Does anyone else wonder if the birthers were put down so harshly

[LiberalLoner]

at least in part because the top guys on the right-wing wanted the birtherism thing quashed before it hurt their political chances?

If the birther thing had still been useful for the right-wing, would the media have been allowed to make fun of it and speak out against it?

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but I've been wondering about this.

[gratuitous]

1. Except it wasn't put down harshly

It was carefully nurtured, brought along, tended and coached, until the proper time. Finally it had to be dealt with by no less than the President of the United States and a special effort by the Vital Records folks in Hawai'i. Yes, some Republicans made cluck-cluck noises about the unseemliness of it all, but not one of these distinguished gentlemen actually came out with a forceful denunciation of the sort you see when someone crosses them on something they care about (like tax cuts for the wealthy or repealing all regulations on business).

When it finally got dealt with, it was more akin to Atticus dealing with the mad dog in the middle of the street in "To Kill a Mockingbird." There may have been some fun made of the birfers, but certainly not enough since the last poll I saw showed that a large plurality, nearly a majority, of Republicans thought Obama had been born outside the United States. The issue was given so much room to maneuver, so much oxygen in the echo chamber, that credence was lent by the repetitiveness of it all. "They wouldn't keep talking about this if there wasn't something to it."

What I want to see now that the "long form" birth certificate has at long last been published, is every last Republican questioned on the issue. No waffling or equivocation: Will you denounce the birfers as the racists they are, or do you still have one foot in their camp?