L.A. Times: Transcripters Are the New Birthers on Obamas Records

In a Monday article, the Los Angeles Times postulated that “transcripters” will be the new “birthers,” now that the debate over the president’s birthplace has largely been laid to rest.

What exactly are these so-called “transcripters”?  As the word implies, it is seemingly anyone who is suspicious of the fact that the Obama’s transcripts have not been released.

The article explains:

What do these “transcripters” (if we may coin a phrase) hope to prove?

“We’re not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is,” says The Trenches, the website that posted the reward [for Obama's transcripts]…

That rationale may strike some as a little flimsy, given that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, taught constitutional law, has two bestselling books to his credit and is, at the moment, leader of the free world.

We do know a few things about the president’s college career.

In his new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,” David Maraniss quotes Obama as saying that his grade point average at Columbia was an impressive 3.7. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, which cannot happen with poor grades.

[...]

“I am not sure looking at 20-year-old Mitt Romney or Barack Obama at that granular level of detail would make a difference,” [Barmak Nasserian] said. “It’s kind of a stretch to say performance in a particular course, or that they took a course with a professed Marxist, or they studied Russian for heaven’s sakes, is going to be relevant or helpful to someone making up their mind.”

 

L.A. Times: Transcripters Are the New Birthers on Obamas Records

The L.A. Times credits Donald Trump with helping to launch the “movement,” after he said: “The word is, according to what I’ve read…that [Obama] was a terrible student when he went to Occidental. He then gets into Columbia; he then gets to Harvard. … 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.”

But is the L.A. Times really in a position to be condemning those seeking more information on the president, when they reportedly withheld a tape of him toasting Rashid Khalidi throughout the 2008 presidential campaign and beyond?

Furthermore, is being skeptical of the president’s birthplace, and being curious about his college years really comparable?

(H/T: Weasel Zippers)