Former Boston Red Sox star Curt Schilling has been campaigning for Republican Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown. In response, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley called Schilling “another Yankee fan.” Schilling responds here:
I’ve been called a lot of things....
But never, and I mean never, could anyone ever make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn’t know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could….
Score one for Schilling here, with the minor caveat that ignorance about pro sports teams doesn’t necessarily equate to general ignorance about the state they’re in.
On a slightly more serious note, I don’t see why anyone should pay any particular attention to the political views of Schilling and other celebrities. As a longtime Red Sox fan, I yield to no one in my admiration for Schilling as a pitcher. I also think he’s an interesting commentator on baseball issues. But if you read his blog (which I very much like for the sports content), I think it’s clear that his expertise on political issues is not much greater than that of the average voter. I would say the same thing for most of the other sports and entertainment industry celebrities who make political endorsements and expound on political issues. Voters should generally discount such statements, except in the rare instances where the celebrity in question has some genuine insight into the subject. That’s not a criticism of Schilling and the other celebrities. He has his field of expertise, and he’s certainly been more successful at his profession than 99.9% of the rest of us have been in ours (myself included). And of course celebrities are entitled to their political opinions. The real fault lies with the voters and media who pay much more attention to celebrities’ political pronouncements than they should.
Why, then, do many voters pay attention to the political statements of celebrities — so much so that candidates find it worth their while to include them in ads? I hate to beat the same horse that I have pounded so often before. But I suspect it has to do with political ignorance and irrationality. Most citizens know little about politics, and have little incentive to rationally analyze the limited information they do have. As a result, many of them are influenced by celebrity endorsements in ways they would not be if they were better informed. Schilling’s endorsement of Brown is unlikely to sway highly knowledgeable voters and those already strongly committed to one side. But in a close race, it may affect the decisions of some swing voters. On average, swing voters tend to have the lowest levels of political information.
UPDATE: In this September post, I wrote about the then-rumored possibility that Schilling might run for the Senate seat himself, and the ways in which political ignorance facilitates campaigns by celebrities and scions of famous families such as the Kennedys and Bushes.
Ironically Anonymous says:
It does in Massachusetts.
Seriously, enough of the people are intensively passionate enough about the hometown teams that not to have some knowledge is to be out of touch with your constituents, especially when you’re trying to play the “I’m one of you” card.
(And this is from David Chesler, I left anonymous on from something else; can’t edit that.)
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:11 pmIlya Somin says:
It does in Massachusetts.
Seriously, enough of the people are intensively passionate enough about the hometown teams that not to have some knowledge is to be out of touch with your constituents, especially when you’re trying to play the “I’m one of you” card.
I grew up in Massachusetts. And although I’m a huge sports fan myself, I knew many people who weren’t, particularly among women. Of course I agree that it’s good political strategy for a politician to be at least minimally informed about such matters. However, that’s only because some voters attach more importance to sports knowledge and celebrity endorsements than they should.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:14 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Would be hard to imagine how anyone in public office in Mass. would ever think Curt was a fan of the enemy. She is living on another planet.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:14 pmjccamp says:
Are you suggesting that perhaps Chuck Norris has moved off his area of expertise with his theory about the secret dance steps to the Coda Diabolique and other infernal subjects being stored at Interpol NY?
Too bad, really. I always had this kind of vague sense of an almost-normal blue-collar guy made good. Well, no more practical advice from this guy, I think.
Sigh.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:22 pmpltfflawyer says:
Ilya, please don’t be reluctant to discuss your rational ignorance theory! It’s fascinating, and bleeds over into many areas– law included. People often hire “star” lawyers when others could’ve done just as good a job, to send a signal about their case.
More apt to your thesis though, ordinary people often hire on the basis of names. I’m an associate at a personal injury advertising firm. I’ve heard dozens of clients say, “I know y’all are good cause I see y’all on TV.”
