Kenyan or not

[NCRAVEN]

Or more likely than all of those possibilities, perhaps he simply didn't think this was that big of a deal - perhaps until he realized that some low-information voters would be so disinterested in the facts that they'd use an already acknowledged publishing error to inform their broader fears that he's somehow out to get them. Or that conservative leadership would use that intellectually dishonest narrative to scare naive people into votes against him.

Bias much? He clearly was aware of it, why else would it change 2 months before her declared for Pres?

Maybe you forgot, but it wasn’t a conservative idea he was born in Kenya, it was Hilary Clinton’s camp that started that.

And your assumption/attempt of an insult of low-information voter would actually be directed at the party you seem destined to support Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats

What the publishers said was clear; President Obama never said he was born in Kenya, and printing to the contrary was an error solely on their behalf. It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that unless you feel the need to extrapolate conspiracy from good old fashioned fact.

An error he didn’t correct until he felt it would hurt him. So stay with me here, if he changed because he thought would hurt him… is it possible he didn’t because for some reason he thought it might help him? (See Elizabeth Warren example)

But I support the President because I feel he's of far superior character and intellect when compared with his primary competitor; A faux-conservative (from the North by the way) who is hardly a toothless hick, but is nevertheless entirely too disingenuous for my tastes.

What evidence do you have of his superior intellect? Or superior character for that matter? And are they more important than his record (one I am sure you'd try to spin as positive )?

Stating Romney as a faux conservative as some sort of justification of why you won’t support him is laughable, like if he were a true conservative (whatever your definition of that is) that wouldn’t make him more electable to you. Or that you won't vote for him because he is too disingenuous (talk about low-informed voter). I do like how you say he isn’t a toothless hick, but you left off the racist part…

By the way, Romney’s record is a little better than Obama’s: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-03-21.html (yes I am aware of the source but dispute the facts, if you even bother to read it)

[Galen Sevinne]

I guess Obama should have also disputed the birther in Arizona too or else he is somehow complicit in the conspiracy??? Should he dispute Orly Taitz? Sheriff Arpaio? Where does it end?

Actually it has already ended for 90% of the country who have long rejected the obvious racism behind the "black man is different" birtherism. Of course Breibart.com will continue to push the false storylines as will O'Keefe and the likes of Hannity and the rest of the quasi-journalists who are paid handsomely for playing the role of sensationalist. Obama can't control that and nor should he give it the attention of the most powerful office in the world; certainly even you can understand that?

There will always an audience for the sensational. This day and age requires the consumer of news to be a bit more savvy than those who keep this type of bottom of the barrel shit alive.

I should have stayed at

[NCRAVEN]

I guess Obama should have also disputed the birther in Arizona too

I am not asking him to dispute this, I asked.

You are missing the point. All I am asking is why allow this to go on for 16 years?

You and TheEP, either a)couldn't understand that simple question or b) were trying to avoid the question to turn it into "the scary black man" debate. But you're above that right?

Try keeping up Galen, do I need to move you to the front of the class?