Poll: Romney least favorite Republican candidate among Birthers

posted at 8:30 pm on August 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

Dumb yet fascinating. Obama’s birth certificate won’t be an issue in the primaries (let’s hope) so how the big three rank is unimportant — unless Birtherism is actually a proxy for other political dynamics, in which case this becomes an interesting little data point. But if it’s a proxy, what’s it a proxy for? Level of education? Regional identification? Something else? My hunch is that the further right you go, the more Birther-y you get, not because you’re any more credulous on the merits of the birth-certificate argument but because the more adamant your opposition to Obama’s agenda, the more desperately you want him out of office. PPP comes to a similar conclusion:

Not surprisingly only 16% of [Birthers] approve of Obama’s job performance while 75% disapprove. I think Mike Littwin might have hit on a pretty good point in the Denver Post today, which is that some of the people who purport to be birthers might not really believe it but that it’s shorthand for their general unhappiness with the President.

Romney’s favorability among the group tops out at just 43 percent compared to 57 percent approval among non-Birthers. That’s the biggest spread of any of the four candidates mentioned in the poll (Mitt, Huck, Palin, Gingrich), and big enough that PPP declares, “I mean this with all sincerity — Romney’s lack of popularity with the birther wing of the GOP really could scuttle his chances at the nomination in three years.” Sounds nutty, but if Birthers are a proxy for “true conservatives” — i.e. southern, populist, fiscally and socially conservative — then yeah, he’s got problems. In fact, Huckabee and Palin outpoll him among Birthers and non-Birthers alike.

For the record, and further to my theory, the ideological split among Birthers is 69 percent conservative and 30 percent moderate versus 46/53 among non-Birthers. Oh, and as for who tops the field among Birthers: Guess. Exit stat: “63% of all Americans with a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin are birthers. Same thing with 53% of those who like Gingrich, 50% who view Huckabee positively, and 44% for Romney.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The bottom line is Romneys a flip flopper ,BIG TIME.The libs would have a field day putting side by side videos of mitt on(something the MSM has forgotten how to do recently,but will,o yeah!,remember how to do should mitt become the nominee)Until you hold the media accountable,you wont get anywhere.

theTarCzar on August 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Nah, the whole birther issue exposes the white house’s “Carville Strategy” and it will sink them just as surely at it eventually sank Clinton.

The Birther angle is just the most recent of DISASTROUS applications of this strategy. It kinda works like this:

Carville, Begala and Emmanuel have their morning teleconference wherein they pore over recent polls and discuss their strategy. They’re very meticulous about this process and its intent is develop a strong “pushback” strategy meant to hone their talking points in a way that exploits weaknesses in the opposition’s polling numbers.

They do this by isolating “high negatives” and coordinating all their high-availability speakers to push hard on that avenue for the next few news cycles.

Unfortunately, this approach has utterly failed so far in this administration. You saw this methodology in use when they needled Rush Limbaugh earlier this year. Then Bush. Then Palin. Then Bush again. And now birthers. They found out that Palin had “high negatives” and they all pile on that talking point for the next couple days.

When they pushed back on Rush it gave him the largest ratings boost in the last decade. When they pushed their “blame bush” campaign they found themselves unable to contend with a p!ssed-off Cheney.

And now, after they decided they should conflate the “birthers” with the uprising of townhall protestors and openly ridicule genuinely concerned citizens, they get to watch Obama’s signature policy agenda go down in flames.

Khorum on August 21, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Will the birthers vote for Romney if he’s nominated in order to toss out Obama? What was that? Hell yes? Good. Good birthers. Moving on.

Rational Thought on August 21, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Documentation is needed for verification of whatever the requirements are. The Precedent presented no documentation to anyone.

Obama presented his COLB. At least the State of Hawaii and his team allege this. Those two parties deemed it good enough for proper verification. There are people who claim his COLB a fraud or forgery and that is a criminal issue. There are some others who claim this documentation is not valid in and of itself. The Constitution has no enumeration in dealing with and beyond those points.

This is obvious, since not a person on Earth can even say what hospital he was born in, as he has claimed two different hospitals, himself.

He is also on record stating that the marches in Selma helped bring his parents together to ‘make’ Barack Obama Jr…4 years after his birth. He’s a liar, an idiot, and has a propensity to say anything to anybody. Whatever he says about his birth is not a legal or Constitutional matter either.

And then they try and get all condescending in their total ignorance, which is too funny.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM

No condescention here.

anuts on August 21, 2009 at 9:30 PM

So oft in constitutional wars
The disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean
And speculate about so many things
Not one of them has ever been allowed to have seen!

Cheshire Cat on August 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM

Conservatives should be more concerned about supporting policy instead of politicians. No matter who the Republicans nominate, s/he will be for lower taxes, limited government, and judicial restraint far more than Obama. That’s just a simple fact.

JohnJ on August 21, 2009 at 9:35 PM

anuts on August 21, 2009 at 9:30 PM

BHO has presented nothing. Having images pop up on Kos one night, and later examined by one or two people for 12 minutes is meaningless. He has never had his Presidential eligibility verified by anyone. That is a fact. I like the way you just brush aside the fact that no one knows what hospital the guy was born at. I mean, really.