And I’ve seen people be impressed by meaningless lawyer “tough talk” in and out of the courtroom.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:32 pmIlya Somin says:
Are you suggesting that perhaps Chuck Norris has moved off his area of expertise with his theory about the secret dance steps to the Coda Diabolique and other infernal subjects being stored at Interpol NY?
Uh, yes.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:34 pmIlya Somin says:
More apt to your thesis though, ordinary people often hire on the basis of names. I’m an associate at a personal injury advertising firm. I’ve heard dozens of clients say, “I know y’all are good cause I see y’all on TV.”
That might not be completely irrational. If a personal injury firm is successful enough to be able to afford TV advertising, that’s some indication that they know what they’re doing. That’s a actually a standard point in the economics of advertising. Obviously, an informed consumer would probably need to know more than that, of course.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:39 pmresh says:
The Red Sox-Yankees rivalry has been, arguably, the most intense one in the modern era of pro sports. I can think of none other that’s even close, unless we return to the Celtics-Lakers, Celtics-Sixers, or maybe Steelers-Raiders slugfests of days gone by.
For Coakley to mis-identify Schilling as a Yankee fan is tantamount to heresy. His singular contribution the Red Sox championship in 2004 alone, after almost a century of their post-season failures, is nearly legendary. His peformance in game six of the ALCS against the hated Yankees is considered a classic.
She may as well have called god the devil.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:41 pmrpt says:
The worse Coakley becomes, the less one can call this a referendum on anything. It actually appears like the return of Mitt Romney.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:46 pmNickM says:
If she were truly ignorant about sports, the “Yankee fan” comment would never have happened. She knows enough to know the Yankees are the hated team, and that Curt Schilling plays the same sport.
Nick
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:48 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I view this as unnecessary snark. However. I am not a sports fan at all (IANASF?) and if I were to run for public office I simply wouldn’t talk about sports. People who care have very strong feelings. It would be too easy to make a meaningless mistake like this and have it blown all out of proportion. It’s like if somebody said Spock was a Romulan or something (not that anybody is THAT ignorant) — it matters not at all, but people who care will think you’re a dummy.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 9:58 pmegd says:
I wouldn’t listen to him myself. But a pivotal senate election doesn’t come down to any one issue. If you are a conservative who believes that ignorance of important local events is indefensible by a potential Senator because it is evidence that the candidate doesn’t really care about her home district, you might reasonably pay attention to Shillings’ comments, despite his status as a baseball player. Elections aren’t just about public policy results. They are also about the candidates and their personal virtues (or lack thereof).
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:10 pmBruce Hayden says:
This all can be quite humorous. In one city I frequent, there are any number of attorneys vying for personal injury work on TV, billboards, radio, etc. They all portray themselves as tough. The problem is that they don’t take the cases to court. One guy I know has made a lot of money doing just that, getting referrals from them, when they can’t settle with a couple of phone calls, and then actually trying the cases. And, if you met him, you would think that he was the nicest guy around. Not surprising really, since that good-old-boy image with juries is part of why he does so well in court.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:12 pmsteve s says:
Coakley sucks with or without sports knowledge, but would it have been too much to ask to have gotten a better alternative?
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:12 pmrmd says:
There’s something irrational but deeply embedded in the human psyche that makes us want to believe that people who are like us in some important (to us) way are also like us in other important ways. Garrison Keillor touches on this in one of his books where he describes the residents of Lake Wobegon as partitioned into two groups, one that was Catholic and drove Fords and one that was Lutheran and drove Chevys. Or vice versa. Whatever. Celebrity endorsements play on this. Without putting it into so many words, we think “oh, I like him; I’ll like what he likes.” So we get sports figures advising us on political candidates and actors advising us on global warming. Or vice versa. Whatever.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:23 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that that comment needlessly indicated that she didn’t know what was going on in her home state. Much better to just talk about what she knew about, and not what she didn’t.
Heaven knows how Teddy Kennedy managed to convince anyone that he was a common man, given his background and history, but he managed to do so. She, on the other hand, comes across as an elitist. That may play well in the home state of Harvard and MIT in most elections. It isn’t working well this time. Her opponent is running as a populist, and it seems to be working.
