Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Romney and the Birthers

Birtherism is alive and well within the GOP ranks, and their 2012 nominee preferences tell a story about the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in trying to appeal to an electorate that's a whole lot further out there than he is.

Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don't think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.

How does this impact Romney? Well among the 49% of GOP primary voters who either think Obama was born in the United States or aren't sure, Romney's the first choice to be the 2012 nominee by a good amount, getting 23% to 16% for Mike Huckabee, 11% for Sarah Palin, and 10% for Newt Gingrich. But with the birther majority he's in a distant fourth place at 11%, with Mike Huckabee at 24%, Sarah Palin at 19%, and Newt Gingrich at 14% all ahead of him. That pushes him into a second place finish overall at 17% with Mike Huckabee again leading the way this month at 20%. Palin's third with 15%, followed by Gingrich at 12%, Ron Paul at 8%, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty at 4%, and John Thune at 1%.

There is really a remarkable divide in how the birther and non-birther wings of the GOP view Sarah Palin. With the birthers she is a beloved figure, scoring an 83/12 favorability rating. Non-birthers are almost evenly divided on her with 47% rating her positively and 40% unfavorably.

This is yet another poll where we find Palin with the highest favorability among Republican primary voters but still lagging in the horse race. 65% have a positive opinion of her compared to 58% for Huckabee and 55% for Romney and Gingrich. Her problem is that even though they like her, few GOP voters think Palin's qualified to be President. Asked whether she's more qualified to be President or Vice President, only 29% of voters place her in the top spot compared to 46% who say she'd be a more appropriate number 2.

On the President/Vice President qualification question only Romney reaches a majority on the qualified to be President card with 50% saying he's most equipped for that position to 24% who think he'd make a better Vice President. Huckabee has 44% who think he's suited to be President to 28% who think he'd fit more in the VP slot, and Gingrich has 27% who consider him more Presidential to 37% that think he's more Vice Presidential.

It's a clear sign of weakness for the GOP field that only one of its leading potential candidates is considered to be Presidential material even by a majority of the party base.

Full results here


Marvin Marks said...

This is true madness. This means that only 28% of GOP primary voters are sane. I don't know if our country can make it into the future as long as we keep pretending like the Republicans are a reasonable party that deserves any sort of respect. It's a party full of nutters with no ability to think rationally and absolutely astounding ignorance.

The Interesting Times said...

"If anything birtherism is on the rise."

This is probably due to Hawaiian Gov. Abercrombie's ill-fated attempt at getting a hold of Obama's original birth certificate. His efforts ended up only adding more fuel to the fire.

I disagree with Marvin Marks, though. It's not that more Republicans have gone off the deep end. What we're seeing is that "Birtherism" is going mainstream.

Also, the feeling between the two party bases is mutual at this point. Take the last two sentences of Marks' comment, replace "Republicans" with "Democrats," and you'll get a roughly accurate assessment of what Republicans think of Democrats. The partisan divide is so wide right now that most of either party's base can't see across it to the other side.

Anonymous said...

I'd lump the "not sure" folks with the birthers rather than the educated. I mean, if you question whether the president was born here, that's the same thing in terms of ignorance as professing definitively that he wasn't.

Robert David Sullivan said...

Apparently, birtherism is a bigger religious cult in the US than Scientology could ever hope to be. Orly Taitz beats L. Ron Hubbard in just a matter of months!

Anonymous said...

If states would require proof (including a certified copy of their long form birth certificate) that candidates are eligible to run for office their wouldn't be a problem. I don't understand why proving eligibility never was required. Hopefully several states will solve that problem before the next presidential election.

Even kids realize there has to be a reason Obama isn't willing to show his legal long form birth certificate. Could it be because he was adopted and is officially an Indonesian?

Anonymous said...

Why anyone is still confused about this issue speaks to this country's education system. The full, original birth certificate is not public record and thus cannot be released by Hawaii law. We do know that certificate is there because it is an entry on 8/4/61 in their log of original birth certificates in the state archives. Now, unless you believe one of Obama's associates is Dr. Brown or Marty McFly, this log and the two birth notices in Hawaii newspapers could not have been fabricated ex post facto.