Lastly, the reason he is ineligible has nothing to do with where he was born but because he held other citizenships. End of story. But the SCOTUS has to rule on that. Anyone who doesn’t want this to be heard and ruled on, because they are embarrassed or scared of riots, is flushing this nation down the toilet.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM

SECOND LOOK AT ROMNEY

Good Lt on August 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Palin/Mitt well now we know who will be on top of the ticket GRIN.

Romney has run a business and a state he is a rainmaker he belongs in the running for 2012. He also has a sense of humor and can joke around this birther topic without alienating birthers. He can make jokes about his own birth that it was recorded and he can prove it and that he is in fact not another messiah :) People like a relaxed politician with a sense of humor.

Dr Evil on August 21, 2009 at 9:41 PM

I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I know nothing. I was not there. I did not even get up the day that Barack Obama was born. I could not have seen over all those Elephants anyway.

OberfeldwebelSchultz on August 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM

The Birth Certificate issue, and support/lack of support for the Posey Bill WILL BE AN ISSUE IN THE GOP PRIMARY!

I am both a very proud “Birther,” and a Mitt Romney supporter. I’ll be very dissapointed in Mitt, if he doesn’t at least comit to raising the issue, ever so lightly during the general.

Eric @ Libertarian Republican

ericdondero on August 21, 2009 at 9:44 PM

I’m not a Birther and he’s crapola to me too.

Jeff from WI on August 21, 2009 at 9:45 PM

I’m not a “birther” and if Romney is the nominee I’m out.

tetriskid on August 21, 2009 at 9:47 PM

The issue with Romney isn’t limited to “Birthers”. I’m not one and frankly I can’t get excited about Romney, as a president. I would love to have him maybe in the cabinet handling the economy. But not as President. One of the reasons is he is not a conservative, or really a constitutionalist. Actually, he is more left than center and seems comfortable with it. For example, I heard him the other day on Sean trying to justify his universal care program in Mass. He just “clucked clucked” at the question of whether or not the plan was working as it should. Sean was soft balling the question and Romney, instead of answering it, stepped to the side.

Not the first time I’ve seen him do this. Nice guy, professional politician, but more a stealth liberal than our nation will be able to take in four years. What we will need is a hard right turn and a major transfusion to recover from Obama.

archer52 on August 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM

BHO has presented nothing.

The State of Hawaii disagrees.

I like the way you just brush aside the fact that no one knows what hospital the guy was born at. I mean, really.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Actually, it was about his own words on the hospital in question. The claim that no one can say is different than what you or I have heard (or not heard as the case may be). It is that what I believe to be completely meaningless in any legal or Constitutional sense.

anuts on August 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Birthers are no different than the Second String Code Pinkers. If you are a Birther, you’re a wackjob. If your favorite radio host is promulgating this crap, it’s to get you to listen.

AYNBLAND on August 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM

If I hadn’t seen him first hand as my Governor that might be a big incentive to vote for him.

Unfortunately for Mitt I live in Massachusetts and know better.

petertheslow on August 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM

No Romney/No Rinos and you on the Vichy Right can suck on it!

Blake on August 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM

I’m waiting to hear from some lady: “I don’t know if I know his views but I’d support him because he’s so dreamy”

Jeff from WI on August 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Birthers are no different than the Second String Code Pinkers. If you are a Birther, you’re a wackjob. If your favorite radio host is promulgating this crap, it’s to get you to listen.

AYNBLAND on August 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Really? That bad? Birthers are questioning the patriotism of all who don’t think as they do? Birthers are protesting the military during a time of war? Birthers are actively working to undermine the war effort? Birthers are standing up in Congress and disrupting committee meetings and being thrown out of such meetings?

It’s fine to think Birthers are wrong (even though no one can provide one shred of evidence where Obama was born other than an obscure news paper reporting the birth, which even didn’t mention the hopsital). But comparing them to Code Pink is way over the top. Kind of like Pelosi comparing peaceful citizens redressing greivances with their government as Nazi’s.

Hog Wild on August 21, 2009 at 10:23 PM

No Romney and No Huck either. Neither are fiscally and socially conservative. I like Palin, but I’d rather see someone else step into the race for 2012. Of course it’s a ways off so there’s time, let’s win some seats in 2010 first.

LtBarnwell02 on August 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Nah, the whole birther issue exposes the white house’s “Carville Strategy” and it will sink them just as surely at it eventually sank Clinton.

The Birther angle is just the most recent of DISASTROUS applications of this strategy. It kinda works like this:

Carville, Begala and Emmanuel have their morning teleconference wherein they pore over recent polls and discuss their strategy. They’re very meticulous about this process and its intent is develop a strong “pushback” strategy meant to hone their talking points in a way that exploits weaknesses in the opposition’s polling numbers.

They do this by isolating “high negatives” and coordinating all their high-availability speakers to push hard on that avenue for the next few news cycles.

Unfortunately, this approach has utterly failed so far in this administration. You saw this methodology in use when they needled Rush Limbaugh earlier this year. Then Bush. Then Palin. Then Bush again. And now birthers. They found out that Palin had “high negatives” and they all pile on that talking point for the next couple days.

When they pushed back on Rush it gave him the largest ratings boost in the last decade. When they pushed their “blame bush” campaign they found themselves unable to contend with a p!ssed-off Cheney.

And now, after they decided they should conflate the “birthers” with the uprising of townhall protestors and openly ridicule genuinely concerned citizens, they get to watch Obama’s signature policy agenda go down in flames.

