Democrats slash funds to Rubio challenger

In a bit of good news for conservatives and Republicans, it appears that Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has scored a TKO against the Democratic challenger for his Florida Senate seat. Rubio met Patrick Murphy on Monday in Orlando for their first debate. The following day, Politico reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled all funding from Murphy for the remainder of the campaign.

The Florida race was one of several tossup races that Democrats hoped to win in order to gain control of the Senate. Several weeks ago, it seemed that those hopes were fading. Then came Donald Trump’s sexual harassment scandal and the problem of guilt by party association for sitting Republicans who had endorsed Trump. Now it seems that at least Rubio’s seat in Florida may be safe.

The race isn’t over yet though. Politico points out that even without the DSCC money, the Rubio and Murphy campaigns are evenly matched with cash on hand. The decision means that Rubio will have an advantage since he will continue to receive money from the GOP Leadership Fund that can be used to outspend Murphy in the final days before the election.

Democrats claim that the decision to dump Murphy had nothing to do with his debate performance, but was a strategic call. According to Politico, the party felt that the money would be better spent on Senate races in North Carolina and Missouri where they might be able to knock off Republicans Richard Burr and Roy Blunt for the same cost as attacking Rubio.

Marco Rubio has consistently held a lead over Murphy for the past few weeks, but most polls show the race near the margin of error. The most recent poll, released yesterday but taken before the debate, showed Rubio ahead by only two points.

In spite of losing Florida to Donald Trump in the Republican primary, Rubio is now running ahead of the presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in Florida, a must-win swing state for the GOP, by four points in several recent polls.

Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Hillary Clinton promoted the Trump campaign in the Republican primary while considering Rubio a more dangerous threat in the general election. Polling trends show that Clinton’s assessment of Trump’s weaknesses and Rubio’s strengths were accurate.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump has record fundraising month, but still falls short

The Trump campaign announced over the weekend that they had set a campaign record for fundraising in September. According to a statement on DonaldJTrump.com, the campaign took in $100 million dollars last month. According to the statement, the Trump campaign has received more than $360 million dollars from 2.6 million people since it began. USA Today reports that the Republican National Committee raised an additional $39 million. Like Trump’s claim that he got more votes than any other candidate in any Republican primary, there is both good and bad news associated with the fundraising claim.

While impressive, the $100 million take is alarming when taken in the full context of the campaign. The most obvious problem is that the figure includes a monthly contribution of $2 million by Mr. Trump himself. Trump’s contribution “more than covered the costs of any reimbursements to him (or his related entities) for his plane and office rent; which the law mandates to be reimbursed,” the statement said.

Even more alarming is the fact that Trump’s fundraising lags behind Hillary Clinton as well as that of Mitt Romney four years ago. Politico reports that the Clinton campaign raised more than $154 million during September. This includes $84 million by Hillary for America and $70 million by the Democratic National Committee.

Unlike Clinton, who can count on assistance from the DNC, the Trump campaign may be on its own. After the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, Politico obtained an email from the Republican National Committee stopping production on Trump campaign materials paid for by the GOP “Victory” fund. It is uncertain at this point whether the RNC is financially supporting the Trump campaign or for how long the campaign can count on its support as Trump falls in the polls.

Trump and Clinton both lag far behind Mitt Romney’s fundraising from 2012. The L.A. Times reported four years ago that Romney had raised $170 million, which was short of the $181 million raised by Obama. At this point in the campaign, Romney had raised $839 million, more than double the receipts of the Trump campaign.

The $100 million figure may also be offset by refunds. Fortune reports that some GOP donors are asking for their money back in the wake of the sexual assault scandal. It is unknown whether the Trump campaign will return any funds, but donor displeasure with Trump will almost certainly impact his fundraising going forward.

On the plus side, Trump has set Republican records with small donors. “I’ve never seen anything like this,” a Republican fundraising operative told Politico. “He’s the Republican Obama in terms of online fundraising.”

