Why Congressional Republicans avoid the Obama Eligibility Issue

The Post & Email ^ | 5/2/2010 | John F. Sweeney

[Menehune56]

In discussions concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama II for the office of President of the United States, many point out that if there were a real issue, the Republicans would have leveraged it in 2008 to retain control of the White House. But it was well-documented at the time, and additional documentation and analysis have established, that John McCain’s eligibility was in question as well. With that being the case, why would the Republicans nominate a candidate who might not be constitutionally eligible to serve in the office?

The answer may be a simple one – the 2008 race was going to the Democrats and the Republicans did not want a leading candidate for 2012 to lose or be roughed up during the campaign. So the solution – let the man who needed to win in 2008, if he was ever going to be president, run – even if he might not be constitutionally eligible. Was this a grand conspiracy by the Republican Party? No, it was just simple pragmatic political strategy.

[Menehune56]

Subtitle: Did The Republican Party Purposely Allow An Ineligible Candidate To Run For President In 2008? Interesting explanation for why our leaders are trying not to see the emperor's new clothes

[RWGinger]

That theory is pure BS
Good Lord we are not that stupid

[traderrob6]

Indeed.

[GoMonster]

because it is stupid, started by democrat berg who is a nut, does not benefit politically....etc....etc.... etc....

[PackerBoy]

Riiiiiight. The eligibility of John McCain, born to his mother (a U.S. natural born citizen) while his father (a U.S. natural born citizen) was serving in the U.S. military, was in doubt. Riiiiight.

[MizSterious]

If true, treasonous.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Riiiiiight. The eligibility of John McCain, born to his mother (a U.S. natural born citizen) while his father (a U.S. natural born citizen) was serving in the U.S. military, was in doubt. Riiiiight.

You may not realize it... but that's the stance that some of the birthers (here on Free Republic) take on John McCain, that he was not qualified per the Constitution, just like Obama was not qualified per the Constitution.

I've had FReepers tell me that they refused to vote for John McCain because he was not qualified per the Constitution.

That's not my stance, as I did vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin ... :-)

I'm just letting you know that you've got a good number of Freepers here who say it also pertains to John McCain, so it's just not some nutty liberal group who may think so ...

[Kansas58]

There is NO QUESTION that John McCain meets the Constitutional requirements.

None at all!

[Kleon]

But it was well-documented at the time, and additional documentation and analysis have established, that John McCain’s eligibility was in question as well. With that being the case, why would the Republicans nominate a candidate who might not be constitutionally eligible to serve in the office?

They nominated him, because they knew those questioning his eligibility were wrong.

[layman]

a leading candidate for 2012

???? Really ? McCain ? Why not wait until he's ten years older ?

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

There is NO QUESTION that John McCain meets the Constitutional requirements.

As I was saying up above, you've got some of the FReepers (they're a "subset" of the birthers) who will argue strongly against you on that one.

The argument is not mine; I'm just saying there are FReepers who do maintain that and who refused to vote for John McCain on that basis, alone.

[Political Junkie Too]

Was the Republican Party aware of John McCain’s potential eligibility issue? Of course it was. The issue was written about by major news organizations – The New York Times, The Washington Post. They wrote about it in 1998. They again wrote about it in 2008. In February of 2008 the Panama issue was written about by these and other major news outlets. And unlike the mocking and sarcastic tone used when writing about Obama’s eligibility issues, these articles are written in serious journalistic fashion and raise the possibility of a constitutional crisis should McCain be elected.

-PJ

[ridesthemiles]

McCain’s eligibility is not now & has never been the issue.

The issue is the Kenyan.

[Uncle Chip]

There is NO QUESTION that John McCain meets the Constitutional requirements.

If that is so, then why did he press the Senate to put together something to declare him a "natural born citizen" before he declared his candidacy??????? There clearly were questions ---

[Las Vegas Ron]

It was Mc Cain who requested the Senate to clarify his eligibility?

I thought it was the dems who brought it up?

[dr_who]

Because they’re not that stupid and it’s a moot point anyway.

[Uncle Chip]

It was in the works for months. The date of passage of this SR511 is the date that his candidacy began to take off.

[Las Vegas Ron]

No kidding, the Constitution has been irrelevant for a long time, why should it matter now?

[MindBender26]

100 years ago, we all pitied the village idiot
50 years ago, we quoted him in newspapers anxious for more circulation
20 years ago we put his sound bites on TV
Now, he has a keyboard and website.

(And 18 months ago, we elected him Prezidet.)

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

You are both wrong.

McCain was born in Colon, Republic of Panama.

All of us kids who were born in the Canal Zone knew we could never run for president.

Worse, McCain was not only not born in the CZ, he was born in foreign country.

Where have you been hiding?

Were you born in the CZ and lived here? Obviously not. You have no idea about what you are talking.

You are embarrassingly misinformed.