Khorum on August 21, 2009 at 9:25 PM

You have a keen mind my friend. I bookmarked your blog. Very stimulating and insightful.

Geochelone on August 21, 2009 at 10:27 PM

The bottom line is Romneys a flip flopper ,BIG TIME.The libs would have a field day putting side by side videos of mitt on(something the MSM has forgotten how to do recently,but will,o yeah!,remember how to do should mitt become the nominee)Until you hold the media accountable,you wont get anywhere.

theTarCzar on August 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM

You mean like flip flopping on raising taxes and college tuition for illegals in the middle of the election cycle ala Huckabee? All politicians have changed position chief. However the MSM will only exploit that narrative on that republicans who are threats.

Kataklysmic on August 21, 2009 at 10:31 PM

16% of [Birthers] approve of Obama’s job performance

He’s doing a pretty good job.

For a friggin’ KENYAN.

BIRTHER FAIL!!!

Rhinoboy on August 21, 2009 at 10:40 PM

If Obama’s records are released someday at it proves birthers/nbc folks right will we have posters say they were secret birthers just like we found out that many conservatives/libertarians shop at Whole Foods even though before the Glenn Beck brouhaha it was despised and ridiculed by conservative thinkers for its liberal health policy and high prices and the “myth” of organic food? Hmmmm. I wonder.

journeyintothewhirlwind on August 21, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Mitt Romney’s a smart, articulate, decent man who will make a fine vice president.

Harpazo on August 21, 2009 at 10:42 PM

In fact, Huckabee and Palin outpoll him among Birthers and non-Birthers alike.

Key point right there. Doesn’t matter what type of Republican you are (Birther, Anti-Birther, Lizard people); nobody likes Romney. He has no chance in 2012.

Norwegian on August 21, 2009 at 10:44 PM

unless Birtherism is actually a proxy for other political dynamics, in which case this becomes an interesting little data point.
+++++++++++++++
What in God’s name is so freaking hard to understand about CONSTITUTIONAL requirements, AP? Unless those don’t matter to you, either…? Oh, pardon me, I said “God”

fabrexe on August 21, 2009 at 10:49 PM

People who don’t have a clue about the Constitution are embarrassing. The Vichy Right are embarrassing.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM

lulz. the letter orf the consttution doesn’t define natural born.

birthers have made up their own orthodoxy in this.

the supreme court has affirmed over and over again that “natural born” means anyone born anywhere to at least one american parent.

eh on August 21, 2009 at 10:55 PM

the palinstinians are trying to destroy conservatism.

eh on August 21, 2009 at 10:56 PM

What about Birthers who shop at Whole Foods, what about them? No one cares about them it seems.

How about Single Mother Birhter’s who watch The View and follow MeeAgain McCain of Twitter. Where do they come down on Romney? Don’t they count, they need to be heard and not marginalized.

How about lesbian mud wrestlers who are pro Union, pro Birther but anti Death Panel? Their votes count just as much as ours. Don’t they?

We need mooooore polling Data.

Geochelone on August 21, 2009 at 10:56 PM

I don’t think the birthers even have a decent argument at this point. The supreme court, neither houses will even look at that issue. If push really came to bloody shove and zero wasn’t born in the USA, he’d just have a certificate made. How would they argue against that. It’s a dead issue.

What’s more important is the Indonesia issue. Thanks to his mother and step father he had to give gain Indonesian citizenship to be able to attend that fancy madrassa (sp) he went to. He never, at least there is no record of it, regained his citizenship by renouncing Indonesian citizenship and retaking the oath. He still is a dual citizen, and ineligible to be president.

But that hardly freakin matters now either, does it.

Most importantly he is a socialist fascist who has already walked all over the constitution. If any of these bills get passed, I am hoping someone will sue the government on the constitutionality of these bills.

Nobody seems to be willing to actually take this fight to his doorstep though…it leaves me scratching my head.

Spiritk9 on August 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM

My hunch is that the further right you go, the more Birther-y you get, not because you’re any more credulous on the merits of the birth-certificate argument but because the more adamant your opposition to Obama’s agenda, the more desperately you want him out of office.

I don’t buy this. While being further to the right may make it more likely that one buys into the ridiculous Birther nonsense, most conservatives adamantly opposed to Obama’s agenda want nothing to do with the Birther loons.

I wasn’t a fan of Romney as I wasn’t convinced his core principles (if indeed he has any) were conservative. Hopefully, any and all Republican candidates will write off the concerns of the tinfoil hat Birther crowd.

Hollowpoint on August 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Palin/Romney ’12 = Reagan/Bush ’80

The bringing together of the base & the elites.

A match made in Iowa.

portlandon on August 21, 2009 at 11:03 PM

the supreme court has affirmed over and over again that “natural born” means anyone born anywhere to at least one american parent.

eh on August 21, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Get a brain. The SCOTUS has never ruled on the operational meaning of natural born citizen. Either you are just a moron and don’t know the truth, or you are a liar and think that you can get away with such stupidity.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Aren’t there some state legislatures that are pushing to change the info ie make it the long form BC that a candidate must show in order to be put on the ballot? That would look kinda weird if Obama is on all but a couple of state’s ballots.