Getting Curt Schilling to campaign for him is a nice move by Brown. Not really so much for Schelling’s actual expertise here, but rather as an in-her-face attack on Coakley’s screw up in regards to Schilling. It just rubs her face in it. And there are almost assuredly a lot of Red Sox fans who are still laughing at her for it.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:24 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Like Matlock? I’ve always wondered how that really plays out.
I know what you’re saying, but I’m amused when people complain about how “they” don’t run a better class of candidates, or brag about voting for “none of the above”. You can only vote for people who put themselves forward and get their name on the ballot.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:24 pmMike P Wagner says:
Is there evidence that this is true? Do politicians emphasize celebrities because voters pay attention to celebrities, or simply because politicians want to hobnob with celebrities?
Mike
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:38 pmll says:
Relating, I suppose, to “rational ignorance” of voters, or perhaps to those who shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all, this description is from the American Spectator:
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:42 pmzuch says:
Well, I can see that this definitively disqualifies her as a potential Senator from Massachusetts ... unlike being confoozed about whether Obama’s a bastard. That is quite legitimate to question, and very important to resolve for all the Tea Party folks there....
Cheers,
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:43 pmzuch says:
Unlike Brown, who doesn’t know a Tea Party Patriot from a Teabagger despite being at one event or the other, and yet who strangely also doesn’t know whether Obama’s legitimate.
Cheers,
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:48 pmpltfflawyer says:
Sure, it’s also true that most personal-injury plaintiffs want quick settlements– they’d rather have $10,000 in their pocket today than $25,000 eight months from now. So the advertising lawyers are giving them what they want.
It’s also true that this business model doesn’t lend itself to trying cases, for the most part. Thus a lot of people are in the enviable position of your friend– they take the spillover work that someone else spent the money to generate. But generally, working it up to the point of trial adds value to the case– you hopefully get more money trying it, or at least increase the risk to the other side so that they’ll settle.
But once again, Ilya’s point may come into play here: these firms with the cheesy-seeming ads are actually successfully reaching people, and also handling the cases more or less like they want them handled.
There just isn’t time to learn about who may be a good lawyer and why, especially for someone with a limited education who would have trouble understanding all that goes into lawyering.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 10:58 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
When people are rationally ignorant about something, they often rely on recommendations from people they know and trust. That’s a far better system than flipping a coin. With celebrities, there’s an asymetry — people feel they know celebrities, while they might not be known to the celebrities. I would rely, for example, on the recommendations of Wil Wheaton or Randy Barnett, although they don’t know me very well. Many people are rationally ignorant of politics, but irrationally well-informed about sports. So a sports celeb is a good pick as a trusted recommender for that demographic. I am rationally ignorant of sports. The other day I had to change the route of my drive to the club because of some Cults game playoff, but sports rarely has much of any direct affect on me, other than a certain corrupt capital improvements board downtown that my circle of friends is usually trying to stop from some new power grab.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:01 pmDavid Chesler says:
I figure it’s like a courtship. The suitor must be willing to demonstrate his future potential to be unselfish by performing certain initiation rites. Maybe a really good candidate can win on merits or innate charisma, otherwise you get points for being willing to play the game by going door-to-door, knowing the local sports rivalries, and so forth.
Keep in mind, this was Coakley’s attempted strategy in the primary, acting like it was her election to lose and doing as little as possible, and it worked fine there. The special general election ought to have been hers to lose, but somehow she blew it, much like so many Boston sports teams have done.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:05 pmShelbyC says:
Well, I don’t know either, but so what? I’m not sure why the lefty he was debating brought up Obama’s legitimacy.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:06 pmDave N. says:
Heck, being knowledgeable about sports sometimes even gets an invitation into the political punditry class, as if expertise about baseball spills into other areas.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:08 pmDave N. says:
Michelle Obama doesn’t seem to know either. Besides, that was YESTERDAY’s talking point.
