I don't think many people actually believed the president was born abroad - how exactly does one have an intuition as to where someone was born?

They were just using it to attack a president they don't like and, with the release of the birth certificate, that line of attack has become obsolete and they'll just move on to another. But yes, race is a factor. How else do all these people have an idea of where a baby was born 50 years ago? They don't know, they weren't there. The idea that you can tell by looking at the president that he wasn't born in the U.S.A. is inherently racial.

After he released his "short form" certificate, and especially given lack of any evidence that it might be false, I considered that sufficient (legally and practically). But since my own long form contains information not present on my own short form, I wondered if the long form had something irrelevant to the question of birthplace, but politically embarrassing (such as denial of his father, or listing his race as white or Hawaiian). But not even that.

I suspect that many Americans have had an experience where public employees made a claim that X was true, yet refused to provide documentary substantiation upon request, leading to the suspicion that X was not true; and indeed, upon investigation X was not true. The experience could have been something at the local zoning board, or school, or something else that doesn't make the newspaper but is annoying.

In other news, conservatives have shown that they change their opinions in response to facts.

We're still waiting for evidence on whether the same is true of those on the left.

When I walk through the door each night, one of the first things my 2-year old wants me to do is spin her around the room. After a while I get a little dizzy and my daughter gets upset that daddy wants to stop. I should invite Jason and Ira over to my house, because they are evidently expert spinners and have no problems engaging in said activity without ceasing.

That didn't take too long:

External Link 

Translation: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

In California, we have Evidence Code Section 412 (which I'm sure appears in similar form in most other states):

"If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust."

When Obama refused to produce the long form, and instead chose to waste money on lawyers to fight its production - it became entirely reasonable to view the short form "with distrust." This is completely independent from race, or viewing Obama as the "other." It is simple, logical, and rational. Once Obama finally produced the best evidence, the doubt codified by laws like section 412 -- vanished.

In fact, only a fool would reject the obvious logic behind Evidence Code 412. Yet folks like Jason and Ira would probably insist that such primitive rules of evidence are solely motivated out of racism, the Koch brothers, and fox news.

buster,

The Prescott Bush malarky was pushed by the crazies on the left and never drove the kind of media storm the Birthers did and Pamela Geller continues to try and gin up. Try again - use the GWB/CBS debacle in the next go-round.

My point is that the fringe on the right - you and Geller etc. - will do anything to discredit the President. "He's a foriegner. He's illegitamate. He was a poor student. He's a Socialist."

Who cares?

Disagree with policy, disagree with process, disagree with him on everything. That's fine - we can debate the issues.

But, when you focus on red herrings that you know are false and use them to club the man, you only look foolish and ovine.

I can't take you or anyone else seriously when you focus on BS.

Grow up and try again.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ira,

"My point is that the fringe on the right - you and Geller etc. - will do anything to discredit the President."

No, your point was that anyone trying to discredit the President was racist. Good to see that you've backed off that claim, though.

And given that I've never read that website or that author before you thoughtfully provided the link here, you should probably ask yourself whether the left is more interested in debunking conspiracy theories or just trying to discredit conservatives.