That small donor success has come at the cost of losing larger donors though. Many traditional GOP fundraisers have not supported the nontraditional nominee. Some donors, such as megadonor Sheldon Adelson, are focusing on support for congressional races rather than contributing to the RNC or Trump campaigns, said USA Today.

Much of the Clinton advantage in fundraising comes from her Wall Street connections and other wealthy donors.  Fortune found that Clinton is outraising Trump among billionaires by 20 to one. In fact, another Fortune article reports that no Fortune 500 CEOs are supporting Donald Trump, even though almost a third of them supported Mitt Romney. It is surprising that a candidate who based his campaign on his business acumen doesn’t garner support from his fellow business leaders.

In spite of a good month in September, Trump’s fundraising may well have reached its peak. Trump’s populist rhetoric and bombastic personality have hurt his ability to raise funds throughout the campaign. Now, it is likely that scandals will be a financial drag for the last few weeks before the election. The fundraising deficit will make it difficult for Trump to overcome negative attacks and reverse his decline in the polls.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Is Hillary electable?

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for president. Her candidacy was begun with a tweet and a two-and-a-half minute You Tube video, of which only about 40 seconds is Hillary giving her announcement and rationale for seeking office.

In contrast to the Republican hopefuls, who kicked off their presidential campaigns to adoring crowds, Hillary’s campaign began with a soundbite on social media followed by a trip in her “Scooby” van to Iowa with no organized campaign stops along the way. Hillary’s presidential announcement was almost secretive in comparison to the Republicans, with no rallies, no crowds of supporters and no questions from the media.

Hillary’s trip to Iowa is more akin to a fugitive sneaking across the state line than a triumphant politician arriving to assume her mandate. When Clinton’s “Scooby” van stopped at an Ohio Chipotle restaurant, the presumptive Democratic nominee was incognito, hiding behind a large pair of sunglasses. She not only did no campaigning, but she was only recognized when the manager examined the store’s surveillance videos after being tipped by a New York Times reporter than Hillary had visited the restaurant. Neither employees nor other customers had recognized the former First Lady.

Dick Morris, a longtime confidante of the Clintons, explains that the subterfuge is part of Hillary’s nature. Unlike her extroverted, fun-loving husband, Hillary is “hidden, paranoid, secret, controlled, and scripted” according to Morris. Where Bill was a natural campaigner, Morris calls Hillary a “born bureaucrat” who sticks “to a script, blundering when she make the slightest departure.”

The current crop of scandals that are already dogging the Clinton campaign can only serve to heighten Hillary’s sense of secrecy and paranoia. She has hidden from the media for the past several months as the scandal of her personal email server and deleted emails developed. Questions about the legality of sending classified documents via unsecure personal email and an unsecure server mean that Hillary has to consider that any questions that she answers might come back to haunt her in a criminal proceeding.

Keeping Hillary away from the media and real voters also minimizes the chance of an embarrassing gaffe. Ms. Clinton is known for a number of misstatements, such as when she asked congressional Benghazi investigators, “What difference, at this point does it make?” or when she claimed that the Clintons were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House in 2001.

One embarrassing error has already occurred. Hillary’s long-awaited announcement also came with a serious typo according to Bloomberg. A press release heralding her announcement claimed that she had “fought children and families all her career,” omitting the word “for.” Although the wording was quickly corrected, it is shocking that such a high profile announcement on a multibillion dollar campaign could have seen the light of day.

Similarly, Hillary’s campaign logo, a blue “H” with a red arrow, quickly became the target of widespread ridicule. Many claimed it resembled a road sign that pointed toward a hospital or the FedEx logo. Julian Assange claimed that it was based on the WikiLeaks logo.

Hillary has long been assumed to be inevitable by many on both the left and right. Now with her lack of campaign skills, scandals, and a slipshod campaign becoming evident, the question is whether she is electable at all.

Hillary’s biggest advantage over any Republican is that she is well known. Many Republican candidates are new to the national stage and not familiar outside the GOP. According to Gallup, 90 percent of Americans are already familiar with Hillary. No Republican even comes close.