TODAY’s talking point is that Coakley is such a terrible candidate that nothing can be read into the fact that she is about to do the impossible for a Democrat and lose a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:19 pmHouston Lawyer says:
She’s taking her cues from “Rambo Field” Kerry.
If you don’t know when to shut up, you will necessarily display your ignorance.
Quote
January 18, 2010, 11:27 pmBruce Hayden says:
I do think that you need to have a real litigator at least waiting in the wings. Otherwise, they lose a lot of their bargaining power. Also, I think that there would be some ethical issues if they didn’t.
I will also note that the guy actually trying the cases appears to be making more money. But then, again, he is very good, and the insurance companies, etc. know that.
They wouldn’t be advertising, esp. at that level, if it weren’t a valid and lucrative business model. What is scary is how much money there has to be, given the level of advertising.
It is interesting trying to figure out what each group of attorneys’ strategy or edge seems to be. Some come across as tough. Others have catchy jingos or easy to remember telephone numbers. I love the names they give themselves.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:08 amRichard S says:
“Why do many voters pay attention to the political statements by celebrities?”
Two words: human nature. John Adams said that fame, beauty, wealth and the like are “talents.” Why? Inevitably they sway people. Or as Tevye the Milk Man put it, “when you’re rich they think you really know.” People are often irrational in predictible ways. If you want to know why people are like that, then it gets very complicated. But can it be changed? Probably not, although perhaps there’s room at the margins. If that’s a fact, the challenge is to turn it to good, or, at least, to minimize this human tendency.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:12 amBruce Hayden says:
To be catty, if the example is Olbermann, the expertise didn’t spill over into the real world.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:14 amGCA says:
Zuch’s comments remain both tiresome and predictable. I fault myself for bothering to read them.
Celebrities’ statements usually cut the other way. Democrats get a lot of mileage out of the statements, as well as a lot of cash from those who utter them. Does that come from a shared sense of entitlement and self perceived (albeit supported by misplaced public adulation) elitism? I personally have no interest in hearing what celebrities have to say in their public capacity concerning any issue. Schilling is only interesting because he is an anomaly. As an anomaly, one might think that Coakley’s staff might think mention of him might be made by an interviewer, as it was, and might have prepared her for it, as they apparently didn’t, especially since use of celebrities plays so prominently in her party’s playbook.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:46 amDave N. says:
Shhh!! I wanted people to think I was talking about Curt Schilling and be surprised.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:49 amJPG says:
I don’t fully disagree with Ilya Somin’s post here, for one, I share his skepticism about Schilling’s opinion to be wiser than average Joe’s. But lets recall some fact here: prominent manifestations of political wisdom — in order to shape public opinion, the media and the State — often come from exogenous circles. Sartre, among others, considered those not directly involved in politics to be the greatest shapers of policy and political mentality. I don’t claim Schilling is anything close to an intellectual, but if this public hero finds something conforting in a candidate, why wouldn’t the average Joe pay attention to what he has to say?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:17 amOff Kilter says:
It’s a shame no journalist asked her if she thought Gerald Amirault is also a Yankees’ fan...
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:35 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Coakley vs. Curt Schilling -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Van Davis, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Coakley vs. Curt Schilling: Former Boston Red Sox star Curt Schilling has been campaigning for Republican Massachu... http://bit.ly/76H0zk [...]
theobromophile says:
Prof. Somin, I think you’re forgetting that this was mere days after Coakley went to D.C. and defended her trip by saying something like, “What else should I be doing — standing outside of Fenway Park shaking hands?” When coupled with her Curt Schilling comment (and her pathetic recovery from it; she couldn’t even laugh at herself and admit that she erred), Bostonians think that she’s an elitist who only deigns to deal with them to get their vote.