I can wait til 2012. Until then I will fight the Health Care/ Cap and Trade/ and any other liberal initiative he proposes. I cleaned up my Facebook page the other day- 350 posts on political issues. 1 on the birth certificate.

journeyintothewhirlwind on August 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM

I refuse to read the linked article; I’m not reading the comments. That headline is pretty much gold standard AllahPundit:

“Romney least favorite Republican candidate among Birthers”

If the logical conclusion of this is not immediately obvious, then you haven’t been reading HotAir long enough.

notropis on August 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM

JohnJ on August 21, 2009 at 9:35 PM

We need more than a squishy rino like Huckabee or Romney at this crucial time to push back all the damage done by the last three administrations. I really think Sarah Palin is the one for that job!

sonnyspats1 on August 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM

My hunch is that the further right you go, the more Birther-y you get, not because you’re any more credulous on the merits of the birth-certificate argument but because the more adamant your opposition to Obama’s agenda, the more desperately you want him out of office

Incorrect! As you know I am a total right-wing un-American fascist tool and think that Birthers are f**kin’ wackos.

Look, let’s talk about what’s really important… Allah have you pre-ordered Rock Band: The Beatles yet? I’m practicing the harmony parts for “Taxman” and “Paperback Writer” in the car every commute in preparation of playing online.

See you at Shea Stadium? Well, unless you bought the Wii, ya big sissy.

ScottMcC on August 21, 2009 at 11:58 PM

What about pro-NRA Gay Hermaphroditic Birthers? Romney needs to reach out and come to understand the issues facing pro-NRA Gay Hermaphroditic Birthers if he is to win over the American people.

Geochelone on August 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Does anyone recall a group surveying the truthers? Neither do I.

mizflame98 on August 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM

tetriskid on August 21, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Agreed.

pannw on August 22, 2009 at 12:31 AM

I really really like Romney. I think he would have been the best man to lead during this economic downturn.

He is the candidate I like the most right now for 2012. Oh, and I dont consider myself a birther, but very strong Republican.

WyoMike on August 22, 2009 at 12:32 AM

One of the problems you have with making fun of birthers is explaining why Obama (or his proxies) have spent OVER 1 MILLION DOLLARS in fighting releasing his long form birth certificate in the courts. It gives rise and credence to those who believe he was born in Kenya, or that there is something fishy…after all, you have to show your birth certificate to prove your identity in multiple scenarios in the US (I had to show my daughter’s to prove her eligibility to swim competitively).

Actually, I think Obama has fought the release because most birth certificates have a space for “religious preference” or “religious affiliation”…and his, due to his father, probably shows “Islam”.

ElvenPhoenix on August 22, 2009 at 1:00 AM

Proud Romney supporter here. He’d make a great POTUS.

therightwinger on August 22, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Poll: Romney least favorite Republican candidate among Birthers

Mitt should wear this as a badge of honor.

hicsuget on August 22, 2009 at 1:34 AM

As you know I am a total right-wing un-American fascist tool and think that Birthers are f**kin’ wackos.

ScottMcC on August 21, 2009 at 11:58 PM

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Schopenhauer

MB4 on August 22, 2009 at 1:44 AM

I don’t think the birthers even have a decent argument at this point. The supreme court, neither houses will even look at that issue. If push really came to bloody shove and zero wasn’t born in the USA, he’d just have a certificate made. How would they argue against that. It’s a dead issue.

Spiritk9 on August 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM

A valid point, and would probably turn out to be true. Not just the BC, but the College Records and everything else that is Top Secret about his life that we as American citizens are unworthy of being privvy to. Isn’t that a problem?

But the beauty of our country, we can ask. Any Russian citizens ask Lenin anything? Saddam? Was he prone to taking questions?

Here’s what Birthers do for the future of this country. The next Republican politician in a tough race who thinks he may be facing a ineligible opponent can make public all his documents and challenge his Democrat opponent to do the same.

I asked a question some time back, that went unanswered. Who verifies that a candidate is eligible to run? The party? The U.S. government? I don’t know the answer. Say Obama was not eligible, would the DNC say so?

I think the Repbulican’s hold an advantage if such a situation came up. I would hope the RNC would not verify a candidate who didn’t meet Constitutional requirements, and if they did I would need to find another party. The DNC? The last 7 months have shown us in no uncertain terms the foolish decisions they are capable of when allowed to go unchecked.

If the Birther movement does nothing more than require all future Presidents of the U.S. to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (which would be an original birth certificate that specifies place of birth), then they did this country a service.

Hog Wild on August 22, 2009 at 1:50 AM

“knucklehead birther” here.

You fight with everything you have…these people on the Left don’t play nice in case you haven’t noticed.

But, if you’re afraid of the MSM and the Libtards making fun of you then I understand. Here’s a newsflash: They hate you whether you’re a ‘birther’ or not if you’re a conservative. Think they’ll let you through the door of one of their Libtard get-togethers in Manhattan if you say, “Oh, I’m not a birther!”?

Still trying to figure exactly who the anti-birthers are trying to impress with their superior above the fray attitude?

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 22, 2009 at 2:14 AM

The vast majority of voters are somewhere around the center right of the political spectrum. The extremists on either end will not be deciding the next election. This little statistic is irrelevant for Romney. When it’s Romney vs. Obama the birthers will make the right choice (if not, they will get what they deserve).

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM

You don’t suppose it might be a proxy for … transparency … do you?

njcommuter on August 22, 2009 at 2:25 AM

Adamsmith, while I respect your thinking, a vote for a thrid party, with the exception of maybe Palin, is a vote for Obama. ..