The downside for Hillary is that, while she is well known, she is also a polarizing figure. Even the Huffington Post puts her approval rating almost equal with her disapproval at 47 – 46 percent. Further, polls that use likely voters rather than adults give her a much high negative rating. Republican candidates are not as well known, but have much lower negatives.

While Hillary’s name recognition gave her an early lead in polling, there are signs that her lead may already be fading. Karl Rove pointed out in the Wall St. Journal that recent polling in 15 battleground states showed Ms. Clinton trailing a generic Republican. Recent polling available on Real Clear Politics also shows several races around the country where Republicans Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry hold slight leads over Ms. Clinton.

Nevertheless, Hillary’s failings may be more than offset by several factors. First, whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is will win at least 40-45 percent of the popular vote. The worst Democratic wipeout in recent history, Richard Nixon’s 1972 trouncing of George McGovern, still saw McGovern win 37 percent of the vote even as he lost 49 states. Ms. Clinton would undoubtedly do much better than McGovern. With normally reliable Democratic states such as those carried by John Kerry in 2004, any Democratic candidate can be expected to win at least 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed just by appearing on the ballot as a Democrat.

Second, Ms. Clinton now heads the Clinton money machine. Hillary is backed by many on Wall Street including friends at Goldman Sachs. The Clintons also have a well-established network of foreign contributors. Republican candidates will be struggling to establish support networks for the first time, which will put them at a disadvantage. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Hillary will face a serious primary threat, which will enable her to get a head start on general election campaigning and fundraising.

Finally, Hillary will benefit by default if the Republicans nominate someone who seems more extreme and unlikable than she is. Hillary’s negatives will only take Republicans so far. The Republican nominee must be able to close the deal with moderate and independent voters. This will require the ability to present a positive vision to voters and not simply focus on negatives like Ms. Clinton’s poor record or promising to repeal Obamacare. The Republican candidate must convince voters that he cares about them more than Ms. Clinton does.

Despite her problems, Ms. Clinton’s money and network alone make her a formidable candidate, but not an inevitable one. Conservatives would do well to remember that she has only run in three elections, twice for the Senate and once for president. Of these, only one, the 2008 Democratic primary, was a tough race. Hillary lost.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Cain is down and probably out

Two weeks ago it seemed that Herman Cain was poised to become the Mike Huckabee of the 2012 presidential election. In 2008, Huckabee was a political outsider with little money. His homespun humor combined with his sharp wit and conservative message to make him the surprise winner of the Iowa Republican presidential primary. Before last week, Georgia native Herman Cain may have been positioned to make a similar impact in 2012.

That was before accusations were leveled that Cain had sexually harassed female employees fifteen years ago. At this point, a total of four women have accused Cain of harassment, but only two have stepped forward publicly. Karen Kraushaar worked with Cain at the National Restaurant Association and received a $45,000 payout from the group according to Yahoo News. (In contrast, Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones according to according to LegalZoom.com.) Although she has not said exactly what Cain allegedly did, she described him as “a monster” to ABC News.

Sharon Bialek, another NRA employee, is the other woman to come forward publicly. Bialek claims that Cain put his hand under her skirt and pushed her hand toward his crotch according to the Washington Post. The incident allegedly occurred at a meeting after Bialek had left the association.

Another woman who worked with USAID in Egypt said that she and colleague had dinner with Herman Cain after he addressed their seminar. In an ABC News video she said that Cain had initially asked to meet a woman that had asked a question during his address. She said that this may have been an innocent request. In the end, Cain had a “nondescript” dinner with the two USAID employees. Her only notable recollection of the event was that Cain allegedly ordered two expensive bottles of wine and stuck the women with the tab.

In a press conference on Tuesday and in a statement on CainTruth.com, Cain categorically denied the allegations. Cain denied harassing Krausharr and said that the only incident that he remembers involving her was comparing her height to that of his wife. He said that he does not remember Bialek at all.

