From An Educator, Foolishness


The right of freedom of expression in our country extends to all, including members of the clergy and other religious figures. But any individual serving a particular denomination injecting himself or herself into the political arena is immune from neither praise nor criticism, or even ridicule. If this is a nation valuing equal protection under the law, a nation of laws and not of men, it also is a nation in which statements deserve to be considered on their own merits.

On Tuesday, Governor Chris Christie, taking advantage of the rare moments he spends in New Jersey, visited a St. Augustine of Canterbury school in the middle-class suburb of South Brunswick, NJ. A community newspaper reported

The visit, which was closed to the media, saw the entire school community in grades K-8 warmly greet the Governor with welcome signs, applause and cheers of joy, said principal Sister Mary Louise Shulas.

"I was very excited because I never had the experience of having a governor come and visit my own school," Shulas said. "It was an honor and a privilege for him to come in and be our guest. He addressed the children beautifully and answered questions on a level that the students were able to understand and appreciate. He spoke about the value of receiving an excellent Catholic education and the importance of having respect for one another by reaching out and performing services that help other people."

Father Bob opened the Governor's visit with a welcome and prayer. Christie then spoke to the children about valuing their Catholic education and learning attitudes of respect and kindness, Shulas said. Before the meeting began, the children were asked what should be on their agenda for the day.

"I don't know," Samantha said. "We don't need any agenda, we have the Governor visiting us."

Shulas called the visit a wonderful memory in the history of the school and the lives of the students.

"The children came away from this with the knowledge that the Governor does care about students and their education in New Jersey," Shulas said. "That was his clear message to them. He confirmed the importance of the value of education, and in our case, a Catholic education. He made them feel as though they're a vital part of New jersey by taking the time out of his schedule to visit them at their own school on their invitation. Each child felt really important and valued."

No doubt the Governor, ever ready to demean the public school system, did "confirm the importance of the value of" "a Catholic education." And traveling to a sectarian school on the public's dime while commending that religion ("a Catholic education") does not conflict with the wall of separation understood to be guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But really..... the Governor does care about students and their education? This is the same governor who in November told high school students- students! at the Boys and Girls Club in the state capital, Trenton

These teachers have all summer off. Can’t they have their convention during the summer? They got to get two days off from school because, you know, they don’t get enough time off now, right? They get two weeks off at Christmas, they get all the different holidays, then they get all the summer off and now they need two more days.

Why do you think that is? Do you think If they cared about learning where would they be today?

No better way to strike a blow for education than to tell students that their teachers ae lazy and don't care about them. But then they were public school students.

A few months earlier, Governor Christie had remarked

Scaring students in the classroom, scaring parents with the notes home in the bookbags, and the mandatory 'Project Democracy Homework' asking your parents about what they're going to do in the school board election, and reporting back to your teachers union representatives, using the students like drug mules to carry information back to the classroom, is reprehensible.

Surely, there is no better way to encourage students than to liken their teachers to drug kingpins and the students themselves to drug pushers.

So, Sister Shulas, continue your foray into political commentary. You're an American citizen and your opinion is valuable, all the more so because of your position as a principal. But if you escape criticism, be assured that it's only because of the political correctness conservatives excoriate when politically convenient; that if you were not a religious figure, your remark would be viewed objectively, on its own merits. And that, in this country, is the way it should be with everyone.

Share|

Spinning Economic Tales


It's part of the GOP economic myth that somehow President Ronald Reagan- who left office in January, 1989- created the economic boom which came about during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, which began in January, 1993. On Friday, leading storyteller Rush Limbaugh claimed

Intellectually, you and I know that the Clinton tax increases retarded economic growth in the nineties; that the economic growth of the nineties that happened was still an offshoot of what happened in the eighties with Reagan. Had the Clinton tax increases not happened, the economic growth would have been even better than it was. The American people simply were not able to be shut down and stopped.

As you might have expected, the man who said "intellectually, you and I know that the Clinton tax increases retarded economic growth" then went on to appeal to the intellect by citing no statistics, details, or facts. "Intellectually," indeed.

Apparently, though, that wasn't the tune Rush was singing on July 20, 1993, two weeks before the Clinton budget, with a huge income tax increase, was approved by Congress with zero- 0- Republican votes. Then, despite eight years (ending 53 months earlier) of what he considered a virtual economic miracle, Rush maintained on his television show (as related by Salon's Steve Kornacki)

I want to stress something to the Republican Party that's watching this show and those of you who are members of it. The Republican Party staked out a claim as the party of middle class relief from oppressive government in the 1980s by doing what? By opposing tax increases and instead standing for tax rate reductions. The only difference between a Democrat and a Republican in this economic bill is the opposition to tax increases. It's the tax increases that are going to doom this plan. It's the tax increases that are going to stop this economy. It's the tax increases that are going to slow it down and hurt the people who make this country work.

