NY Times Editorial Plays Race Card on 'Birthers,' Falsely Claims Origin on 'Radical Right'
Thursday’s New York Times lead editorial, “A Certificate of Embarrassment,” dealt with President Obama authorizing the State of Hawaii to release his long-form birth certificate. The editorial writers commit the same error its media reporter Brian Stelter did, falsely stating the rumor “was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right,” when in fact it was initially circulated via email by Hillary Clinton supporters in April 2008, as noted by Politico on April 22.
With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history. More than halfway through his term, the president felt obliged to prove that he was a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office. It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life.
The disbelief fairly dripped from Mr. Obama as he stood at the West Wing lectern. People are out of work, American soldiers are dying overseas and here were cameras to record him stating that he was born in a Hawaii hospital. It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones.
To suggest the birth certificate was a distraction from Obama’s real work is an odd defense, given the president that same day attended three fundraisers and taped an appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show. Obama also notoriously spent ten minutes on national TV discussing his NCAA basketball tournament brackets back in March, but waited ten days to tell the American people why he had gone to war in Libya.
Then the editors falsely stated the “birther” rumor was “originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right,” when in fact it was first circulated via email by Hillary Clinton supporters in April 2008.
So it will not quiet the most avid attackers. Several quickly questioned its authenticity. That’s because the birther question was never really about citizenship; it was simply a proxy for those who never accepted the president’s legitimacy, for a toxic mix of reasons involving ideology, deep political anger and, most insidious of all, race. It was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right, but mainstream Republican leaders allowed it to simmer to satisfy those who are inflamed by Mr. Obama’s presence in the White House.
Next, Times editors played the race card:
It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious “other” would have been conducted against a white president.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Obama? Eminently rational?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:00pm.
Obama? Eminently rational? That's highly debatable. But that's the NYT for you...Obama can do no wrong in the NYT's opinion. He's their "chosen one."
racist gas pumps
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:07pm.
The price of gasoline rose$.17 to $4.15 overnight in my economically depressed area of the world. Birthers are the least of obama's worries.
Even though the media is not dwelling much on the rising prices they are not helping obama they are hurting him. What they are doing is building a frustration that nobody cares what is happening and the frustration is turning to an anger that will be expressed at the polls.
Does Jayson Blair still work
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:08pm.
Does Jayson Blair still work for NYT? Because that sounds like something he'd phone in to Howell Raines from down the street while claiming to be on assignment.
Like their hero basketball jones, NYT editors invoke strawmen to make their case: "fringe figures on the radical right." No names needed; just paint with a broad brush.
fringe figures...
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:56pm.
Yup, that's one of my favorites. These morons connect their fiction with phrases like:
MAKES MY HEAD EXPLODE!!!
A Certificate of Embarrassment - NYT's is certainly that
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:17pm.
Another good read on the topic of where the birther movement began is a piece by John Avlon, in the Daily Beast, from Feb. 08, 2010 titled:
The New York Times is indeed an embarrassment. This one truly demands a correction - right there on the editorial pages.
(;~> gary
Yes. the Birthers Began on the Left
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:33pm.
if, as Avlon asserts, a handful of renegade Democrats--disaffected with the party's leftward drift under Obama and gravitating toward McCain and even Sarah Palin--contacting the noted truther Philip Berg about the foreign birth allegation, which Berg thereupon peddled to receptive conservatives such as Michael Savage and was quickly seized upon and fanatically circulated by the World Net Daily, may be fairly characterized as "beginning on the Left".
Jer
The brither issue was first
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:16pm.
The brither issue was first used by Hillary Clinton. It was a Clinton election tactic.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Well, bass...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:01am.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Hillary herself was the origin of the birther 'movement', will you at least agree that once she accepted a spot on the ticket with Obama any active support by her for that movement most likely ceased?
I think if you review the timeline you'll note "birtherism" had been firmly and comprehensively embraced by the "right" prior to the 2008 election and the phenomenon was then and afterwards a phenomenon of the right.
Jer
Anything that begins on the left---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:08pm.
is not going to be "fairly characterized" by a liberal when it is being used to defame the right.
MD
Jer..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 6:11pm.
".. if" what?
Ok, so we all get lost in those long complicated statement/questions - except of course, Chris Matthews.
Jer - it got going in Aug of '08. The democratic convention was in Aug '08 (right?)
Berg filed the lawsuits, and is still pursuing more lawsuits (on behalf of the serviceman who refuses to serve under Obama).
Why wouldn't the fringe keep it alive - politics is that way. it's should have been up to the WH to kill it - really kill it, or -- the national media to kill the story - not by simply keeping it on the table, for their own agenda.
Look - after Bill Clinton, Cohen, and John Edwards effectively (in the summer of 2003) put the brakes on the left's conspiratorial "Bush lied about WMD's" and the mainstream media's daily "oh let's use that again today," on notice by making it crystal clear that Bush did not lie - that they all had believed the same information. And - Clinton went even further by saying that we need to put all that behind us and get behind the effort to bring a democracy to Iraq.
What did the press do with that?
Well, they sure as hell never invited them on to discuss it further - the news didn't report the next day, "Pres. Clinton puts it to bed," did they? They buried the story, and kept suggesting, and they kept inviting guests on to push the story, and they kept reporting any angle they could come up with to suggest that Bush lied about WMD's. It continues to this day.
With that in mind - what the right wing birthers want to do with something that came out of dirty Democratic politics - is the least of my worries.
Same example (re: the MSM) applies for what Bush inherited (deficits, a world at war, recession, 9/11 in planning, etc.)
Cheers
(;~> gary
Ya, it is being penned as we speak
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:27pm.
The correction will come right after the McCain affair correction.
The sad part is newspapers
Submitted by bmac50 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:48pm.
The sad part is newspapers around the country will pick up the NYT's article and print it as though it's the gospel. Just simply another case where something gets started that hurts the Democratic party and gets blamed on Republicans.
"It is inconceivable that
Submitted by freecitizen on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:39pm.
"It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious “other” would have been conducted against a white president." Except of course when we are questioning John McCain's eligibility due to his being born on a Panamanian military base. But that's different. (end sarcasm)
Obama? Eminently rational?
Submitted by jwrjr on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:46pm.
Obama? Eminently rational? That's not debatable. Absurd, even ridiculous. But not debatable. BTW, did anybody notice that what the WH released was a "Certificate of Live Birth", not a "Birth Certificate". For one thing, a BC has an embossed seal, which the COLB does not.
race card
Submitted by sarge329 on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 1:22pm.
As a first sergeant I once served with said, " I have light green troops, dark green troops, and bumpy troops. That's my definition of equal opportunity " . All BHO had to do when this first started would have been to produce an official birth certificate, complete with embossed seal. As president, that should have been easy. I have one in my possession. I 'm sure you do, too. That would have ended the discussion on the spot. As it was, it was a simple matter of redirection, as in " Look at my left hand, no no no, don't look at what I'm doing with my right hand, look at my left hand, that's right, my left hand " . So, to use BHO supporters' claim that we hate him because he is black is specious at best and divisive/laughable at worst. I don't hate him. I don't know the man. I don't like the way he walks all over the Constitution and spits on the average voter. If I were to be a racist, then I would dislike Herman Cain, Col. Allen West, and Condaleeza Rice, for starters. I would also dislike Charley Pride and James Earl Jones. I don't like his politics and policies. I don't like the way he treats the country. To paraphrase MLK, I don't care about the color of his skin. I do care about the content of his character. He has blatantly demonstrated his character, or lack of same.