I’m a full on long time Palinista. Was following her from the time she first took office. And even I would have to do some soul searching if she went 3rd party. (which I doubt she would)

The thing to to, is take the Republican party back. It’s not dead, but it’s in bad shape. We can’t afford to throw away “protest votes” this time around. Not a single one.

This is too critical.

gary4205 on August 22, 2009 at 2:26 AM

I see Birthers as being unable to prioritize winning strategies in a smart and savvy manner. While I may be just as suspicious of Obama’s constitutional legitimacy to serve as POTUS, it became readily evident quite quickly that this line of attack was not going to be the #1 strategy in bringing Obama down. It might be #4 or 5 on the list of more pragmatic conservatives, so we don’t waste our time on that issue as much as trying to stop of the government takeover of the health care system and the creep of socialism.

Likewise, Birthers are unable to prioritize winning candidates in the general election as opposed to the primaries. While Palin very likely could win the nomination, Romney supporters see him as the candidate most likely to win in the general election attracting the most indies and moderates away from Obama. I love Palin as much as any Birther, but if she cannot win the general, why bang our heads against the wall for no reason?

I see these people self-identifying as Birthers as headstrong, stubborn and passionate, but not necessarily smart & savvy. Something about choosing your battles wisely is lost on them….I am reminded of Sun Tsu’s Art of War where he advised us to “choose your battles wisely” and “do not fight battles you cannot win.”

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 2:36 AM

No Romney, No Huckabee, no other RINO loser.

We need TWO solid card carrying Ronald Reagan conservatives. That means Sarah Palin, and whoever she picks as VP.

Reagan did wonders, but by having a “forced marriage” with Bush 41, who messed up, we got 8 years of Clinton. and now almost all of the great things Reagan did have been undone.

We know Palin will win 2 terms, that’s a given. But her VP needs to be someone who can win 2 terms as well. It will take 16 years to fix what 4 years of Obama has caused.

We don’t have time to screw around with “moderates.”

Obama will not win reelection no matter what. So we might as well get some serious conservatives in place to tear down the communist machine. Palin can dismantle much of Government with the right team. And that’s a good thing!

No more arranged marriages to pander to some group. Run strong conservatives only.

gary4205 on August 22, 2009 at 2:38 AM

He’s a mormon RINO.

Put a fork in him already – he’s done.

Anders on August 22, 2009 at 2:46 AM

I don’t see Palin as a Ronald Reagan conservative. She’s more of a Teddy Roosevelt populist with her railing against the oil companies in Alaska and the Wall Street types during the election, as well as her commitment to raise government spending for special needs children and a pathway to citizenship for the illegals etc…. I love Teddy too. I know many conservatives don’t like Teddy all that much, but I do. Given all that, I am surprised Sarah’s negatives are so high with moderates and indies.

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 2:48 AM

As a very strong conservative, some of you disappoint me in not learning lessons from the past. We are in the mess currently because of many “conservatives” in our party decided that they would never vote for Romney which gave us McCain and the rest is history. What was very saddening is that many people wanted to vote for Romney but because of the Huckabee/McCain tag-team fiasco last year we didn’t get the opportunity to vote for our guy. The man who would have never allowed our country to be in the debt it is in currently!
Wake up conservatives and quit buying into the media spin about Romney! Gov Romney would make an excellent conservative president and these flip-flops have been covered over and over and over. Mitt flipped over to the conservative side he never flopped back! Isn’t this what we would want any other person to do in our party?? AMAZING some of the thinking in our party!! As a three-time Iraqi vet and Arizonan I am happy to vote for Romney in 2012!! Get behind the only guy in 2012 that will be able to beat the Obama machine and has the economic sense to pull us back out of the mess Obama has created.

g2825m on August 22, 2009 at 2:52 AM

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Schopenhauer

MB4 on August 22, 2009 at 1:44 AM

There you go again, unquestioningly accepting Schopenhauer’s Law about Truth.

Loxodonta on August 22, 2009 at 2:58 AM

Romney would make an amazing President!

scotash on August 22, 2009 at 3:00 AM

While I may be just as suspicious of Obama’s constitutional legitimacy to serve as POTUS, it became readily evident quite quickly that this line of attack was not going to be the #1 strategy in bringing Obama down. It might be #4 or 5 on the list of more pragmatic conservatives, so we don’t waste our time on that issue as much as trying to stop of the government takeover of the health care system and the creep of socialism.

But, you say it, yourself right here. The eligibility problem is a question of Constitutionality. So is the health care issue. They are the same. What does the Constitution say about them and how we must follow those laws. The line against health care is really not about cost or socialism or anything of the sort. The real argument against the health care expansion of the federal government is to be found in the un-Constitutionality of it. Arguments about socialism and cost and other issues are for the state level, where health care belongs. To make any of those arguments, or even address the other side’s opposite claims along those lines is to pre-emptively forfeit the un-Constitutionality of the whole arrangement. That is wrong and a losing strategy.

Likewise, Birthers are unable to prioritize winning candidates in the general election as opposed to the primaries.

I’m not sure what this means. This Romney poll is horsesh!t and totally meaningless.

While Palin very likely could win the nomination, Romney supporters see him as the candidate most likely to win in the general election attracting the most indies and moderates away from Obama.

No one has any idea who is going to have the best chance in 2012. We’ll be lucky to make it there.