Anonymous said...

It really doesn't matter as Obama's mother was a US citizen. I'am sure a court would decide it that way. Birther's sound really not grounded in reality as far as their dislike of Obama. I disagree with many of his policies and where he was born has no bearing one way or the other. I'm sure just before the election, he will pull out his long form certificate and make the birthers look like idiots - I am sure he is playing that way. I just wish Republicans would become serious and get a serious candidate that can get elected. I think that is Romney but I would vote for anyone but Palin or Huckabee. I love her and like him but this isn't for prom queen and king.

Conrad Bibby said...

I've never understood why a person's (admittedly misguided) belief that Obama wasn't born in the USA justifies dismissal of their beliefs on political, social, economic issues generally. Some "birthers" are probably nutty, some are misinformed, some are just naturally contrarian. To many people, belief in God is just as or more silly than a belief that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii; yet nobody argues that people who are belive in God (like Obama himself, for example) should be ignored or derided just for that reason.

Anonymous said...

"Why anyone is still confused about this issue speaks to this country's education system. The full, original birth certificate is not public record and thus cannot be released by Hawaii law."

Liar. Fool.



Suzzanne said...

Wasn't it Chris Matthews who compared the ducument released by Press. Obama verses a birth certificate of someone born a day before lacked pertinent information?
Hmm is Chris Matthews part of these "nutters"?

Seth Owen said...

"I've never understood why a person's (admittedly misguided) belief that Obama wasn't born in the USA justifies dismissal of their beliefs on political, social, economic issues generally. Some "birthers" are probably nutty, some are misinformed, some are just naturally contrarian. To many people, belief in God is just as or more silly than a belief that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii; yet nobody argues that people who are belive in God (like Obama himself, for example) should be ignored or derided just for that reason."

Belief in God is, by definition, not a falsifiable belief. It cannot be proven one way or the other.
Where Obama was born, however, is a matter of objective, testable fact for which ample contemporary
evidence has been provided. A refusal to accept evidence proving facts is delusional. That more than half of the voters of a major political part accept a delusional belief is disturbing.

Seth Owen said...

Belief in God is, by defintion, not a falsifiable belief.
In contrast, Obama's birthplace is a matter of testable fact that has been proven by multiple independent contemporary documents.
The refusal to accept evidence proving a fact is a sign of delusional thinking. That more than half of the voters of a major political party subscribe to a delusion is disturbing.
If they'll believe this, then what won;t they believe and what possible evidence could dissuade them?

Jaysenn Grand said...

This shows just how much the GOP/TP has embraced the fringe. They are now getting more stupid by the hour. And they want to eliminate the Department of Education? Well, when you use Glenn Beck and Rush to foist your delusions you get this.

Pierce Nichols said...

@Conrad: A person who believe Obama was not born in the US like a person who believes that the Sun orbits the Earth or that the Earth is only 6000 years old -- they are so fundamentally untethered from reality as to impugn their judgment on any subject.

NRH said...

Belief in birtherism speaks to a dedication to counterfactual claims that's well into irrationality. Compare birtherism to being a Young Earth Creationist who believes the world is 6000 years old despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or a Flat Earth Society member, and you have a much more accurate simile. Basically, someone who is that dedicated to a premise that has been so thoroughly debunked has demonstrated their unreliability, and so their positions in other regards should be considered suspect until they can provide some reason to give them any credence again.

vp said...

Let me guess: the Republican birthers:

* think the moon landings were faked
* believe that the world was created in 4004 BC
* regard Sarah Palin as presidential material

It all makes sense now...

Donah said...

