Political Punch

Respectfully suggest that most people that have researched the dangers inherent to alcohol-based hand sanitizers--are embracing alcohol-free alternatives that provide the exact same germ-killing efficacy, without the dangerous side-effects of alcohol-based products.

Perhaps illustrating yet another example of George W.'s lack of knowledge.

Aside from the widely documented 2007 report published by the US Association of Poison Control Centers, which found close to 12,000 cases of alcohol poisoning in kids 6 and under directly attributed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers (the marketing genuises at Purell have packaged their product with cute bottles and intoxicating fragrances that inspire little ones to lick the gel off of their hands), alcohol-based hand sanitizers are notorious for destroying protective skin cells, causing dry/irritated skin, which in turn increases risk of exposure to bacteria and germs, have no efficacy when applied to dirty/soiled hands, and lose their effectiveness within seconds after applying.

Alcohol-free, rinse free, fragrance free products (brands include Soapopular, Hy5, and others) use the same active ingredient found in Bactine antiseptic, J&J BandAid brand foaming antiseptic, and dozens of other health care products--all of which are widely-acknowledged to be equally effective when compared to Purell or other alcohol-based products, but the alcohol-free alternatives are safer to the skin, safer for kids and are non-flammable and non-toxic.

Schools, day care centers and health care venues throughout the country have been systematically banning Purell and similar products, and contrary to popular belief, the US Centers for Disease Control does NOT recommend alcohol-based hand sanitizers..at least that is what Kathleen Stewart, a senior spokesperson from CDC has repeatedly stated

OK, folks, there is a satisfying conclusion to this tempest in a teacup.

From Wikipedia, in an article about someone else:

"It is notable that while Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for office. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution."

This means it doesn't matter whether Obama was born in Kenya or not, so long as his mother was an American citizen. Which means either:

a) that none of the attorneys on either side of this are earning their money, since the challenge to Obama's legitimacy is still set with a writ of certeriori, or

b) that this whole thing is some kind of social engineering scheme a la Y2K to co-opt or pre-empt loonies by keeping them busy. A chew toy, if you like.

And there, unfortunately is where we part company. Unfortunately, my argument rests on the foundation that I don't have a lot of faith in either institution.

I hope Obama can produce the goods, and that we can move on. I personally like his positive tone, and his easy and intelligent style. I have no problems with Obama, so long as he is legally qualified to be POTUS.

If the man was born in Kenya, then a truckload of books by Husserl and Ponty are not going to penetrate the discussion happening in Joe the Plumber's neighborhood. You are not going to smooth it out with an appeal to emotion, there.

Unfortunately, they would be justified and correct in their response, even if they take it to its logical conclusion. That's what frightens me.

My issue here is the news blackout on the subject. If topics aren't discussed in the national media, then the establishment will proceed as if the issue doesn't exist. A failure to cover this legal challenge, by the MSM, is certainly a precursor to further inaction. What is ABC going to do? Wait until December 1st to let the majority of Americans know what just happened?

Of course not. And the MSM doesn't have any "inside" information that gives them the right to rest comfortably on the notion that it's going to turn out in Obama's favor. So, silence can ONLY be a precursor to inaction. Which would intimate that "nothing should happen" according to the MSM.

The transparent and honest thing to do would be to cover the issue, and try to bring Americans at large up to speed on what is happening. If it turns out that Obama was born in Hawaii, then I'll be happy and my conscience will be clean. If not, then the implications and the trouble that will follow are going to extend far past Obama the man. It will represent a MOJOR breach of trust between the government and the people, as well as the MSM and the people.

By the way, I'm new to this game. Is it typical for the post-article commentary to have absolutely no relevance to the article itself? Just wondering.

Bob, perhaps I missunderstood your comment. I thought, reasonably enough given the rhetoric of the last years, that your "lies and slanders" comment was akin to the patently absurd cannard that "Bush lied, people died" and the equally riduculous claims tha McCain somehow ran a "slanderous" campaign. If you meant that the "lies and slanders" were about the Clintons' departure from the White House, I could care less if that was true or not, so I wouldn't have responded to you at all. I have, however, become highly sensitive to the knee-jerk bashing of Bush and McCain. Maybe too sensitive, if you were talking about the Clinton allegations. As to Obama's legal status, I'm in the midst of another conversation on that one and I've requested substantiation several times. Is he a "real" US citizen? Probably. Does it matter at this point, either way? Probably not.
There's a Cherry Valley near me...are you in the MidWest?

