan, and the future of the war on terrorism.  There is another more subtle impact that will play out in the future.  One to watch carefully is the changing perception of the character of Obama. The GOP had worked hard to paint Obama as a dithering professor who analyzed options to death and  could not be decisive on the big issues of the day, though they conceded dismissively he was likable and could make great speeches. They made a point of questioning whether he was an effective leader at every opportunity they could, whether it was taking the initiative in coming up with a plan to reduce the deficit or going after Gadhafi.  The Democrats called him the adult in the room above  the petty and nasty partisan squabbles of a severely divided country and Congress.    GOP appeared to win the definition war until May 1.

Obama may have not landed in the helicopter, risked his life in a shoot out, but  he participated in the planning,  gave the kill order and the order to proceed and watched the raid unfold in real time.


The impact on 2012 will not be one of  painting Obama as the nation’s hero; it will be his newly defined stature as a gutsy, effective leader  and the chaos it will throw into the GOP’s ability to come up with candidates of comparable talents who will be  touting their poorly received deficit reduction plans. Their candidates  will have to butt heads with the Democrats’ less draconian and fairer plans for the economy and  a public noticing a  weak but improving   jobs picture. The burden will now be on the GOP to redefine themselves.

 “Show me “ has always been the best antidote for skeptics and Pres. Obama gave us a high dose with  history making high drama that delivered  the body of Bin Laden and   a birth certificate.    Trivia and profundity  have exploded before our eyes.

Republican strategy: ignore Obama's serious debt reduction proposal

Have you noticed? GOP's mantra is: we will not approve debt ceiling increase unless it is tied to a serious proposal to reduce the deficit. I thought Obama offered one: very serious and as effective, fairer, and less draconian, with a fail safe plan.  GOP's strategy: ignore it; avoid comparisons between the two. The Democrats have not helped because instead of emphasizing the debt reduction effectiveness (the seriousness of the Obama plan), they have seized on the privatization of medicare and unfairness issues. Those are legitimate and ultimately succeeding strategies, but they only dwell on the negatives of the Republican (Ryan plan). They also need to add a third point to their talking points...the Obama plan is a serious one.

 Most Americans do believe that the debt is a problem, and the Democrats would also be wise to emphasize the positives of how their plan would be more successful in the long term...or at least, be  either just as successful...and to make a firm point that the President's plan meets the criteria for a serious and effective  plan without the pitfalls of the GOP plan.

Of course, the stumbling block is the linkage: should the debt ceiling be linked to a serious plan as a condition of approval. The Democrats need to agree to a link, but the serious plan with which  it is linked to is more like the Obama plan and then they make a case for its superiority. What the Democrats ought not to do is to draw a line in the sand, but to indicate willingness to compromise a little and then they can paint the GOP is being stubborn,
ideologically based blockheads unconcerned with the collateral damage their plan incurs.

What will be fascinating is whether any compromise can be reached by the Gang of 6 in the Senate. We can expect the House GOP to continue to act like blockheads and stonewallers, but the ultimate test will be in the Senate where the Democrats hold the majority, yet members of their own party, including Colorado's Senator Udall agree that any debt ceiling increase approval must be tied to a debt reduction plan

On the Sunday talk shows on CNN, especially the one moderated by Candy Crowley, the GOP talkers tried to shift the conversation to: we must do it in the 2012 budget....upping the ante from a focus on the intermediate and long term realities of the federal deficit to doing a it all in the budget...a short term issue...  and then up the ante further by advocating for a balanced budget amendment (a short term political non starter) .Voters are going to have to become aware  of the long term solutions of deficit reduction vs. the practicality of an annual budget doing the entire  job now  and I think it is very easy for the GOP to obfuscate the entire debate as they confuse the two in the minds of the public. 

The danger of extreme 2012 budget reductions lies in the timing: severe cuts could stunt the recovery which is still a feeble one.  Like the UK, the danger lies in impact on the gross domestic product which in the UK's austerity program is now negative with  an increase in unemployment creating a strain on unemployment compensation funds.  A gradual move to austerity, as reflected in the Obama plan, may avoid the UK experience and the GOP's more abrupt one could actually harm the economy. Timing is everything. The Democrats could also make that point in the upcoming debate, especially since so much focus on the UK economy was the result of  media coverage of the royal wedding.