I love Palin as much as any Birther, but if she cannot win the general, why bang our heads against the wall for no reason?

What makes you think she’s even going to run?

I see these people self-identifying as Birthers as headstrong, stubborn and passionate, but not necessarily smart & savvy.

Au contraire. The only smart path is to stick to the Constitution as closely as possible, as it is under withering assault, right now.

Something about choosing your battles wisely is lost on them….I am reminded of Sun Tsu’s Art of War where he advised us to “choose your battles wisely” and “do not fight battles you cannot win.”

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 2:36 AM

People are scared that the questioners of The Precedent’s eligibility are going to win. That’s what scares them the most, which is why we saw articles such as, “So What if The Precedent Was Born in Kenya?” – when a Kenyan birth isn’t even close to the meat of the argument.

Anyone who thinks that the Founders intended for someone holding 47 different citizenships to be eligible for the Presidency just isn’t thinking straight. And if that is not allowed, then the moment one gains a different citizenship, he loses natural born status, if he had it, never to regain it, again. That is the only logical interpretation of the Founders’ clause, “natural born citizen”. John Jay was very clear why he wanted that clause put in the Constitution, as he wrote in his July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Now, the foreigners he was referring to, here, obviously were not non-citizens, but US citizens who had held some other citizenship in their lives and brought with them a foreign influence. No one can claim that Jay would have allowed for someone who held multiple citizenships not to be considered in this group to be kept away from the Presidency. That is clear.

But people are scared of the reaction to enforcing the Constitutional restrictions, especially as they have actively been trying to ignore this situation since it first popped up way back in the campaign, and should have been dealt with. Because people have been giving ridiculous passes on this, all questions of this sort of Constitutionality easily skate by without a peep, meaning that the power of the federal government has become unlimited. That is what must be stopped.

You have to understand that when the left talks about the Constitution, they only mean a little part of it, those chosen, few rights they love that appear in the Bill of Rights and amendments – with a few made-up ones, too. The left never bothers addressing any other parts of the Constitution, certainly not the main body which is the real architectural plan that defines our federal government. This is why The Precedent claimed that the Constitution is “a charter of negative liberties”, because he was only thinking of a few of the amendments and the “equal protection” clause. He wasn’t considering any other parts, as is typical for lefties. But the real essence of the Constitution is not in the Bill of Rights or the amendments, it is in the main part of the document, which is where the eligibility issue appears and where the un-Constitutionality of the left’s health care plans reside. That is where the battle is – in trying to defend the relevance and rule of the main body of the US Constitution.

progressoverpeace on August 22, 2009 at 3:12 AM

If Romney decides to run, he’ll be the Republican nominee and rightfully so. He’s has the most going for him to win in the general election against Obama. Romney is the GOP’s most erudite candidate and our best chance to take on Obama’s massive ego (which will be even more massive with three more years as POTUS under his belt) and all of his failed policies.

Sarah (love her) proved to be weak in both interviews and debates. She has no chance up against Obama. Strategically, she’s be better off becoming the next media tsar ala Oprah and playing king maker for the GOP.

Huckabee in the debates was just a wingman for McCain against Romney. The combo of his appearance and folksy zingers, it’ll look like the GOP is running Gomer Pyle up against Obama. And let’s face it, Huckabee will bring up Mitt’s religion to garner votes…..he won’t be able to help himself……he’ll do it. This will only help the far left Democrats continue to label the Republicans the party of bigots……and Mike Huckabee would give them a face to go with the offense. Not the kind of thing that wins elections.

Gingrich…..brilliant, probably the only guy who’s as smart as Romney. Though he has a tendency to go too far to the right. His recent “she’s a racist” remark regarding Sonja Sortamoyer was offensive. Potential POTUS candidates should never, ever sound like conservative radio talk show hosts. As much as I love Rush, Sean, Mark, etc that kind of speaking style isn’t right for the presidency….it’s a loser.

The GOP’s best ticket, IMHO, to run against Obama/Biden in 2012 is Romney/Jindal. Both are good solid conservatives, accomplished men who are wicked smart and geographically they make a good team.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 5:04 AM

BTW, didn’t the birther movement start with the irate Hillary voters anyway?

How did the GOP let the birther buffonary seep in from that “hell hath no fury” crowd from Clinton’s camp.

I for one am glad they don’t like Romney, I’d hate to think I have anything in common with them.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 5:14 AM

Re archer52 on August 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM:

Agreed.

It is too early to say about 2012. The GOP may need a Commander in Chief candidate. Romney’s strength in the economy, not military matters, foreign policy and national security. He waffled on Iraq.

Phil Byler on August 22, 2009 at 6:02 AM

The SCOTUS has never ruled on the operational meaning of natural born citizen.

progressoverpeace on August 21, 2009 at 11:08 PM

But they have made eliminations.

SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 83 U. S. 36 (1872)

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Buddahpundit on August 22, 2009 at 6:55 AM

I love it when the Constitution gets in the way of an argument. So obvious, yet seems to make people’s heads explode on both sides of the aisle.
Go Sarah!

BetseyRoss on August 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Okay, he is last among the birthers. But what about those of us who have a BRAIN?

Romney/Palin 2012

DuctTapeMyBrain on August 22, 2009 at 9:42 AM

But if it’s a proxy, what’s it a proxy for? Level of education? Regional identification? Something else? My hunch is that the further right you go, the more Birther-y you get, not because you’re any more credulous on the merits of the birth-certificate argument but because the more adamant your opposition to Obama’s agenda, the more desperately you want him out of office.