I disagree about the existential nature of something like you describe. And call me a cynic, but what I've seen since Clinton is that existential concerns trump legal ones. Clinton committed perjury; a felony. As we all know, fear of an existential crisis to the Clinton Presidency caused the Senate to wimp out.
As to Obama's integrity, I have seen no evidence that he has any. He seems to be a creature of expediency with a one track mind. And as has been evidenced many times, even on this thread, any criticism he faces is shouted down as racist. Therefore, any attempt to remove him from office would be seen through the same prism. I just can't see a purely legal argument having any influence over the Party soon to be in power. It NEVER has in the past. And, faced with the probability of violence, I think the half of the country that would prefer the law be followed would, out of love of country (even a mortally wounded one) would demure.
I hope I'd be wrong, but I'm a realist.
Now to the biggest fallacy in your last statement: I'm a 50 year old college drop-out. But thanks on both counts. I'm enjoying the conversation.

stl: Sarcasm sure does heat things up, can't say it sheds much light. This of course includes capitalizing the H in the third person personal pronouns. The assertion that Obama has "built a good chunk of His career and past campaigns on lies and slanders," is the kind of statement that anyone can make about anyone, without any evidence at all, just because one wants to believe it (the one in this case being you). Same thing with the ridiculous idea that Obama either wasn't born in the U.S. or somehow lost his citizenship, as a child even though he WAS born in the U.S.

For the record:
1 -- There was no vandalism in the White House by Clinton's staff in January 2001.

2 -- Obama has had a distinguished career for a man his age that has not been based at all on "lies and slander," but rather on a consistent commitment to principles of justice and integrity. (Check out the Bradford Berenson interview on the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2008.")

3 -- Obama was born in Honolulu and has been a U.S. citizen his entire life.

Statements to the contrary boil down to frothing-at-the-mouth partisanship resting on distortions and fantasies.

People may reasonably oppose a candidate for office with views that differ from their own. They are also free to oppose candidates in unreasonable, irrational, and aggressive ways -- obviously, it happens all the time, including here.
This approach IMHO contributes nothing of redeeming value for our country. I guess it's fun for some folks to blow off steam by this kind of hateful conduct, rationalizing that their fight against whatever they hate is actually a fight FOR some good they believe in. Well, stl, two wrongs still don't make a right, and you're as wrong as can be either way anyway.

"I'm afraid however, that we live in a time when most people no longer believe in absolutes of any kind."

You must be either very young, or an academic. Not a fan of post-structuralism are you? This isn't a "crisis of narrative". This isn't an existential crisis. It's a violation of law. You can't pick and choose, here. There is no wiggle room. You still haven't addressed my question. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. If he is not legally qualified to be the President, then he has known this fact since the first time he read that clause regarding "natural citizen" in the document. Answer me, please, what would this say about his integrity?

"Realistically, who do you think would have the moral courage to act? While the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction, I think they were so castigated for doing the right thing in 2000, and this would be so much bigger, that they would opt out in this instance."

That's not realistic at all. If the stewards of the Constitution fail to act, then they forfeit their stewardship. I don't think you have a full appreciation for how this is going to unfold. There is going to be civil upheaval of a kind you do not fully understand if half of the population of the US thinks that the US government has become illegitimate.

If Obama is not qualified, then any act he performed as President would be an illegal act. If the stewards of the Constitution did not protect the office of POTUS from this kind of usurpation, then they and the government will have made themselves illegitimate.

Part of me thinks that someone, somewhere, wanted it to shake out this way.

Richard, in principle you are, of course correct. It's painful to think that the rule of law and the Constitution would come in second place to ANYTHING, much less political expediency. I'm afraid however, that we live in a time when most people no longer believe in absolutes of any kind. Realistically, who do you think would have the moral courage to act? While the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction, I think they were so castigated for doing the right thing in 2000, and this would be so much bigger, that they would opt out in this instance.
But agin I ask, what is the issue you suspect would cause this crisis? Is this about Obama's a residency or nation of birth? Please expound further.

I have to disagree, stl.

None of us has the right to disregard the Constitution on this issue. You can't just say "well, there is too much emotion involved". That is precisely wrong, if you want to live in a society where the rule of law prevails. Even on its own merits, it doesn't work. If it is determined that Obama is not legally qualified to be POTUS, what does this say about his integrity? If it's okay to ignore the Constitution in the manner that you seem to be suggesting, why stop there? Why wouldn't it be okay for him to simply have a third, fourth, or fifth term, as well?

