This is a perfect example of how Republicans get shnookered by the "Someone wrote it down so it must be true" concept.
Ok, MrClose, I read the entire linked article. You actually quoted the "relevant" part in your OP, which was:
"However, the need arose when he became a presidential candidate. Since Eisenhower was the oldest man to be elected president since James Buchanan over 100 years earlier, age was obviously not at issue. Instead, there was protocol in place for presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot."
So I have some questions for you if you don't mind.
What evidence is there that "the need arose [for a birth certificate] when he became a presidential candidate? Are you, or the author of the article attempting to draw that conclusion based merely on the fact that he provided one?
"Since Eisenhower was the oldest man to be elected president since James Buchanan over 100 years earlier, age was obviously not at issue." Obvious to whom? Obvious how? What is the reason the author wishes to exclude age as the reason Eisenhower provided a birth certificate? What evidence is there to support his conclusion that "age was obviously not an issue"?
"Instead, there was protocol in place for presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot." What "protocol" would that be? Did the other candidates provide copies of their birth certificates? Where is the proof that there was any protocol of this sort? From whence did that alleged "protocol" arise? For what reason did that alleged "protocol" die off?
Do you get where I'm going with these questions?
You see, what the author did was, found a presidential candidate who coughed up a birth certificate at some earlier date, then made
a whoooooooooooole bunch of giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiant leaps of logic without a shred of evidence to support the conclusions he drew.
But he said there was a protocol in place, so you believe there was a protocol in place. It doesn't even
occur to you to question the author of this piece.
Why? Because it fits your political agenda, that's why. And that's the
only reason why.
You would do yourself a huge service, regardless as to whether it changes your political philosophies or not, to learn how to read an article with an eye towards these types of omissions and baseless conclusions. You'll end up more educated, and either way, that's always a better thing to be.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