You’re way over-analyzing this, AP, just way over-analyzing the entire issue. It’s about and only about a guy who likely has lied his way into the Oval Office, and a political party who made that possible.

As an American, I don’t like that. I wouldn’t like it, regardless of what Obama was doing, but that he’s doing very bad things in combination with having already, likely, already done a monstrously bad thing (lying his way into the Oval Office), well, those are additional things (what he’s doing after lying his way into office).

My conclusion about all of you who fan the flames of the “Birthers” meme (“they’re subhuman weirdos who hate Meaghan McCain or won’t get off Glenn Beck’s phone” or something similar) is that it’s your weird form of Non-Birther fun.

Otherwise, the issue would have gone away by now as to using “Birthers” to bash and ridicule while, interesting enough, no one among the bashers ever has a reasonable argument to establish that Obama has NOT lied his way into the Oval Office. Even among Democrats, that’s an indication that you’ve lost the argument.

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM

And I’ve concluded, after last Election’s blood sport among the GOP as to candidates, that I’m not going to participate in either hawking or defending any GOP candidate. Let them do that for themselves or not be a candidate, because by all these factions going “go Who” here and there and whatnot, it just creates animosity and infighting. If a candidate — any candidate — can’t promote his or her self well enough on issues, then they should not be a candidate eventually.

I would really like to see more people among the Right lay down the infighting and the knocking of Personality One versus Personality Two or whatever, whoever else, and just get going to win back Congress next year, then the White House in 2012. If the last Election is any indication of developments, infighting about camps associated with various candidates only serves to strangle all candidates.

Lourdes on August 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM

theTarCzar on August 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM

If they tried that, Romney could easily afford ads showing Obama out flip-flopping anyone in history.

thecountofincognito on August 22, 2009 at 10:21 AM

The health care plan being touted by President Obama was created as a test by MITT ROMNEY in the state of Massachusetts in 2006. The state is now broke.

If you love Obamacare, Mitt Romney is your man.

I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Mitt. Romney. Under. Any. Circumstance.

philwynk on August 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM

PS: I am no birther.

philwynk on August 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

“The health care plan being touted by President Obama was created as a test by MITT ROMNEY in the state of Massachusetts in 2006. The state is now broke.

If you love Obamacare, Mitt Romney is your man.

I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Mitt. Romney. Under. Any. Circumstance.”

This is a demonstrably untrue statement and it childish, uninformed thinking like this will give Obama a second term.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM

The Birthers are not conservatives, they are insane.

Mitt Romney is the most conservative of the “boys” listed.
(Gingrich can never get the nomination because of his lifelong problem with his pecker running the show.)

Huckabee is the pardon king and nanny queen who should never be allowed to run a post office much less the country.

Of those currently mentioned, Romney and Palin are the only two who should even be discussed as a possibility.

Elizabetty on August 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

I think if a birther wants to chase that rabbit, go for it.

But I’m more grounded in the reality that even if we prove it, what will happen? Finding out BO is not a citizen (even though it would be argued he is half a citizen) will not matter in the real world. He’ll remain the President, a whole raft of opinions will be generated about how that archaic law was made by racists old white guys two hundreds years ago and doesn’t apply today, yada yada. He’ll get sympathy from people who would not give it normally because he’ll play the “It wasn’t my fault” card.

There will be no win for America. If there is an attempt to remove him based on this, the whole nation will erupt in civil war, and I mean there would be a good chance people would actually start shooting at each other type civil war. (Do you think the New Black Panthers would stand still for it?)

The actually attempt to remove him, because you KNOW he won’t go willingly, would be bogged down in court, people arguing the law is invalid, times have changed, and oh BTW did you notice the guy is black- you racist. There would be a series of mind boggling events here and across the globe.

It would be a nightmare and give plenty of cover for those who handle Obama to move around behind the scenes doing more damage and stealing more money.

All that for what? To prove you are right? “See I told you so.” moment? We have been pointing out for years the double standard the liberal use for their advantage. “See, you are cheating! Caught you!” has done exactly what for us? Made us feel better? They still cheat, only harder and more openly. Why? Because it works! They are winning, While we stand around complaining about the rule violations they control the media, the schools, our environment, our work area, and soon our wages and our healthcare. Of course they cheat, all the way to the bank.

Guys, we are at war. This is not a debate. This is war, and there are no rules in war other than Al Davis’s mantra, “Just win baby!” I suggest we all choose our targets based on what is the most effective and the most damaging to the opposition. Proving Obama is not a citizen, now that he is President will only cause trouble, it will not get him out of office. Catching him dirty with lies, stealing our money and future, having cover ups, and surrounded by corruption actually does, because it proves the BIG lie- that he was supposed to be different than all the others. People get that. Voters get that.

Like I said, if you want to chase that rabbit, knock yourself out. You catch it, it will be a meal for only one.

archer52 on August 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM

This is a demonstrably untrue statement and it childish, uninformed thinking like this will give Obama a second term.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM

.
sheryl, childish & uninformed thinking is not the half of it:

Dumb yet fascinating. Obama’s birth certificate won’t be an issue in the primaries… unless Birtherism is actually a proxy for other political dynamics, in which case this becomes an interesting little data point.

