Will birthers accept this???

So the question is, will birthers accept this or will they continue to make an issue out this and detract from relevant issues such as the President's poor leadership, liberal stances and wasteful spending?

House Speaker John Boehner says Americans have a right to think what they want to think, even when they're wrong about President Barack Obama's citizenship and his religion.

Some people believe that Obama, a native of Hawaii, was actually born outside the U.S. or in some other way is not a natural-born citizen eligible to be president. There is also a persistent belief among some that Obama, a Christian, is actually a Muslim.

When the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Boehner whether he, as speaker of the House, had a responsibility to "stand up to that kind of ignorance," Boehner told David Gregory: "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people."

Boehner continued: "Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word." He later called those "the facts" of Obama's background.

Gregory asked, "But that kind of ignorance, about whether he's a Muslim, doesn't concern you?"

"The American people have the right to think what they want to think," Boehner replied. "I can't — it's not my job to tell them."

Boehner denied that he is willing to let those misperceptions remain because they weaken and delegitimize Obama.

Source

As seen on Meet the Press

I sometimes wonder if birthers aren't downright encouraged by the left.

I think that's a very valid point SB. Team Obama certainly didn't mind playing the race card during both the primary and general election in 08 and I'm sure they won't mind pulling that card out again, along with the religion and birther issues. Anything to distract the voting public from the real issues. It's just sad that there are those on the right that take the bait.

SheikBen wrote:I sometimes wonder if birthers aren't downright encouraged by the left.

We could ask Keli here about that. He is the obsessed "birther" on this forum.

I am not saying that he does not have a birth certificate. I am just saying that he should present it. Why is that so hard to do? ( Does anybody remember how important it was to liberal ilk that Bush's Air Force Reserve meeting attendance record couldn't be found?)

No damnit, TH, you know very well your aren't supposed to remember such thing, ........... it just pisses people off.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:I sometimes wonder if birthers aren't downright encouraged by the left.

We could ask Keli here about that. He is the obsessed "birther" on this forum.

I don't know that Keli is obsessed, and he makes a good point about Bush's missing documents. Still, I think we on the right who wish Obama and his policies to go away from office do ourselves no favor by being distracted. As long as Obama can keep the conversation on his birth certificate rather than a failed stimulus abetting crippling debt, he will be happy and electable.

If the Republicans ever do some simple math and tell the people how much the new spending cost "per person," and ask if the people could have done a better job than government with this money, I think Obama will be a delightfully one term president.

Obama is a fog machine who can deny the obvious plausibly. When he offers to "freeze" spending at current levels they never imagine it is at wildly inflated levels. Thomas Sowell has a recent commentary decrying the failure of the republicans to articulate their message. I'm not sure if they have the will to run the country.

OC,

I think they will find the will, in no small part to the willingness of Republican primary voters to defeat them, shown in 2010.

ohio county wrote:Obama is a fog machine who can deny the obvious plausibly. When he offers to "freeze" spending at current levels they never imagine it is at wildly inflated levels. Thomas Sowell has a recent commentary decrying the failure of the republicans to articulate their message. I'm not sure if they have the will to run the country.

I would think by now you would understand that actually governing isn't what politics on either side is about. Be it democrat or republican, left or right, it is about obtaining and retaining office, i.e. power and control.

Obama isn't the only fog machine in Washington, most all of Capital Hill is. We live in a world of spin and lies. All of which are intended to do one thing get a person elected and keep them in office.

I'm curious OC, do you think there is a Republican out there that can beat President Obama and make him a one term President?

If I can have a crack at it. Mitt Romney, although far from my first choice, would beat Obama. I think Pawlenty and Huckabee would, also. I don't think Palin is electable but the more Obama does, the more electable Palin seems. I'd like to see Ron Paul, and I'll probably vote for him in the primaries, but he is too straight forward to defeat Obama. I'd like to see Marco Rubio get into the race, and I think he could hand Obama his lunch.

I'm not sure the far right of the party would support Romney SB. I think if he were to get the nomination, they would simply stay home and he's suffer the same fate Bob Dole did.

I belive moderates and independents already have questions about Huckabee and his association with Fox News only softened the support of those groups.

Pawlenty is the one candidate that peaks my interest although I must say that I liked the speech given by Rubio in his Senate victory last year. I think he could definately give President a run for his money.

Palin and Paul both have too much baggage and are unelectable, at least in my humble opinion.

What about DeMint? I sort of like him.

Pawlenty-Palin ........ 2012 winners

I don't know enough about Jim DeMint to say Stephanie. But I could see someone like that winning. If you remember, from 1991 to early 92, there were some national Democrats who wanted Jay to take a crack at the Presidency but he wanted to wait until 1996. At the time he felt Bush I was unbeatable in the same way many feel Obama is unbeatable today. And if you recall, Bush I, despite 70+% approval ratings after Desert Storm, his popularity quickly faded and the culprit was the economy so there is a precedent for The Great One losing.