If the Republicans decide to compromise on any tax increase, they are participating in the damage that this plan will cause the country. They are helping and are complicit in the damage this plan will cause to the people who make this country work. And by compromising on any tax increase whatsoever, the Republicans are then forfeiting any opportunity to say, Hey, it wasn't our idea. Hey, we had no part in this. Hey, we didn't have anything to do with it.' By going along with these tax increases on the wealthy, then the Republican Party or the members of the party who do that are forfeiting any political credibility in the future in opposing this plan and for their own future.

The Republican Party, I want to tell you right now, is never ever going to come back and win the White House unless they unite on the concept that this government needs no new tax rate increases to operate. This government simply has enough money to operate as it is. Tax rate increases slow down economic activity. It is not a theory. It's not an opinion. It is fact. It is true. And if the Republican Party can't unite around the idea that the way to cause economic growth, the way to create wealth is to rid people of the shackles of an oppressive government veer--via high tax rates, then the Republican Party is forever going to be disunified and is not going to be able to mount a credible opposition to the Democratic plan which is total tax increases, total big government.

Then, like the over 200 GOP members of Congress who rose in unison (well, not exactly in unison) to say NO! to the tax increase and YES! to continued budget deficits, Limbaugh was convinced that that "tax rate increases slow down economic activity."

Not so much, evidently. As this site documents, manufacturing, corporate profits, tax receipts, median family income, and the stock market all were higher in the Clinton Administration than during the Reagan Administration. Admittedly, overall home mortgage rates and poverty were lower during Clinton's term, but even some Republicans would agree that is positive. Whether because, or despite, the increase in tax rates Congress narrowly approved over unanimous GOP animus, tax increases did not "stop this economy" or "slow it down and hurt the people who make this country work." Heck, even the people Rush believes "make this country work" prospered during the last Democratic Administration; corporate profits increased by $143.5 billion during Reagan's terms and by $326.6 billion during Clinton's terms.

President Reagan had to run big deficits to get the American economy moving. Bill Clinton eventually balanced the budget and left George W. Bush with a big surplus, which he promptly squandered. Now while inheriting two wars, a deep recession, and an exploding debt caused most of all by tax cuts (graph, below, from Center for Budget and Policy Priorities), President Obama is condemned for jacking up the debt. Now, Rush and other Republicans have gotten religion and are now obsessed with red ink.






But as all the caterwauling indicates, most Republicans are much more exorcised about an activist government working on behalf of the American people than by the gap between revenues and spending. Otherwise, they would acknowledge, as Kornacki notes,

we have a decade's worth of compelling evidence that raising income taxes on the wealthy can reduce deficits and (at the very least) not inhibit sustained economic growth. And yet, Limbaugh is still telling his listeners -- in rhetoric that Republicans on Capitol Hill are still parroting -- that this has "never worked."

Share|

Again, The Right Labeled As The Center


Now, this, from Politico's Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen, is as disturbing as it was predictable:

One day after being named to a presidential task force to negotiate deficit reduction, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor fired off a stark warning to Democrats that the GOP “will not grant their request for a debt limit increase” without major spending cuts or budget process reforms....

Republicans are floating a wide range of major structural reforms that could be attached to the debt limit vote, including statutory spending caps, a balanced budget amendment and a two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases and debt limit increases. Liberals want a “clean” vote to raise the $14.3 trillion borrowing limit.

Those in the center simply hope to find an accord that will prevent the nation from defaulting on its obligations and sending global markets into a tailspin.

How did the idea of responsibly raising the debt ceiling- as, according to Politico, apparently is favored by the socialistic Chamber of Commerce- get to be the left-wing position? Sherman/Allen adds

House Republicans are also trying to frame the debt ceiling increase as belonging to Obama: They say that if he wants to raise it he has to sell it to the American people. Democrats — in the House, Senate and White House — seem to have accepted the fact that the debt ceiling will almost certainly need to be coupled with other spending control measures.