On Wednesday, new information was revealed about both accusers. The Associated Press reported that Krausharr filed a complaint three years later against a subsequent employer when she was not allowed to work at home. Bialek apparently has a history of financial trouble including bankruptcy filings, unpaid rent, and a paternity suit. Television personality Bill Kurtis, who worked with Bialek, has alleged on WLS radio, which was then picked up by the Mark Levine Show, that she “has a history” and might have actually been the one to come on to Cain.

Ultimately, it might not matter whether the accusations are true or not. The damage has been done to Cain’s reputation and no one will ever know the truth of what actually happened. Many will assume Cain to be guilty and others will never doubt his innocence. To many others, the whole matter will simply be a joke (for instance, Cain’s “6-9” plan).

It is difficult to imagine how Cain cannot be negatively affected by the scandal in the polls. According to Real Clear Politics, Cain remains neck in neck with Mitt Romney in national polls of Republican candidates. Cain has an edge on Romney in polls from the battleground states of Florida and Ohio, as well as the early primary state of Iowa, where Mike Huckabee won in 2008. Cain’s poll numbers are likely to suffer as he is unable to shake the accusations.

As troubling as the accusations themselves was Cain’s lackluster early response. In spite of being contacted before the accusations went public by Politico, the website that initially broke the story, the Cain campaign seemed unprepared to deal with them. Cain’s initial response was evasive, denying knowledge of the accusations or settlements, which only added fuel to the fire.

The scandal also comes in the wake of other Cain missteps. Over the summer, Cain lost key campaign staffers in Iowa and New Hampshire, two vitally important early primary states. Cain has been criticized for several comments, including a joke that an electric fence should be placed along the border and told the Wall Street Journal that if people were not wealthy, they could blame themselves. He was also forced to backtrack and apologize after saying that he would not hire a Muslim in his administration.

More worrisome to some is Cain’s lack of experience on foreign policy. While he does have experience leading businesses, Cain has even less international experience than President Obama did before taking office. With international crises looming in the form of Iran’s nuclear program, radical Islamists co-opting the Arab Spring, a financial crisis in Europe, a resurgent Russia, and a China that is increasingly threatening both economically and militarily, the paucity of foreign policy experience is an important omission.

In spite of his popularity over the past few weeks, Cain’s campaign was beginning to fizzle. The sexual harassment scandal, whether true or not, has only accelerated that process.

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/herman-cain-down-and-probably-out

Will Obama face a Democratic primary challenge?

President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting as the summer of discontent draws to a close. The most recent polls show the president’s approval ratings at or near historic lows. Gallup showed the president with a 38 percent approval rating at the end of August, while a Rasmussen poll from early September showed that only 19 percent of voters strongly approve of President Obama’s job performance and that 40 percent strongly disapprove. A Gallup poll taken in early August showed Obama’s approval in Georgia at 48 percent.

Recent economic reports offer evidence that the president’s approval rating will not rebound in the near future. In August, the U.S. economy lost exactly as many jobs as it created for a net change of zero in the unemployment rate. Home prices are slightly higher than July, but down substantially from 2010. U.S. GDP growth was approximately one percent in the second quarter. Government estimates for both the first and second quarters were later revised down. Taken together with other economic vital signs, this means that it is likely that the economy is falling into a second recession in spite of everything that President Obama has tried.

As far back as February, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich called for Democrats to mount a primary challenge against President Obama. Now with Obama’s policies failing and his approval rating dropping, it seems that the field is open for other progressives to challenge the president’s re-election. However, with less than six months to go until the first primaries of the 2012 election season, time is running out for Democratic challengers to enter the race. The Georgia primary is tentatively set for March 6.

In the wake of the catastrophic Democratic losses of 2010, few Democrats seem eager to challenge President Obama for the right to face the Republican challenger. With the economy continuing to falter and many of Obama’s legislative victories, such as Obamacare, still deeply unpopular with voters, the election will likely be an uphill battle for Democrats.

