Skip to comments.Candidates share views on Obama 'birther' movement [Kansas]
Posted on 08/01/2010 7:36:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There's been much in the news lately regarding the "birther movement," or more specifically, whether the Big First congressional candidates believe President Obama is a legitimate U.S. citizen.
The controversy began when the Hutchinson News withdrew their endorsement for Tracey Mann, following radio comments in which Mann said Obama "needs to come forth with his papers and show everyone that he is an American citizen."
The Hays Daily News asked all six Republican candidates to weigh in on the matter.
Here are their responses:
Jim Barnett: "First of all, there are many important issues facing our nation. When I see President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come up with policies like cap and trade, and cram Obamacare through, I wonder what planet they're coming from. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary that he is not a United States citizen."
Sue Boldra: "I guess since it is an issue, and because much of what has happened in Congress has been behind closed doors... maybe, just to quell everyone's controversy, perhaps he ought to just show it... I think it's a non-issue. When I was teaching government, that was one of the roles of the political party, was to make sure the candidates presented are acceptable and eligible. I assume during the vetting process he would have assured the party of that. I know that is a concern, and I certainly understand that is a concern. But on the other hand, I always felt too, that if his mother is a Kansan then he would be (a citizen) by original birth."
Marck Cobb: "I feel confident that both the party elements and also the government verified the requirements of office before permitting anyone to be sworn into office. Therefore, I do not question that issue. You can always add the caveat that if you have factual evidence that there is fraud committed, then certainly you're entitled to present that evidence and proceed with the legal routes, which would be impeachment, basically, if it can be confirmed. But I believe the government has done their duty to make sure they have met the requirements. I think the issue has been somewhat resolved. If I understand it, they've taken back their statement, which I think is an example of just being a little shallow and inexperienced. And you need to have the ability to have that strong voice with your background of experience if you're going to be able to convince others that you know what you're talking about."
Tim Huelskamp: "I believe Barack Obama is a citizen, and I oppose him on the basis of his liberal radical agenda. And we will take on his agenda and the agenda of Speaker Pelosi. I think it's a real non-issue and at this point that some candidates in this race want to focus on that instead of taking on his push on Obamacare and... another $10 trillion of debt the president is proposing, I think it's a distraction. I've heard them twice, both of them -- Tracey Mann and Sue Boldra -- both express concerns about the citizenship issue, and I think, again, that's a distraction... If they're going to focus on that, I think the bigger issues get lost."
Tracey Mann: "It's not an issue. We need to be focusing on Republicans taking control of the House so we can cut spending, create jobs, and get our country back on track. Those are the important issues we're facing right now."
Rob Wasinger: "I think, if you watch the video from the Elkhart forum, I was the only candidate that said that we need to keep our focus on fighting President Obama's socialized medicine, his cap and trade proposals, his new consumer financial protection reform bill that's the most sweeping financial reform legislation that has come before the Congress since the Great Depression. All of the other candidates, I think, thought that the birther question was a legitimate question. I do not think it is. We could spend two, three years fighting to see Obama's birth certificate, and be no further toward our goal. We've got to fight him on his agenda. I mean, I'm not happy about the fact that President Obama is the president, but he is. If he signs something, it becomes law and affects us. So we've got to fight him on the merits of his agenda and not waste our time on red herrings."
No, but isn't there some room for honesty on this subject? It is as though the long form is the birth certificate that shall not be named.
How about this as an answer to the question posed in the article:
"I think it is a good idea for states to require that future presidential candidates provide the best available documentation of their birth. That means a long form birth certificate, hospital records, and so on. The documentation should be provided before the primaries begin. "
And in response to the obvious follow-up by a liberal reporter,
"I think that Barack Obama is a United States citizen and is the legitimate President of the United States. "
Is there a serious downside to those responses?
I agree with you.
That is the way it should be handled!
Remember the word “statesman”?
Someone who puts principle before personal gain?
That’s what we need. Current politicians are slime lower than used car salesmen or pimps.
They’re disgusting thieves and they need all money cut just like a heroin addict needs to have his/her drugs cut off.
And for the politicians, no methadone. Cold turkey.
Thanks. I hope some states actually put such a requirement into effect, with "best available documentation" specifically defined. Without the "best available" stipulation, I bet Obama would just produce a COLB.
My guess is that Obama's long form and other birth documents show that his parents were not married, and at some point he calculated that revealing his illegitimate birth would limit his political future. But of course that is just a guess, and Americans should not have to guess about this subject.
Well, I see these candidates as falling for the ‘is he a citizen’ canard, rather than the real question, ‘is he a natural born citizen.’ So long as the question is about citizenship vs. natural born citizenship, the Constitutional requirement to serve as POTUS, the obfuscation serves Obama.
He could be a citizen, he could be a native born citizen, and still the question would remain: is he a natural born citizen?
How about this response:
There is little or no likelihood that any legislative or judicial body is going to overturn the last election so the prime focus of our campaign should be directed at his socialist agenda.
Nevertheless, a large number of people do have legitimate Constitutional concerns regarding an almost invisible man related to “official” birth records, citizenship, college data, transcripts, thesis, dissertations, et al that for unexplained reasons have not been made available and in fact legal blockades are in place to prevent access.
Media and democrats trying to demonize these concerns as racist or conspiracy theorists have done a poor and biased job of thoroughly researching the available concerns in the extreme depth necessary to prove or discount these concerns. Your demand for answers on this subject is autocratic and misguided, typical of today’s arrogant and biased media. If your newspaper is so shallow and unpricipled as to discount the concerns of a number of our citizens, then I don’t want or need your endorsement.
They still don't get it. The problem is "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".
That -— or his father was Frank Marshal Davis, the Communist!
That blows my theory. Could she have had a passport with Madelyn or her father? Minor children used to be included on their parents' passports. Perhaps we should be asking for the parents' travel records.
Way out in yonder land, someone or some people know the truth, question is, will they come forward??
Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies.
Nope. The '65 application is the one that was destroyed. The application revealed by the FOIA request was a '68 renewal, which means that the '65 application could not have been a renewal, as passports then were only valid for 3 years and could only be renewed once.
Isn’t that interesting. She says to notify Stanley Armour Dunham in case of her death or injury and lists his location as the Bank of Hawaii.
To my knowledge, her father never worked at the Bank of Hawaii. What does that mean? And she does not even list the relationship. THat’s very odd. If she wanted to give the Bank of Hawaii as their address, why not list her mother? Perhaps she and her mother did not get along at all. I can see how that could happen.
Thanks. As with everything about this odd family, it just gets curiouser and couriouser.
What's your point?
Well, franky, I don't see anyting odd here. She applied for a passport in 1965, then had it rewnewed in 1968. Why do you find that so curious?
Well done, Birther morons and thanks for handing the country back to her enemies."
Yeah, since the Constitution was written by Patriarchal, White, slave-owning men, it has no validity in the present day, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.