With one congressional chamber controlled by Republicans and one by Democrats while the Presidency is in the hands of a Democrat (or so we've heard), it is Democrats who hasten to accept a fait accompli. Perhaps it comes when one party has no compunction against being reckless and advocates a "clean" bill, rather than attaching its own wish list its demands for a debt limit increase.

Democrats really should play on the same playing field as Republicans. Republicans want to turn Medicaid into a bloc grant? Why not a proposal to raise the income eligibility for Medicaid? The GOP pushes a constitutional amendment stipulating a two-thirds requirement for tax increases and debt limit increases? Why not a two-thirds requirement for tax cuts and a provision that the debt limit automatically increases unless Congress takes explicit action by a certain date each year? Or perhaps a provision that triggers an increase in Social Security payments when the consumer price index exceeds a certain rate?

Those goalposts may be heavy, but Democrats are not constitutionally prohibited from moving them themselves.


HAPPY EASTER
HAPPY PASSOVER

Share|

The Bergen And McCarthy Show


Barack Obama's Barack Obama is at it again.

Dick Durbin, a "liberal" Democrat, one of the three Democrats on the "Gang of Six" seeking agreement on a debt reduction package, commented in an interview for ABC's Subway Series

You have the House Republican budget from Congressman Paul Ryan, who I know and like, which is going to be placed somewhere on the right side of the spectrum. You have the president's suggestion, which will be on the other side of the spectrum. And if and when we reach an agreement, it will be in the middle, a bipartisan effort, which I think has a chance to succeed.

Somewhere on the right side of the spectrum? Would anyone three years ago- before Barack Obama was inaugurated- have suggested that eliminating Medicare and turning health care for the elderly over to private insurers is "somewhere on the right side of the spectrum?" And that a President bragging about "the biggest spending cut in history" (as all taxes as a proportion of personal income fall to the lowest level in over 60 years) would be considered alll the way on "the other side of the spectrum?"

No. And No. But Durbin wasn't finished, arguing "In 2037, as we know it, Social Security falls off a cliff. There's a 22 percent reduction rate in payments, which is really not something we can tolerate."

ABC News did not ask how a 22 per cent reduction in benefits is "falling off a cliff." Generally, when someone falls off a cliff, it ends horribly, in death. A 22% (actually, 23%) reduction is not falling off a cliff but apparently, in order to accept harm to one of America's two most cherished government programs, people first must be panicked.

Durbin might have suggested the cap on the income subject to payroll taxes be eliminated (or at least raised), but that wouldn't do, especially when the President who pulls his strings cut the payroll tax as part of the tax deal in December. Instead, the Illinois Senator advocates reducing Social Security taxes to the wealthy (whereupon they ultimately might be eliminated) because (sarcasm alert) there is nothing Americans like more than a welfare program.

Durbin believes the Gang of Six is "very, very close. And there's a sense of urgency. Our relevance is going to be hooked to our timeliness. If we wait too long, we may not be players. And a lot of people are counting on us to be players."

No doubt the Senator is particularly pleased with the reasonableness of Gang of Six member Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. Recently, "The Last Word" host Lawrence O'Donnell presented an ode to Coburn who had, it is believed, stood up to Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform. The latter has had virtually every Republican in Congress sign his Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which opposes not only tax increases but also elimination of loopholes. On March 29, Coburn sent to Norquist a letter criticizing the powerful activist for opposing elimination of a tax earmark for movie producers and currently opposing an amendment sponsored by Coburn to eliminate an ethanol subsidy.

Both O'Donnell and the normally sober and insightful Jonathan Chait are both pleased that Coburn has challenged "Norquist's vision of conservatism." Maybe not so much of a challenge, however. The Hill's Michael O'Brien reports

Coburn, one of six senators involved in behind-the-scenes talks considered crucial if there is to be a deal, said that while it was possible that some voters could see their tax burdens rise, the “Gang of Six” talks would not result in a significant tax hike.

"There's no plan to have a significant tax hike on anyone," Coburn said on conservative talker Laura Ingraham's radio show. "I don't think there's any of the three of us who will embrace tax hikes."



Coburn’s comments suggest the senators are unlikely to agree to end the Bush tax rates for families with annual income above $250,0000, a priority for the White House.

Is Dick Durbin disappointed? embarrassed? chastened? Not in the least. The role of Obama's proxy has been to put Social Security onto the table, and to keep it there, meanwhile portraying the President's center-right plan as the only legitimate proposal on the left. (Durbin on Senator Sanders: "I think Bernie is going too far with his language.") President Obama hopes to swoop in at the last minute and negotiate a "compromise" on mostly Republican terms. But as Digby maintains

We must demand that Democrats just say no to any “grand bargain” that includes changes to the benefit structure of Social Security. Healthcare costs, a moribund economy and defense spending are driving the deficit projections, not Social Security. The trust fund is well-funded for some time, invested in the safest investment in the world: the U.S. Treasury bond. No good will come of touching the program right now. Literally.