Historically, primary challenges to incumbent presidents are also an uphill battle. The election of 1896 is that last time that a sitting president who wanted to run again was refused the nomination by his party. In that year, President Grover Cleveland lost the Democratic nomination to William Jennings Bryan. Arthur Sewall was nominated for vice president. Bryan also received the nomination of the Populist Party, although with a different vice presidential candidate. Thomas E. Watson of Thomson, Ga., who later served as a Georgia senator, became the Populist candidate for vice president. Bryan, Sewall and Watson lost to the Republican candidates, William McKinley and Garrett Hobart.

An additional problem in challenging Barack Obama is that any Democrat who ran against the president would be open to charges of racism. Many of President Obama’s supporters have leveled this charge at conservatives and Tea Party members who have criticized the president’s policies and would be likely to use the same tactic against a fellow Democrat.

Being labeled as a racist would make it almost impossible to win the Democratic nomination. A 2009 Gallup poll showed that 19 percent of Democrats were black. Another 11 percent were Hispanic. Charges of racism would seriously inhibit a candidate’s ability to win the votes of this third of the Democratic Party.

Further, President Obama continues to enjoy strong support from black voters. Exit polling from 2008 by Politico showed that 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama. A more recent Gallup poll shows that although the president’s support among blacks has declined slightly, 83 percent still approve of him and would presumably vote for him. This is compared to 40 percent approval from the nation at large and 75 percent approval from all Democrats. Because black voters make up a significant portion of the Democratic Party and have an above-average approval for the president, it becomes even more difficult for a challenger, who may not be a minority, to win the necessary votes for the nomination.

These factors together with the short time until the first primaries make it unlikely that President Obama will face a challenge from the left for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Potential Democratic candidates, sensing another Republican sweep, will choose to wait until 2016 and run either as Barack Obama’s successor or as a challenger to a Republican incumbent.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/democratic-primary-challenge-unlikely-for-president-obama

Meet the candidates: Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich (Gage Skidmore)

Newt Gingrich is a transplanted Georgian who was born and grew up in Pennsylvania.  Born in 1943, his birth name was Newton Leroy McPherson.  His mother and father divorced after a marriage of only a few days.  Newt’s mother remarried to a career army officer, Robert Gingrich, in 1946.  Gingrich adopted Newt and the couple had three daughters.

The family moved frequently as the senior Gingrich received new assignments.  Newt graduated from high school in Columbus, Ga. in 1961.  He graduated from Emory University with a B.A. in history in 1965.  He earned a Master’s and Ph.D. in modern European history from Tulane, graduating in 1971.  After earning his doctorate, Gingrich returned to Georgia, where he taught at West Georgia College in Carrollton from 1970 to 1978. 

Gingrich’s political career began with campaigns for congress in Georgia’s sixth district in 1974 and 1976.  He narrowly lost those races to Democrat Jack Flynt, but won in 1978 when Flynt decided not to seek re-election.  Gingrich served in the House of Representatives until 1998.  He was elected Minority Whip in 1989 to succeed Dick Cheney, who resigned to become Secretary of Defense.  In 1994, in the wake of the Republican landslide, Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House when Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Il.) did not seek re-election to congress.

Gingrich was largely responsible for the Contract with America that led to the 1994 Republican landslide.  During his tenure as speaker, Gingrich oversaw the passage of welfare reform, tax cuts (including the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history), and pushed for a balanced budget under President Clinton.  The budget was balanced in 1999 for the first time since 1969.  Gingrich’s reform agenda is a major reason for the economic boom of the 1990s.

Gingrich was also involved in the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996.  In a situation similar to the one faced today, the Republicans refused to raise the debt limit when Democrats balked at budget cuts.  Ultimately, the shutdowns resulted in the deal to balance the budget, but Gingrich suffered politically from comments that made it seem that he shut down the government in response to a snub from President Clinton.  After Republicans lost the presidential election and eight house seats in 1996, Gingrich resigned from Congress. 