ALLAH, you continue conflating 2 separate issues & then conveniently stereotyping people who’ve been pointing out that OBAMA DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BEFORE THE ELECTION with people solely stuck on stupid about the birth certificate and where is his real birthplace. The 1st group doesn’t agree with the 2nd group.
.
ALLAH, your purpose for lumping those who called Obama out ON THE FACT that he admitted dual citizenship together with “birthers”, and dismissing both, can be found IN YOUR OWN WORDS HotAir on July 21, 2009, where you freely dismiss the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen at Birth as “dumbest provision” which a “sane world” would abolish… as if the Constitution was a buffet from which to pick and choose.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM

.
ALLAH, get your facts straight too. Obama has called himself a dual citizen on his own “Fight the Smears” campaign site (his father a Kenyan/British citizen when BHO Jr. was born, therefore Jr gov under same British law as Sr).
.
Dual citizenship not only disqualifies him from being president, it also has other ramifications like: OBAMA BEING DENIED ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Why Agency Heads Can Deny The President Classified Information
.

U.S. Defense Security Guidlines:

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. The exercise of dual citizenship;

b. Possession and/or use of a foreign passport;

.
Be sure to read attorney Donofrio’s important follow-up report.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Like I said, if you want to chase that rabbit, knock yourself out. You catch it, it will be a meal for only one.
archer52 on August 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM

.
Nonsense, archer. Screw your attempt at intimidation by bringing up riots & The New Black Panthers.
.
And screw your limp reaction to any disrespect for the law.

.
The Constitution MATTERS. Disregard it at YOUR peril. Without it there is no United States of America.
.
P.S. True Americans will gladly fight, then enjoy that “meal-for-one”, even if it’ll be his/her LAST MEAL. You’d have us all dependent on SHARING ONE RABBIT.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 22, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Sorry, Elizabetty (re August 22, 2009 1:07 PM post), but Romney is NOT the most conservative of prospective GOP candidates.

Sorry, sheryl (re August 22, 2009 11:55 AM post), but Mitt Romney does have a problem with respect to the health care issue and it points to Romney’s weakness that he was a liberal to moderate Governor of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts health care program under Romney can be used by Democrats against Republicans, just as Romney’s pro-abortion position as Governor can be used against Republicans. Romney can say he has changed his positions on health care and abortion, but that substantially weakens his candidacy.

And then there is the matter of Romney’s lack of experience concerning forerign policy, military matters and national security.

Phil Byler on August 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM

archer52 and sheryl, you two are 100% right. Sound like smart & savvy conservatives to me.

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Phil, Romney IS the most conservative of the prospective candidates who actually has a good chance of winning. Running the most conservative candidate who has zero chance of winning doesn’t help us one bit.

PollyTix101 on August 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Phil,

Romney isn’t pro abortion, nor is he a liberal. You must be so far to the right that anyone who is even a tad left of you, you see them as liberal.

You and Obama’s extremism’s are what’s broken about politics and Washington.

In three years no one, and I mean on one, is going to want extreme far left or far right ideologues running for POTUS.

America will be ready for competent leadership, honest and clean, a non-corrupt politician to bring us back from the brink of this Obama socialist nightmare experiment.

As far as Romney not having enough foreign policy, national security and military experience……well McCain had that in droves and it didn’t help get him elected didn’t it.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 4:47 PM

As far as Romneycare is concerned, it is not a weakness it’s an accomplishment.

The plan isn’t perfect (and he’s said as much) but it isn’t the boondoggle Obama and Rahm are trying to cram down our throats.

Romneycare highlights Mitt’s ability to forge alliances and tackle huge projects. And he took his time and great care in doing it because he understood that it’s a very personal issue with folks (only 1 in 10 Mass citizens would repeal Romneycare).

It’s such a clear juxtapostion to what we are experiencing now with Obama and the far left Democrats trying to ram rod Obamacare thru Congress.

Romney is like the anti-Obama style of leadership….his campaign could run on that all day long.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM

“and it didn’t help get him elected didn’t it.”

oops meant to say “and it didn’t help get him elected, did it?”

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Romney got crossed off my list long ago because he spearheaded the quickly-failing Massachusetts health care system including employer and citizen mandates.

I would never vote for someone who believes it is proper for government to tell citizens what to buy with their own money.

Romney appears to be a strong supporter of big-government. This is worse than being RINO.

landlines on August 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Romney vetoed the employer mandates.

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 7:52 PM

“I would never vote for someone who believes it is proper for government to tell citizens what to buy with their own money.”

so the government shouldn’t mandate auto insurance?

sheryl on August 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM

I wasn’t a “Birther” as assbags like yourself call them, but now I’ve been forced to side with them because of the supercillious, smarmy shit that Neo-Statists like you, Allahpundit, keep dishing out.

I even swore off this site and several others for the same psuedo-con horseshit. But, this morning I made an exception over at AT, so I may as well tell you what I told them — Go fuck yourself.

Eyas on August 23, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Mitt Romney was my pick for last year’s republican nominee, but the LYING, smearing, pompous McCain made him (Romney) out to be the bad guy. I blame McCain and his buddy, the ‘huckster’ Huckabee for allowing Obama to win the presidency! I despise the hypocrite Huckabee – and I’m a BAPTIST!!!

Romney/Palin or Palin/Romney, either way is FINE with me!

brendy on August 24, 2009 at 3:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2