Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, September 06, 2009 7:49:01 PM
Before anyone accuses me of not taking the constitution seriously because I dismiss the whole birther controversy, my objections are to the specifics, and the futility, not the overall principles. I think it is important that a president meets the constitutional requirements of office, and I am troubled that some court rulings seem to suggest that no one has standing to challenge a candidate's qualifications. On the other hand, the "evidence" against Obama is just so weak that I can't imagine anyone taking this seriously. Even more importantly, whether or not I take the constitution seriously, I have to recognize there is some point where additional struggle is futile, and we have passed that point. Nothing will come of additional birther complaints.
And that is my argument against the birthers. First, that there really is no substance tot he arguments against Obama. That the bast they can do is point to how much he spent defending himself against their charges shows just how impoverished the arguments have become. Second, at this point the argument is futile. Even with much better evidence, the time has passed when it would matter. At this point, he is president and there is nothing to be gained by rehashing these arguments. The only result of additional argument is to make the right look as insane as the Angry left looked in 2001.
So my opposition has nothing to do with a lack of concern with the constitution, but rather with my evaluation of the birther arguments, and a sense of practicality. There simply is no argument there, and, even if there were, it is just too late to matter.
There are plenty of reasons to argue against Obama, there are plenty of problems with him we can point out to the general public. Keeping our attention on these birther arguments simply distracts us from much more fruitful and convincing arguments against him.