Since leaving Congress, he has served on the Defense Policy Board for President George W. Bush and the United States Commission on National Security/21^st Century.  He also teaches the Joint Warfighting Course to Major Generals at the Air University and is a Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University.  In 2003, he founded the Center for Health Transformation to create free market health care reforms.  In 2007, he founded American Solutions, a conservative think-tank and action group.  Gingrich has also written a number of books on topics ranging from history to government policy to fictional alternate history.  After leaving Congress, he moved from Georgia to McLean, Va. where he currently resides.

There are several skeletons in Newt Gingrich’s closet.  In 1992, Gingrich was one of more than 450 congressmen who bounced checks written on the house bank.  The house bank covered the overdrafts, but many congressmen had thousands of dollars that were overdue for months.  Gingrich was not singled out by the Ethics Committee and was one of the Republican congressmen who decided to go public with the scandal, realizing that more Democrats would be affected than Republicans.

While he was in Congress, Gingrich also taught a course at Kennesaw State College in Kennesaw, Ga., an Atlanta suburb.  The course, titled “Renewing American Civilization,” led to an ethics charge and an investigation by the IRS.  The House Ethics Committee found no wrongdoing, but Gingrich did pay a fine for conflicting statements filed by his attorneys.  The Kennesaw State Foundation’s tax-exempt status was threatened after accepting $200,000 to televise Gingrich’s course across the country.  The foundation was exonerated after Gingrich resigned.

In 2008, Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi, another now former house speaker, to make a commercial advocating green energy to halt climate change.  In the past three years, Gingrich seems to have retreated somewhat on the issue.  A video on the New Hampshire Primary blog shows Gingrich saying “a topic large enough to change the behavior of the entire human race is a topic that is more than science and deserves public hearings with very tough minded public questions and we’ve had almost none of that on either side.”

Newt’s personal life may also be a problem for many prospective voters.  He married for the first time at nineteen to his former geometry teacher who was twenty-six at the time.  Six months after the 1980 divorce, Gingrich remarried.  Gingrich admitted to having an affair with Callista Bisek, a house staffer, during his second marriage.  He divorced for the second time in 2000 and married Bisek shortly after. 

In a 2011 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich admitted that his actions were wrong:  “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness.”

Gingrich has also run into two problems since announcing his candidacy this year.  In the first, he angered conservatives when he referred to Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan as “right-wing social engineering.”  Gingrich apologized to Ryan and tried to repair the damage, but his comments probably did not endear him to Tea Partiers or deficit hawks.

Secondly, in early June, Gingrich’s entire senior campaign staff resigned.  The resignations came in the wake of Gingrich’s two-week cruise in the Greek isles.  The staff members reportedly were concerned that Gingrich did not take the campaign seriously.  The departure of his staff will likely affect Gingrich’s ability to raise campaign funds, since many potential donors will seriously question his ability to win if he isn’t supported by his own employees.

The most recent Real Clear Politics index of polls shows Gingrich in statistical tie for fifth place with Ron Paul.  He currently trails Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Rudolf Giuliani, and fellow Georgian Herman Cain.  Most of the current polls do not reflect the public reaction to the resignation of Gingrich’s staff.  An Insider Advantage/WSB-TV poll of Georgia voters in early June showed Gingrich in third place behind Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann.

Very few doubt Newt Gingrich’s intelligence and ability to make policy, but if he is to survive the primary season he has major obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is to replace his entire staff in the middle of the campaign.  Gingrich’s missteps and gaffes make it unlikely that he will win the contest to face Barack Obama in 2012, but he would be a valuable advisor and strategist to the eventual Republican nominee.

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-newt-gingrich"> 

Click SUBSCRIBE to follow the Captain Kudzu.  Please COMMENT, LIKE, and SHARE across your networks!

Obama's birth certificate revealed, but may not satisfy birthers

The long-awaited birth certificate

As one of the first acts of his reelection campaign, President Obama recently released his long form birth certificate.  The controversy had followed Obama for at least three years and had continued in spite of the fact that he had released a copy of his short form birth certificate during the 2008 campaign. 