Yes, most of us up here think that Coakley should have been outside of Fenway shaking hands, rather than down in DC making buddies with lobbyists, because she’s campaigning to represent us.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 3:08 amGood rule of thumb says:
People believe what their friends believe. Unless you’re autistic, you want to fit in. You go along. You look to other people and you mirror them. Unless you’re autistic, and your mirror neurons don’t work.
So people look to celebrities and they copy them.
They like them. They look up to them. They want to be like them. All the cool kids think such and such, all the sexy ones, so what I think is, of course, what they think. It’s what I always thought.
All Christians think such and such. All smart people think such and such. And only the rednecks, the hicks, the trailer trash, disagree. They’re villeins, serfs. As British toffs are supposed to say: Not like us. Different class.
U and Non-U. It’s a snobbish, status thing. And celebrities are America’s aristocrats. The ruling class is the media, the government, the academy.
But the bright young things are the aristocrats.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 5:27 amgeokstr says:
Would that be like not knowing that leftwingers are all fudge packers?
I see the juveniles who like to use “tea bagger” as a sexual slur are at it again.
Cheers to you too.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 5:34 amDavid Chesler says:
A. Bartlett Giamatti
Quote
January 19, 2010, 6:43 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhC: Coakley vs. Curt Schilling: Former Boston Red Sox star Curt Schilling has been campaigning for Republican Massachu... http://bit.ly/76H0zk...
lgm says:
Political theater good, security theater bad.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:53 amSnack McSnarkerston says:
He supported Bush and not his own state senator. That tells me enough about Schilling’s ‘wisdom’ and Brown’s ‘independence’.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:22 amCJColucci says:
I hope someone re-posts this as a comment next time some Conspirator vents about the politics of some Hollywood hack or ham.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 10:35 ammattc says:
the disdain for the “average voter” is unbearable sometimes. the average voter builds the houses, fixes the cars, repairs the roads, works concessions, serves and makes dinner, argues in court, adjusts a claim, restocks the shelf, mows the lawn, prescribes the pill, teaches the child, writes the software, etc.
quit telling me that the average voter’s ignorance is more important than Thomas Friedman’s ignorance or that the average voter’s political views are worth less than that of Jeff Jacoby.
again, I suggest you read Ortega y Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses
Quote
January 19, 2010, 10:42 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
The Schilling comment was tone-deaf, no doubt, but it wasn’t a policy thing, just some low-level mudslinging that got out of hand. In the sense of policy meaning, it’s meaningless. On the other hand, having the ability to mock a political opponent is a powerful tool (google “SNL Bush” for instance) and Coakley handed her opponent(s) a live one here. She’ll never outrun Curt “Yankees fan” Schilling now. It makes her worse than wrong, it makes her the object of scorn. No one really cares whether or not she knows baseball stats, but in trying to use a sports rivalry to slime her opponent, she caught herself in the backlash by a stroke of stupidity. She made this bed, and my thought is that win or lose, she’ll be sleeping in it for a long time.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 10:51 amFury says:
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Did you really mean *all* the Tea Party folks?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 10:59 amzuch says:
She didn’t. Brown decided it was important to point out for some reason that Obama’s mother was 18 when she gave birth, and the questioner correctly pointed out that she was married as well. Brown disputed that fact. You may say that his “Well, I don’t know about that....” was simply a declaration of ignorance, but the tone of voice there and the phrasing suggest that this was rather the form of disputing the fact rather than a statement of simple ignorance. I’d note that it he knows enough to say she was 18, you might think he should know enough to know that she was married.
Couple this with RW foamer ‘theories’ extant about Obama being illegitimate, and you have a good circumstantial case that Brown gets his ‘facts’ from suspect places.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 11:22 amSyd Henderson says:
There’s a “waving the bloody sock” joke in here somewhere.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 11:34 amNickM says:
If a Conspirator complains about Tom Hanks and calls him the director of the Saw films, there would be a good parallel.
Nick
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:15 pmzuch says:
I expressly differentiated the two (TPP and TB) so as to avoid criticism that I was using the slur “teabagger” to refer to the TPers (despite the fact that “tea bag” seems to have first arisen from a TPer).