It does not matter what I "know" or how I was presented with the "Fact of Truth"... Fact is the Dems are in the saddle and the Reps try to get back....
Now. about Sarah.... I don´t want to see her in the Top Job yet... She certainly has the gifts (that chick has brains).... so many pretend to have... However.. Sarah´d better wast no time and keep convincing folks that she is the "Messiah", collecting crowds.... (and votes) and wack´m around the ears.... She´s still young.... She´ll have her chance 4.. or even 8 years from now when she´s thru cleaning "the dishes"..... (or now !!... IF and WHEN America does not impose a limit on holding any job....) America has long been sold on the idea that "Made in US" is best... We don´t even recognize how bad and backwards we are with that religious type glamoration of the long dead Middle Ages... Sarah isn´t at all old-fashioned... she tells me America is alive and young but didn´t get a chance to prove it.... subdued by a clever bunch of money lenders with a clever system of subdoing and indoctrinating us... ´That said .. I take off....
From the GripeVine.... & Donah..//

Anonymous said...

To the person above who thinks that Obama is an adopted Indonesian . . . your right to vote should be revoked.

I am terrified at how many uninformed, fanatic people in this country have the ability to control my life via their voting power. It is just not fair.

Marvin Marks said...

Actually I do think religious beliefs are worthy of derision.

NRH said...

That pretty much sums it up right there. The Republican Party is the party of people who look at an imbecile like Sarah Palin and think "that chick has brains." What in the world has that moron ever done to convince anyone she's got as much intelligence as a used kitchen sponge? 'Reciting misapplied Republican talking points' is only proof she can match wits with a right-wing kook's car's rear bumper, and that's about the height of her intellectual prowess.

The Interesting Times said...

"The full, original birth certificate is not public record and thus cannot be released by Hawaii law."

It can be released at the request of the person involved (that is, Obama).

The fact that he refuses (or doesn't care?) is what has driven some otherwise mainstream voters to become "birthers." It gives those with a suspicious nature (not necessarily clinical paranoia) reason to believe he has something to hide.

Anonymous said...

If Obama showed a "long form", someone would ask, where's the "longer form"? If Obama had that, someone would ask, where are the baby pictures from the delivery room?

There is no legal concept of a long form birth certificate. many families who move around or have broken homes lose documents like this. Besides the state of Hawaii attesting to the birth certificate, the birth records of the newspaper should count as proof.

yourstreet.org said...

The 117-Year-Old Prophecy of Former United States Senator John T. Morgan, from the Great
State of Alabama, Has Come True. Barack Obama, Born in the Former Kingdom of Hawaii, Becomes the First U.S. President From the State of Hawaii.

On a congressional junket to the Republic of Hawaii over 115 years ago (1894), it was theorized by United States Senator John T. Morgan (a former general in the Confederate States of America Army and a self-proclaimed white supremacist), who was from Alabama, that a Hawaiian could become president of the United States. And so, it has come to pass.

On January 17, 1893, the United States overthrew the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii. The Republic of Hawaii was formed and existed from 1894 to 1898. On June 16, 1897, a treaty was signed annexing the Republic of Hawaii to the United States. On July 6, 1898, Congress passed a joint resolution supporting the treaty (as it had done in the precedent-setting joint resolution for the annexation of the Republic of Texas, 58 years earlier in 1845). On July 7, 1898, President William McKinley signed the treaty and Hawaii became a territory of the United States. Three years later President McKinley was assassinated.

On August 21, 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the Union. Two years later, on August 4, 1961, the future president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in the great state of Hawaii. Senator Morgan’s prognostication is now a reality.

The above is an excerpt from The Forty-Fourth Shall Be The First. I Am A Witness. We Are All Witnesses.

Birthers are of the same ilk as former United States Senator John T. Morgan.

Democratically yours,

Carl Gordon

Co-founder, YourStreet.org

Lauralew said...

My family contains several "birthers." These folks think that anyone who wastes time going to school past 8th grade is just a weakling who hasn't wits enough to get through Life. And they forget, or never knew in the first place, that Hawaii is a state, just like Texas or Arkansas or South Dakota. And they all love conspiracies, so the original newspaper accounts mean nothing to them. After all, you can go back and edit all those microfiche newspapers, according to them.

Needless to say, we don't have much to talk about during visits...