Share|

The Republican Media: No. 30


Brian Beutler of the liberal blog Talking Points Memo doesn't care for Politifact's analysis of a new ad (video, below) by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attacking the GOP for passing a budget resolution proposing the dissolution of Medicare. He remarks

If Democrats proposed to turn Medicare into a system that only provided free veterinary services to seniors, would Republicans be lying to say Dems wanted to "end Medicare," without including the caveat "as we know it"?

Of course not. But that's more or less the charge PolitiFact is leveling at Democrats over a new DCCC ad (below) which flatly charges Republicans with proposing to "end Medicare." The House GOP budget, which passed with all but two GOP votes over unanimous Democratic opposition, would over time replace the single-payer, government-run Medicare program with a different system that subsidizes private insurance plans for beneficiaries. Those subsidies would work like vouchers -- they would increase in value year-on-year at a much slower pace than the rate of the rise of health care costs, thus leaving seniors exposed to increasing costs as time goes on.

Republicans call this new health insurance system "Medicare." But it's a completely different program from today's Medicare. PolitiFact doesn't see it that way.

"But to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration," PolitiFact writes. "All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program's budget would increase every year."
But that elides the fact that Medicare currently guarantees specific services, which the private insurers won't be bound to provide under the GOP plan. Indeed, the law President Lyndon Johnson signed in 1965 created a national health insurance system that entitled the elderly to have a defined array of health care services paid on their behalf by the government.

Nonetheless, PolitiFact calls the caveat "as we know it" -- as in "end Medicare as we know it" -- an important qualifier. And they conclude that because the DCCC eschewed this qualifier, and because the House vote on a non-binding budget resolution doesn't have the force of law, Democrats have told a "Pants on Fire" lie by stating "Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Beutler is too kind, as is Digby, who writes

Politifact also goes far beyond its mandate by telling the Democrats the terms they are allowed to use. (They say it would be ok if they say "end Medicare as we know it.") Message approval isn't their job. Their job is to apply a thick-headed literalism to everything they see. And it makes them useless.

It isn't clear Politifact is applying "a thick-headed literalism." It is more likely trying to mislead.

Politifact quotes an elder law expert arguing "Nobody voted to end it. They voted to hopefully change it one day, when they get a chance, but they would need a Republican-dominated Senate and a Republican president, neither of which they have."

So there we have Politifact's argument: The GOP did not vote to end Medicare because it won't be approved in the Senate. It's as if Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan had introduced a single-payer health care bill in the U.S. Senate, it passed on a party line vote, and Politico had concluded that the Democrats did not vote to create a single-payer system. Or as if Congress voted to end all military action in Libya or Afghanistan and Politico determined Congress did not vote to end the war- President Obama will veto it, anyway.

Politico maintains "budget resolutions are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law. Deeply desiring something and accomplishing it are different." According to Wikipedia

a budget resolution is a legislation in the form of a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget. The budget resolution establishes various budget totals, allocations, entitlements, and may include reconciliation instructions to designated House or Senate committees....

The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. A budget resolution binds Congress, but is not a law. It does allow for certain points of order to be made if the President does not follow the resolution.

It is not a law. But it is more than a wish list, something they'd like to see change if only, gosh, they had a chance someday. It would bind Congress and is the beginning of the GOP effort to end Medicare- not Medicare "as we know it," but Medicare. The GOP did "vote to end Medicare"; it was a vote for the purpose of ending Medicare.

A recent ad by the pharmaceutical front group, "60+ Association," reflects the understanding that the House vote was more than a symbolic resolution. An announcer claims of three Philadelphia-area congressmen "The House passed a budget that protects and preserves Medicare for years to come. And our congressmen -- Pat Meehan, Mike Fitzpatrick and Jon Runyan -- voted to protect Medicare and keep it secure for future retirees." Of course, they did precisely the opposite, joining an effort to kill Medicare- but you get the point.