As discussed in an Examiner article from December 2009, Hawaiian government officials vouched for the authenticity of the first birth certificate released and it was sufficient to get an Illinois driver’s license, marriage certificate, to register as an attorney, and to serve as an Illinois legislator and US Senator.  A Kenyan birth certificate that surfaced in 2009 was revealed to be a fraud.  A conversation in which Obama’s Kenyan grandmother reportedly claimed to be present at his birth in Kenya was revealed to be taken wildly out of context.  The birth announcements from Honolulu newspapers for baby Barack have long been available online.

So why did Obama finally decide to release the long-awaited full birth certificate?  There are likely two answers.  First is the success of potential presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Trump, who recently polled virtually even with Obama and tied with Huckabee as a Republican frontrunner, has attempted to make Obama’s birth certificate a mainstream issue.  By releasing the birth certificate, Obama may be trying to discredit Trump as a potential opponent. 

Second, and more likely, Obama is probably responding to the “birther” bills proposed by several states.  The bills, which would require that presidential candidates prove their citizenship before they could be added to ballot, have been proposed in several states.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed one such bill after it passed the legislature.  Governor Bobby Jindal supports a proposed bill in Louisiana.  A similar bill has been considered in Montana.  Here in Georgia, a similar bill was proposed but did not pass before the legislative session ended for the year.

Obama lost all four of these states in 2008, but might have a chance to win some of them in 2012.  In Arizona, John McCain was running in 2008 and had the home-state advantage.  McCain’s nine point margin of victory could be closer with a different Republican candidate in 2012, putting Arizona’s ten electoral votes in play.  In Georgia, the margin was even closer.  McCain won Georgia in 2008 by only five points.  If 2012 shapes up to be a close race, Georgia’s fifteen electoral votes would be a valuable prize. 

If either state passed a birther law before the 2012 election, Obama would not be on the ballot unless he submitted the birth certificate and would forfeit those electoral votes.  Passage of the law in a few states might also encourage states with more electoral votes, like Texas or California, to pass a similar law.  By releasing the birth certificate now, Obama eliminates the threat of the birther laws.

An additional reason may be that Obama’s decision trumped the upcoming release of a new book about the birth certificate.  “Where’s the birth certificate?  The case that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president” by Jerome Corsi is scheduled for release on May 17.  Corsi is also the author of “The Obama Nation,” another book critical of Obama, and coauthored “Unfit for Command,” a book widely credited with helping to sink John Kerry’s campaign in 2004.  Beating Corsi to the punch might well have been an added incentive for Obama.

Until now it was to Obama’s advantage to keep the birther controversy going.  It provided an issue with which he could ridicule Republicans and conservatives and paint them as extremists.  At the same time, while the country was focused on the birther issue, it was not looking at the economy, the deficit, or the wars in Libya and Afghanistan, issues where Obama is far more vulnerable.

It remains an open question whether the new release of the birth certificate will satisfy die-hard birthers.  There is already speculation that the birth certificate is a forgery.  It is common knowledge that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have sophisticated forgery operations to create false papers for intelligence agents.  Of course, the forgery theory discounts all the other evidence that Obama is a native born American citizen.

If conservatives continue to push the birther theory in the wake of the new birth certificate, it will make them look even more extreme and out of the mainstream.  They will provide an easy target for the media and late-night comedians.  On the other hand, if conservatives take this opportunity to focus on the president’s record then Obama will be the one who seems out of the mainstream. 

For his part, Donald Trump seems satisfied with the birth certificate and is now pressing Obama to release his college records.  Obama has never released his transcripts or writings from Occidental College, Columbia University, or Harvard. 

“The word is, according to what I’ve read, that he was a terrible student when he went to Occidental,” Trump said. “How do you get into Harvard if you're not a good student? Now, maybe that’s right, or maybe it’s wrong. But I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records.”

Although Obama campaigned on transparency in government, secrecy has been the order of the day in his administration.  The health care reform law was conceived behind closed doors and a promise to post bills online for five days before signing them was one of the first broken promises of the new president.  Even when the president recently received an award for promoting government transparency, he excluded the media and received the award in private.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obama-s-birth-certificate-revealed-but-may-not-satisfy-birthers">