Aaron, yes, although I don't know who he or she is at present.

Sheik, how can Romney plausibly present himself as a conservative alternative to Obama when he foisted the same mess on Massachusetts? I know the states have a little more leeway in this regard. But my point is, how can Romney present himself as the anti-Obama when he was in fact the pre-Obama?

Cato, yes, I know that republicans and democrats only want power. But I also think that the Tea Parties, among others, make plain that the people want ideological purity. Those of us who live within our means fully expect the government to do the same. That is powerful medicine. I have great hope for the country's future.

Marco Rubio, as the Sheik points out, is a huge story. He started the election cycle some 20 points behind Charlie Crist and came on so strong and sustained his onslaught that Crist changed parties to avoid the train wreck. I think Chris Christie might have a fighting chance. His willingness to speak frankly while an asset on the state level might doom him to also-ran status nationally. Maybe not. We'd have to give him a look. John Thune does nothing for me. He's photogenic. Depending on how things work out Scott Walker of Wisconsin may be a comer and who knows what John Kasich might be able to put together? Mitch Daniels is okay. Why couldn't he drive Bush to live within his means? Wasn't that part of his job? I wonder if the mere fact he worked for Bush wouldn't condemn him by guilt of association (and rightly so).

Congressman Alan West may be electable. I look for J. C. Watts to make some noise. I don't know anything good or bad about him. I liked him as a Congressman...

I just finished watching Chris Christie from New Jersey on Face the Nation. I don't know how a long campaign would go but from what I saw and what I've seen of Obama, I'd love to see the two in an open debate. I think Christie would wipe the carpet with Obama, teleprompter or no. First and foremost, he's open and honest and when you combine that with the fact that liberals have screwed the pooch on spending, making Reagan's and both Bush's budget deficits look like blips, I'm not so sure it would be a race.

ohio county wrote:Aaron, yes, although I don't know who he or she is at present.

Sheik, how can Romney plausibly present himself as a conservative alternative to Obama when he foisted the same mess on Massachusetts? I know the states have a little more leeway in this regard. But my point is, how can Romney present himself as the anti-Obama when he was in fact the pre-Obama?

Cato, yes, I know that republicans and democrats only want power. But I also think that the Tea Parties, among others, make plain that the people want ideological purity. Those of us who live within our means fully expect the government to do the same. That is powerful medicine. I have great hope for the country's future.

Hi OC,

Romney's mischief, though very real, was a state-level of mischief. I don't mind the states attempting to provide healthcare so that we can see the disaster that will likely result (or be proven happily wrong). You are quite correct, however, that Romney pulled the mandate crap long before Obama got it through the Senate by paying off Nelson and Landrieux, and that is an albatross if ever there was one. However, Romney has some very real world success in making wise fiscal decisions that would be a welcome antidote to the Marxists presently dreaming up another way to ruin the country.

All in all I like Rubio the best, both for his character (as far as I can tell), his policies, and the pragmatism of Republicans putting him up. It takes the race card off the table and puts an actual conservative up against an actual liberal, with the people being able to see the clear difference between them.

Hi, Sheik. I had the privilege of serving as a delegate to the WV Republican Convention in 2008. I went as an unannounced delegate for Ron Paul. I didn't think, frankly, I could get elected by explicitly endorsing Ron Paul. I still think he's the only statesman in the U.S. Congress (although DeMint is looking strong, as are a whole host of newcomers including but not limited to his own son).

Ron Paul had a rambling talk which I believe was his standard campaign talk. Romney ran over his allotted time and said, "Oh, well, I'm going to exceed my time." I didn't like that. You know who was the most polished speaker? Mike Huckabee. Yeah. He seemed as comfortable at the podium as if he was born for it. I cannot subscribe to his views and know his history sufficiently to deem him unacceptable. Nevertheless, I'd go see him speak again. He's pretty darn good. McCain sent a former governor from Louisiana who lorded their football superiority over the Mountaineers despite never having played us... I didn't like the son of a bitch. I'll be looking for him in Morgantown this fall...

We have a host of governors who are looking good. I see Haley Barbour mentioned prominently. I think that is a good thing. He has a good philosophical background and the practical experience to make a run. I saw something today while snooping around the Huffington Post that Gingrich is about to announce something.

Your point about the freedom to experiment at the state level is well-taken I agree. If we are going to do something like Obamacare, it would be better done at the state level. Even so, it has a certain odor about it...

I was there, as a volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign and heard all the speeches. I agree with Jim, by far Huckabee was the most at ease. It was like he was born to give speeches. That guy from LA was insulting, I thought.

I'll support Ron Paul again for 2012, should he choose to run and all indications are he will. I don't think he can win and that is our nation's loss.