Of course, even if Politifact were right technically, linguistically- as Digby too generously is willing to concede- it hardly would merit the "Pants on Fire" designation. Apparently, it earns that in part because

Still another problem with the ad involves who’s immediately affected by the Republican proposal. In one scene, the ad shows a senior citizen pushing a walker behind a lawn mower. A teenager looking on eats an apple and says, "You missed a spot." In reality, people 55 and older won’t see changes under the Ryan plan. It’s actually that teenager -- or anyone else 54 or younger -- who would pay extra money when they are older.

Right. But they would pay more when they are older- and the ad depicts an old man. The GOP plan would affect an individual when he or she is elderly, and the ad presented an elderly individual. Would Politifact have preferred a young person in the ad being harmed by the proposal? That would have been, at a minimum, misleading, disingenuous, and confusing.

Politifact, perhaps in a valiant effort to appear bipartisan, does quote approvingly President Obama, a putative Democrat, stating the proposal would end Medicare "as we know it." But that is grossly insufficient in a piece condemning an ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which is largely, if not completely, factual.

Share|

As We Drill, Baby, Drill


A year ago yesterday, 205 million gallons of oil and 225,000 tons of methane were released into the Gulf of Mexico, and eleven men died, following an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig off the coast of Louisiana. Though the greatest fears of the impact have not been realized, according to The Associated Press

biologists are concerned about the spill's long-term effect on marine life.

"There are these cascading effects," D'Elia said. "It could be accumulation of toxins in the food chain, or changes in the food web. Some species might dominate."

Meanwhile, accumulated oil is believed to lie on the bottom of the Gulf, and it still shows up as a thick, gooey black crust along miles of Louisiana's marshy shoreline. Scientists have begun to notice that the land in many places is eroding.

And the Center for Biological Diversity concludes

The price paid by wildlife in the Gulf for the BP oil spill will continue to rise. Although it is the largest to date, the Gulf oil spill was simply the latest in a string of ongoing and inevitable spills produced in the Gulf. More than 320 known spills involving offshore drilling have occurred there since 1964. Spills massively degrade ecosystems and all of the wildlife dependent on those ecosystems in the Gulf. Clean-up efforts only remove a fraction of the persistent oil and gas spilled. The remainder of the oil, including millions of gallons remaining in the Gulf, will continue to poison wildlife for generations. Besides the direct harm to wildlife, the spill impoverishes the people of the Gulf and the nation, who depend on this rich body of water for food, culture, environmental enrichment and recreation.

The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republican Darrell Issa of California, notes in his report issued two days ago noting the harm to the victims of the region, the seafood industry, and the area's diverse habitats and ecosystems. But Issa, who demonstrated fealty to corporate America shortly before he became chairman, used the occasion primarily to blast President Obama, charging

the real and harsh effects the Administration’s subsequent assault on off-shore drilling has had on economically vulnerable communities. This retreat from efforts to achieve energy independence from foreign oil isn’t appreciated by Gulf communities whose local economies depend on off-shore oil production or millions of Americans who find themselves paying $4 gallon for gasoline. The legacy of this spill should be an increased emphasis on safety, not a full-scale retreat from off-shore energy production.

But in the past two months U.S. regulators have granted ten deepwater drilling permits despite the failure of the petroleum industry to rectify the problems which led to the blowup on the Transocean-owned rig. On March 24, Rachel Maddow found (transcript here; video below)

The blowout preventer is basically a piece of equipment that`s attached to the top of an oil well, right? And when pressure surges up the drilling well -- drilling pipe the blowout preventer is supposed to kick into action. It essentially seals up the well and holds all of that pressure in.

If the blowout preventer does not work, you get this. You get disaster -- disaster not just for the environment but for the crew that`s stationed on top of that malfunctioning oil rig. Eleven crew members were killed when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew in the Gulf of Mexico last April.

Soon after that explosion and the historic oil spill that followed, it was pretty obvious that the blowout preventer had failed to prevent that blowout. That was pretty clear. But what we know now, what we have learned this week in fact is that the blowout preventer in question was not built wrong, it wasn`t broken, and it was used as directed.

The Coast Guard hired a Norwegian firm to do an expert forensic analysis of what went wrong with that blowout preventer in the BP disaster. The Coast Guard, I should say, oversaw this. The government hired this firm.

The firm set up shop at a NASA facility in New Orleans in mid- November. Yesterday, they release what`d they found -- what they found is that in our metaphor from earlier, the air bags in this case, and maybe in every case, don`t work. More specifically, they found air bags work unless there`s a car crash, and then they don`t work.

