Dems try to slam Brown for hinting that Obama was born out of wedlock

The Dems have launched a new attack against Brown, in order to cause voters to react in Pavlovian revulsion when they hear his name:  They’re now contending that (a) Brown thinks Sarah Palin is a decent human being and (b) Brown indicated skepticism about the fact that Barack Obama’s mother was married to his father, back in 1961.  Both charges, of course, are enough, in Democratic eyes, to make one a candidate for a deadly lightening bolt from God:

Insofar as Scott Brown committed the grave sin of defending Sarah Palin, Greyhawk has it nailed:

I see Brown defending those who accept responsibility here. I have no idea how he completed the sentence (re: Obama’s mother) “But more importantly, the fact that she had him when she was 18 years old…” but obviously it would reveal whatever Brown thought was more important. Based on context (and the fact that a Coakley support site cut the video off right there) I’d have to suspect it might be something Coakley supporters don’t want to hear.

The second point, of course, re Palin, is that the gross sexism leveled at her was entirely unrelated to her myriad virtues as a business woman, politician and mother, who teamed with her whole family to make things happen.

As for the “unconscionable” slur of bastardy against Obama, a couple of things.  First of all, nowadays, out-of-wedlock births are practically normative, so it’s no insult.  Second, Scott Brown was merely agreeing with . . . Michelle Obama who was speaking back in mid-2008 (emphasis mine):

Obama used the roundtable audience, as she did yesterday, to describe her husband’s understanding of women’s issues through the prism of the strong — but sometimes struggling — women in his life.

His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.” And, Obama added, he has observed his wife’s attempts to reconcile motherhood with her career aspirations.

(Hat tip:  Kim Priestap)

Every first year law student knows, truth is the best defense to a libel charge.

As for me, I don’t care whether Obama was born in or out of wedlock about 50 years ago.  I do care very much about his current political ideology.  I also care a great deal that a politician who spoke the truth is not slandered with the accusation that he voiced a lie.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. pst314 says

    “Every first year law student knows, truth is the best defense to a libel charge.”
    …Except in the Netherlands, or any other place ruled by leftists.

  2. Oldflyer says

    Although it is tactfully seldom mentioned, it has seemed obvious all along that Obama was born out of wedlock.
    It is generally acknowledged  that his father had multiple wives in Kenya when he was conceived.  Unless there is some waiver to our bigamy laws that apply to future politicians born in Hawaii, then it would have been a sham (and  presumably a misdemeanor, if not a felony) if his parents  had attempted to marry in Hawaii.  So, maybe someone should ask Obama what the real truth is.
    Of course, the Dimocrats assume that the mere mention of the name Palin will turn people away from Brown.  I prefer to think that voters, having been badly bamboozled in 2008, will be careful about what they blindly accept– at least for awhile.

  3. says

    Just a minor detail for oldflyer.
     
    Generally, children born in a marriage that is invalid because of bigamy or other reasons are not considered to be illegitimate.  That said, it would be fair to state that the circumstances of his birth were irregular.

  4. Zhombre says

    Of more concern to me is that while still in the womb the first words he heard were probably his father and mother practicing their Russian and discussing the evils of colonialism and U.S. hegemony.

  5. Mike Devx says

    That’s it, I believe.  Scott Brown will do it.  Or rather, the Massachusetts voters are actually going to do it.  Who would EVER have thought this could happen?
     
    The state that 250 years ago was known for its populist patriotism is going to engage in one huge shout out for another Massachusetts Miracle.  It’s been 50 years since JFK was their worthy Son.  They’re looking at this current crowd – in their own Senate, as their own Governor, in Washington D.C., and like all of us, they’ve decided to cry out: “Enough!”
     
    This is not a repudiation of the Democrats, nor a coronation of Republicans.  This is a battle cry against the entire establishment.  That’s how I read it.  It’s the tone-deaf elitism and cronyism and corruption and the out-and-out naked selling out for money and favors to gain a vote.  It’s Martha Coakley, the Queen of the Massachusetts establishment,  briefly giving a hand-wave to her “rabble” before going off on vacation in the middle of the campaign.  ”Thank you, my dear rabble!  Now, off with you, I can’t be bothered!”  The Queen on the way to her Coronation… and the people have decided: “Um… not so fast, oh Fake Queen. Not so fast.”   And then her mindless gaffes…
     
    And Brown ran a humble, sincere, “I will represent YOU in Washington D.C.  I will stand for Massachusetts.”  Which means I won’t like him a whole lot, with me being very conservative and him, not so much.  But for me it’s always been more about the corruption than other things.  I’ve told my very liberal family over and over that the current Democrats in Washington are *not* the Roosevelt Democrats, not the JFK Democrats, not the Truman Democrats, who were worthy of respect even when you greatly disagreed with their politics.  Because back then, Democrats loved America for America herself, and they had honor, and they would never sell this country out for their own personal interests.  They would only go so far down certain roads.  This current crowd – on both sides of the aisle – is as corrupt as any Roman Senate could possibly ever have been, and I declare them HORRIFIC.   All of them.  Many in Massachusetts do not say they are Democrat – they say they are Independent.  Just as I say I am NOT a Republican, though I may be conservative. I’ve got little use for the establishment.
     
    It appears something big is happening.  And the first major shot is going to be heard tomorrow, just as it was heard 250 years ago, in Massachusetts.
     

  6. Mike Devx says

    I say the above because the Republican establishment was rather soundly thrashed in 2006 and 2008, and now the Democrat establishment is about to be given the same message in 2010 and perhaps in 2012 as well.  It’s breathtaking to me.  Simply astonishing.  That’s why I say that I think something new – at least new in *our* experience and lifetime – is happening.
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply