[NewPoseidon]

The US House of Representatives just unanimously passed a bill celebrating Hawaii! Among other things, it includes this sentence:

Quote

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;

One Congressperson, Michelle Bachman, managed to successfully delay the bill briefly by insisting on a quorum (why am I not surprised?), but even she ended up voting for it in the end.

Some GOPers have been flip-flopping on the subject and dodging questions on the issue. When questioned by reporters, some go pen-shopping, take a pretend phone call, or even run away! This bill gave them a chance to make a stand, but they didn't take the bait, unfortunately. As far as I know, there is still a bill out there that takes a subtle jab at the controversy by requiring presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate. There's a great Salon article on the birthers here.

So what's the deal with these wackos? Are they attempting to pander to the mixed-nut demographic within the Republican party? Is the "birther" movement dying, or just getting started? And finally, a question for us liberal political hacks: would it be politically wise for Dems to spotlight these people, or ignore them? I wonder if it could be a wonderful wedge issue. I'm guessing most of the "birthers" out there voted Republican in the last few elections. Forcing GOP politicians to repeatedly concede Obama's native birth might peel some conservative votes away from them. Crap like this can't help their 2010 prospects, especially when some conservative thought leaders agree with it.

This post has been edited by NewPoseidon: 27 July 2009 - 07:47 PM

[Erich Ludendorff]

H.R. 593:

Quote

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the authorized concurrent receipt of disability severance pay from the Department of Defense and compensation for the same disability under any law administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover all veterans who have a combat-related disability, as defined under section 1413a of such title.

I don't thinks it's H.R. 593 you're referring to. Anyway, the real question is, why are they passing legislation celebrating Hawaii? Don't they have more pressing issues at the moment?

[JEB90]

Erich Ludendorff, on Jul 27 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

H.R. 593:




I don't thinks it's H.R. 593 you're referring to.

Figures the Democrats would sneak in language about Obama's birthplace into legislation regarding disability pay for veterans (it was probably a 3am amendment)... Not a bad tactic, actually, Republicans aren't likely to vote against veterans....

[Lamuella]

JEB90, on Jul 27 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

Figures the Democrats would sneak in language about Obama's birthplace into legislation regarding disability pay for veterans (it was probably a 3am amendment)... Not a bad tactic, actually, Republicans aren't likely to vote against veterans....

Figures you'd condemn this without checking up on the facts.

This is the bill in question:

http://thomas.loc.go...c111:H.RES.593:

There seems to be a difference between house resolution 593 and HR 593. I'm trying to pinpoint the source of the confusion.

This post has been edited by Lamuella: 27 July 2009 - 08:35 PM

[Edward Cullen]

Locking, as we have an open "Birther" thread that is not yet "dead"



Oh, I crack myself up sometimes. Sorry for the lame joke!