The forensic analysis of what went wrong in the BP disaster found a big burst of pressure that causes a well blowout can also render the blowout preventer useless. If the shock that causes the initial accident misaligns the rig`s pipes and valves, the blowout preventer won`t be able to work, won`t be able to seal off the pipe, even when used as directed, even when you do everything right.

Noting that the blowout, the disaster which causes the need for the blowout perventer, blows out the blowout preventer itself, Maddow explained

fears right now about possible nuclear meltdown in Japan is because the backup plan there failed, right? An earthquake and tsunami knocked out the power at the reactor. You need that power at all times to cool the radioactive fuel rods. But don`t worry, there`s a backup power source. A backup power source that was also knocked out by the same quake and tsunami that knocked out the first-line power source. The same disaster that caused the need for the backup plan also killed the backup plan.

Used as designed, cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases. The blowout preventer can fail when operated as designed and is effective except when needed. Maddow's guest, former industry oil executive Bob Cavnar, maintains that the new regulations put into effect by the Department of Interior

are primarily around safety training and in third-party certification that supposedly assures the government that the companies who normally self-regulate are actually doing what they say they`re doing.

There`s real no -- no real change to deepwater drilling. The only real kind of systematic change is this subsea well containment procedure that they`ve developed, that a company has to certify that they are a part of before they receive a drilling permit....

There`s no fundamental change to the way we drill the deepwater, Rachel. We`re doing it with the same equipment, the same blowout preventers on all the deepwater rigs that are in the Gulf that failed on the Macondo well. And the issue here is that these new regulations regulate an unreliable piece of equipment, and regulating something that`s unreliable doesn`t make it more reliable. It just makes it more regulated.

Senate Democrats have proposed measures to increase our supply of oil, safely. That is not likely to impress Darrell Issa, who has cozied up to the petroleum industry. Not coincidentally, the push for a rational energy policy in light of the explosion in the Gulf seems to be as elusive as the effort to rein in the excesses of Wall Street after the financial catastrophe it was primarily responsible for.

Share|

A Win For Bachmann


If today's interview on ABC's Good Morning America is any indication, Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), who is considering a presidential bid, is ready for prime time.

George Stephanopoulos had a legitimate excuse to bring up the "birther" issue (video and relevant portion of transcript, here, from ABC News) because one of the congresswoman's supporters in Iowa has introduced in Des Moines a bill which reportedly would require presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates to produce a birth certificate. Bachmann neatly switched the issue to a similar bill, vetoed yesterday by Governor Brewer, in Arizona. Implying- without stating- that she agreed with the governor of her own party, Bachmann commented "I have no problem giving my birth certificate, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I’ve got one, its authenticated, take it." Bachmann had casually and effectively inferred that President Obama could also offer a birth certificate, but did so without explicitly calling on him to do so or doubting his American origin. Nor did she definitively state that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.- not a good idea to tell your most avid supporters they are stupid, ill-informed, or simply wrong.

After Bachmann pirouetted from (the discomfort of) Iowa to (the comfort of) Arizona, Stephanopoulos, understandably anxious to get a straight answer out of the the Minnesotan, explained "According to the bill ‘a candidate for president or vice president shall attach to and file with the affidavit a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate’s state of birth.'" Bachmann stated "right" and Stephanopoulos continued

Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'

Alert the press! After a couple of years of controversy (legitimate or otherwise) over Barack Obama's birth, George Stephanopoulos has uncovered the birth certificate of the son of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama!

Except that he hasn't. Stephanopoulos unveiled Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, which does in fact include the assurance "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of any birth in any court proceeding." (On his blog, Stephanopoulos referred to it as the Certificate of Live Birth though while linking to factcheck.org, which inaccurately labeled it "the original birth certificate.") It is possible that the original birth certificate, recently sought unsuccessfully by the Governor of Hawaii (an early supporter of Senator Obama), does not exist- and may never have existed. But after he commented about a bill requiring "a birth certificate," Stephanopolous intended to misinform the audience when he contended "Well I have the president’s certificate right here." Not surprising, then, that Stephanopoulos hesitated (ever so slightly) between the words "president's" and "certificate," casually omitting "birth."

Wisely, Bachmann let it go and, summoning her inner machismo, asserted "I take the president at his word and I think– again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on." Stephanopoulos had set out to get his guest on the record as being revealed as a "birther"- or opposing the action of a supporter in the critical, early state of Iowa- and had accomplished neither, in effect agreeing with Bachmann's conclusion "I guess it's over."

It was a good, and failed, effort by a veteran journalist.... and a seasoned performance by a veteran politician.

Share|