The fact remains that Brown, while currying favour with the Tea Partiers, also has been distancing himself from them, sometime disingenuously.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 12:30 pmShelbyC says:
While defending Bristol Palin, Brown pointed out that lots of folks have kids when they are 18, including Obama’s mom. The questioner mentioned that Obama’s mom’s situtation was different because Obama’s mom may have been married. Brown correctly pointed out that that may or may not be true. (It appears that Obama’s dad may have been married already, rendering Obama’s parents marriage invalid). Of course, none of this matters, but the lefties keep bringing it up for some reason.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:13 pmzuch says:
???HUH???
So nice to have a real live “birther” here.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:28 pmShelbyC says:
Yeah, cuz the constitution sez that only folks whose parents were married can be president. Look, I neither know nor care whether or not his folks were married, and it appears that Scott Brown doesn’t either. I have no idea why folks like yourself and Brown’s questioner keep bringing it up.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:35 pmzuch says:
As I pointed out, his dismissive, scornful “Well, I don’t know about that” is not a profession of ignorance; it’s a profession of doubt. If he really didn’t care, he would have said, “It doesn’t matter” rather than dispute the fact.
But where (outside of BirtherLand™) do you get the idea that Obama’s mother (perhaps) wasn’t married? I’m curious....
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 1:47 pmShelbyC says:
The suggestion that BO senior may have been already married is pretty well documented, in Time and the WP. So myself, Time, and the WP share the doubts you seem to be criticizing Brown for. But I still don’t know why some folks on the left keep bringing it up.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 2:04 pmegd says:
MSNBC?
“[Obama’s] own mother, [Michelle] said at the beginning of her remarks, was ‘very young and very single when she had him.’”
From the link:
“I think I’ve traced the meme’s birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent’s David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: ‘Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!’ (sic).”
Instaputz & Wonkette are now TPers?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 2:06 pmShelbyC says:
Zuch, you understand that your interpretation of events requires us to believe that Brown, it the middle of defending Brisol Palin for being a single 18 year old mom, decided to suddenly slam Barack’s mom for being a single 18 year old mom?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 2:18 pmDavid Nieporent says:
I’m curious how you’ve ignored the multiple links to Michelle Obama saying the same thing.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 2:30 pmtheobromophile says:
Laughing with, not at, ShelbyC.
What Coakley said was stupid. If you don’t know something, say you don’t know it. That’s what Brown did.
It involves a bit of humility and knowing what you don’t know. Certainly, everyone knows that Barack’s mother was rather young when she gave birth to him; people are also aware that Obama’s father was not always a constant presence in his life. Given the “gotcha” journalism played by the Left, I’m not surprised that someone who does not have an encylopedic knowledge of Obama’s biography would decline to comment.
As a final question: how many of the people who think that Obama’s snide “lipstick on a pig” comment was not meaningful, but think that Scott Brown was implying something negative about Barack with his comment?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 2:37 pmMark Buehner says:
I do. Its a great distraction when you can’t defend the indefensible. Seems to work... maybe not as well as screaming Ann Coulter, but pretty well.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 6:40 pmzuch says:
Even if this were true, can you show how this legally invalidates Obama’s mother’s marriage? It may be true that Obama’s mother could ask for an annulment if it was found to be that case that Obama Sr. was previously married ... but I’m not at all sure that any such purported prior marriage (in Kenya) would automatically make the marriage null and void. I’d note that Hawai’i law currently makes any progeny even of annulled or prohibited marriages “legitimate”.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:01 pmzuch says:
No. The guy who wrote the sign is. Do you need it explained in small words? Let me know and I will see if I can accommo... — ummm, “help” — you.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:05 pmzuch says:
No (although, with some type folks, such is quite possible). Where did I say he “slam[med]” Omama’s mother?
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:09 pmzuch says:
While Michelle Obama may have her timing off a bit, it is true that Obama’s mother was a single mother; both separated and then divorced. That’s not claiming that she was never married (or not married at the time of birth).