You do have a point about the emotionalism surrounding this controversy, and the implications that it might have on politics and civil discourse. I lay this problem squarely in the lap of the alphabet soup agencies. It is inconceivable that they could have failed to vet this man. In fact I do not believe it. If Obama turns out to be disqualified from the office of POTUS, then I see no other explanation for this dark turn of events except one that includes complicity by the alphabet soup. Some say "never attribute to nefarious conspiracy what is best explained by incompetence", and generally this is a good rule of thumb. That's not good enough in this case. Not by a long shot.

I am heartened to find that this discussion has taken root at other points on ABC's website and at other MSM outlets, but still there isn't a peep regarding the very real and legitimate legal challenge to Obama's qualifications.

So then, what to make of the silence?

Dan Rather was right. Mainstream news is in dire need of a spine transplant.

Lois, unity is what we've needed since 9/11. I don't recall a lot of that spirit this past 8 years. I'm not dissagreeing with you, but all these calls to grow up and unite seem only to apply now that a Democrat is heading to the White House. Obama will be my President and he will get the benefit of the doubt from me, but this sudden desire for unity seems awfully hypocritical. Sorry if Kumbaya sticks in the throat a bit.

Richard, I suppose you think there is reason to believe Obama is legal unqualified to be POTUS. Can you explain, for us, why? Dropping hints and dribbling out innuendo isn't helping clarify what the heck you're on about.
And, assuming he is disqualified, what do you think the social and political consquences would be? Chances are, the final decision would have to come from the Supreme Court. Since the Democrats have already painted (incorrectly and maliciously...see "lies and slanders" above) that body as a bunch of partisan hacks, to the detriment of the nation, a large segment of the population would consider such a ruling a provocation. So you see, whether or not you are correct, the time to vet these charges has passed. If the media didn't do its job and you have proof he's not eligible, are you prepared for Civil War? Because that's the most likely outcome should this election be invalidated. There is too much emotion invested in an Obama Presidency at this point to turn it back.

Please people get a grip. The election is over, the majority of the American People of have spoken. Unity is what America needs now. We all can agree to disagree. Just grow up and move on.

Stay classy, Angie!
And Bob, GREAT point: "And there will be no such lies and slanders manufactured by Obama & co. when they move in."
Since He's built a good chunk of His career and past campaigns on lies and slanders, he doesn't have to wait until He moves in.

Good grief. I read every comment in this list, and there isn't anything there! I'm not being negative or belligerent; I'm tallying information points the way an information theorist would look at things. There isn't any information here. Instead, it's all about social noises that social monkeys make; gesticulations and utterances that essentially mean "this monkey good! that monkey bad!" There's nothing there!

Meanwhile, there is still this pressing issue of Obama's legal eligibility to be President. No one wants to talk about it. No one wants to think about it.

Even I didn't think that most of this "back and forth" in the comments was paid for, and even if I didn't know that bicameral politics in the age of giant multinational corporations is a Punch & Judy show, I should still be able to clear my head of petty social animal politics just long enough to catch a glimpse of the relative importance of the issue over whether or not Obama is legally qualified to be the POTUS.

It's a given that professional politicians are megalomaniacs and narcissists by definition, but I guess I never fully put it together that the people who most heatedly follow politics are of the same cloth. No substance. All stotting and display for the other social animals at the watering hole. "How are my teeth? How do I look? How is my fashion sense? I identify with this group. What group do you identify with?"

Good God, we will get what we deserve.

I dont know for the life of me how President Elect Obama can stand next to that filthy lying war criminal Bush,Must be hard but President Elect Obama does have alot of class

Kat -

That Republicans prefer Palin by 65% doesn't amount to much as they constitute only 29% of the electorate. As Paul Begala said the other night, 65% of Republicans want Sarah Palin to be the 2012 nominee and 100% of Democrats want her to be, too.

Unless the Republicans can figure out a way not to scare the bejesus out of moderate Repbulicans and Independents, they're not going to move much above that 29%. If they continue to fight the Palinesque Culture Wars, they're going to remain a rural, southern, and aging party.

Just look @ all you Haters - If you all know so much, why aren't any of you being inaugurated 1.20.09. "Stop Hating!!"

Just look @ all you Haters - If you all know so much, why aren't any of you being inaugurated 1.20.09. "Stop Hating!!"