Now I’m curious as to why the circumstances of Obama’s birth have such resonance with a certain cadre on the right....
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:12 pmDave N. says:
Oh I see. Michelle Obama (who is actually married to the guy) may have her timing a bit off, but whatever Scott Brown said is evil. I get it.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:49 pmShelbyC says:
This has been hashed out on another thread, here’s Hawaiian marriage law on the subject. It’s pretty well established that a bigamous marriage is invalid. But maybe I’m not sure I understand your claim. You say you’re not claiming Brown slammed Obama’s mom, what are you claiming? If it’s simply that Brown didn’t know Obama’s mom’s marital status, so what? I don’t think any of us do. And I’m not sure why it matters.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:49 pmDave N. says:
By the way, I hadn’t thought much about it at all until the lefist blogosphere started playing “gotcha” with a 15 second soundbite that had absolutely no context.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 7:50 pmzuch says:
That is true, but is the marriage automatically annulled? Or does it require dissolution? In some states, marital community property and other incidents of marriage survive even an annulled marriage, and as I pointed out, in Hawai’i, progeny are deemed “legitimate” even for an invalid or annulled marriage.
Does this law recognise all marriages elsewhere (say, like in Kenya ... or a SSM marriage in Massachusetts)? And other than statements that Obama Sr. was “married” previously, what evidence have you that he was ... and that he was not divorced?
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:04 pmzuch says:
The context is Brown’s affinity for the likes of TPers/“birthers” or their ‘theories’.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:05 pmq says:
Brown never claimed Obama’s mother was never married either.
Mrs. Obama is clearly saying Obama’s mother was single at the time of his birth. Brown said that he doesn’t know whether Obama’s mother was married at the time of birth (at best, he thinks she wasn’t).
Err, it was the Democratic-leaning interviewer who brought up Obama’s mother’s marriage status and it was “those on the left” who started the Brown = birther meme. So you should direct your ire at them for starting this ridiculously irrelevant discussion.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:06 pmq says:
All very good questions. All indications that whether or not Obama’s mother was married at the time of his birth is hardly a slam-dunk. It’s pretty unreasonable to suggest Brown have thought through all the legalities when he made his two second, off-the-cuff comment dismissing the irrelevant distinction between Obama’s mother and Bristol Palin.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:11 pmneurodoc says:
If Curt Schilling had run for the Senate and been elected, could he possibly have turned out to be worse as a solon than Jim Bunning of Kentucky?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:13 pmDave N. says:
Zuch,
Let me get this straight. The context of what Brown said in 2008 (while defending Bristol Palin) is relevant because he may have hung out with Tea Partiers in 2009 (NOT Birthers, mind you, but Tea Partiers)? And now who are YOU smearing by equating the Tea Partiers with the Birthers?
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:16 pmzuch says:
Not exactly. Michelle Obama said “when she had” Barack. Which usually means “gave birth” but could be construed to encompass a wider timespan.
FWIW, any disputes about the legal status of Obama’s mother’s marriage avoid the fact that, as far as she knew (and as far as her behaviour went), she was married. Which distinguishes her from Palin’s daughter, and makes his comments irrelevant at best.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:48 pmzuch says:
... to distinguish the two cases, after Brown brought up Obama’s mother.
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:49 pmzuch says:
Both? ;-)
Do you deny an affinity there?
Cheers,
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:50 pmq says:
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “had” to mean anything wider than time of birth. I do think Mrs. Obama misspoke (which, let’s be honest, is pretty common for interviews) and had Barack’s single-parent upbringing in mind.
What? Obama was conceived when his mother was clearly not married, same with Bristol’s child. “As far as her behavior” goes, that’s really the only relevant decision. Unless you’re talking about a decision not to abort based on the availability of the father. In which case, that opens up a whole host of other issues and I really doubt that’s what Brown and his interviewer had in mind, as they were talking about Bristol’s adherence to “family values” and abortion because of conception out of wedlock certainly does not adhere to the usual definition of “family values.”
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:57 pmShelbyC says:
I believe that if someone is currently married and marries again, the marriage is never valid. Otherwise you would have a situation where polygamous marriage was recognized until one of the parties chose to seek an annulment. But I don’t know. And I still don’t know why it matters.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 8:59 pmq says:
When Brown brought up Obama’s mother, it was to compare Bristol’s situation favorably to her, as no one can doubt Obama has become quite successful despite his single-mother upbringing. It wasn’t until the interviewer brought up Obama’s mother’s marriage status that the “circumstances of Obama’s birth” became an issue. Unless you’re telling me the following is not a ridiculous conversation:
A: I don’t think that child will ever grow up to be successful since his mother is a teenager.
B: Obama’s mother was a teenager when she had him.
A: Why do you people on the right obsess so much about the circumstances of Obama’s birth?!
B: o_o???
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:04 pmShelbyC says:
Wow. Ya gotta admire a man that’s not afraid to reach like that. :-)
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:09 pmt says:
前列腺炎
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:48 pmt says:
前列腺炎
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:48 pmt says:
前列腺炎
Quote
January 19, 2010, 9:48 pmDave N. says:
Yes, Zuch, there is a HUGE difference between the Tea Partiers and the Birthers. If you don’t see it, then it is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
Quote
January 19, 2010, 10:34 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
Look, the legal ins and outs of Obama’s legitimacy in no way affect his ability or legal fitness for office. That said, to pretend that his legitimacy is so far beyond the pale of question that a noncommittal answer is somehow evidence of insanity is both partisan and dishonest. Brown answered a question in the most polite and honest way it could be answered. Trying to play “Quote Gotcha” with that is just desperate and reaching. It makes you look weak. Just stop.
Quote
January 20, 2010, 2:39 amLG says:
She was basically dissing Schilling for supporting a Republican. Duh. But it was a very, very bad joke, one that would piss of voters.
Scott Brown is blue-collar because he drives a pick up? What the hell. All smoke and mirrors. Love how people easily fall for this crap.
Quote
January 20, 2010, 4:58 amLG says:
She was basically dissing Schilling for supporting a Republican. Duh. But it was a very, very bad joke, one that would piss of voters.
Scott Brown is blue-collar because he drives a pick up? What the hell. All smoke and mirrors. Love how people easily fall for this crap.
Quote
January 20, 2010, 4:58 amzuch says:
Yes. But why should I care what you believe? More importantly, how is such germane to the discussion?
Cheers,
Quote
January 20, 2010, 3:18 pmzuch says:
You’re probably right, I’ll grant you that.
However, it would not be remarkable for someone to say, “I’ve had three children, one natural, and two adoptive....”
There is some uncertainty there, as well as the point that “single” and “not married” are not the same.
Cheers,
Quote
January 20, 2010, 3:23 pmShelbyC says:
Dunno. I was just trying to answer your question. Feel free to not care at all. I’m not sure I care what I believe on the subject. And I don’t think it’s germane to the descussion. As I keep saying, I’m not sure why folks like you and Brown’s questioner keep bringing it up.
Quote
January 20, 2010, 6:43 pmShelbyC says:
Now you’re suggesting that adoptive children are unnatural? Geez.
Quote
January 20, 2010, 6:47 pmneurodoc says:
I think it would be “remarkable.” Parturition isn’t something that goes on for very long. It happens at some point in time, then it is over. So, one might say that a woman “had” x number of children, meaning she delivered that number of children, but they wouldn’t say it meaning what you would have it mean for your purposes.
My wife delivered (her obstetrician assisted) two healthy babies, so it may be said she “had” them. Now, I can happily say we “have” children, because it is a continuing thing, and will be until such time as we or they die, hopefully the former coming long before the latter. Otherwise, one might ask, “Oh, you ‘had’ children, then what happened to them?”
Quote
January 21, 2010, 2:41 pm