Stevieray56 said...

"Hey, I found my birth certificate! It's always in the last place you look." - Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

Most of the 'birthers' do NOT really believe their own claims; they say it for the effect.

Anonymous said...

When is someone going to realize that it does not matter where Obama was born, he is not eligible to be POTUS. He is not a "natural born citizen". For that matter, neither is John McCain. Remember the non-binding resolution that said McCain was eligible to be POTUS. Of course, nothing was said about Obama being born a British subject, which he admits in his own book. There is a difference in a citizen and a natural born citizen. A natural citizen has to be born on U.S. soil, and have two parents that are U.S. citizens. Everyone in the Senate, Congress, and White House knew Obama was not eligible to be POTUS, and they were too gutless to say anything because this man is supposedly black. He is what we call a "high yellow". Did anyone notice that Dick Cheney did not ask for objections when the electoral college met, which is required. I am so tired of hearing everyone say he is eligible, when clearly he is not.

Edward Ott said...

Birthers are nut jobs and scumbags.

Anonymous said...

LOL at some of these comments. So only 400 people were polled and they make it sound like it is the majority of all the Repubs who think like this. I would hardly think 204 people is a good representation. Maybe they should have asked the same question to Hilary supporters. I wonder what those numbers look like?
If the President was not born in the US it would have been proved by the Clinton machine during the primaries.

Edward Ott said...

what i find hilarious is all the people writing to the Hawaiian state government demanding a copy of the birth certificate. No state is going to give you a copy of someone else's birth certificate.

Anonymous said...

From the PPP website...

"A 51% majority of national GOP primary voters erroneously think President Obama was
not born in the U.S."

"...erroneously think"?

Oh my. A purportedly reputable polling organization with an editorial position on birtherism?

PPP is an arm of the DNC. Y'all should know that by now.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the man with his backside in the Oval Office chair was probably born in the U.S. or a territory thereof. However, his refusal to provide a true, blue Birth Certificate and all of the dough that he's spent to prevent his having to provide said B.C. causes to me to distrust him. If I can't trust him to show undeniable proff of his eligibility to even run for the Oval Office, why in the world whould I trust him in anything?

W. Anderson said...

The quantity of comments that ignore the lack of sensibilities of the birthers is testament to widespread ignorance and stupidity that exists in America. One reason not given by birthers or their supporters for anti-Obama sentiments is pure and unadulterated racism, which credible studies have show to be quite prevalent even during the Presidential elections.

These same birthers and their kin would be quick to totally dismiss and denigrate Louis Farakhan - the noted Black Muslim, supposedly for his "apparent" hatred of whites, even though it would be only one of his unacceptable attitudes, while birthers are to be embraced with their one fault - being idiotic and insane.

What a contradiction. Only in America.

Tom said...

Mitch Daniels is the dark pony of this race

Floridafan said...

Either Obama wishes to create controversy and further divide our country, or he is not a legitimate candidate for president. It has to be one or the other. Neither serve our country well and are in fact destructive.

If he is a citizen then he should call for the release of his Long Form Birth Certificate.

It really is that simple. His unwillingness to do do demonstrates his desire to create and feed derision among our citizens.

By allowing this controversy to fester he proves that the furthest thing from his mind is to unite this country.

Anonymous said...

It's hilarious to watch the liberal O-bots crowing over a "poll" by a Dem-allied outfit which "proves" what they imagine Republicans believe. You guys think anyone to the right of Mao or Stalin is retarded compared to genius fascists, whoops, I mean "progressives" like you, so you tell yourselves the lies you tell everyone else and that leads you to a feedback loop of self-reinforcing BS within your left-wing echo chamber.

There's a simple reason why the desperate Dem-allied JournoList media is constantly flogging this bogus story: Obama is a catastrophic failure. The economy is in ruins; the deficits and debt will collapse our country by the end of the decade; the Arab world is going up in flames of Islamist revolution - just what we need, more Irans - and they have no clue as to what's happening and what to do; we are viewed as weak and feckless by our enemies and crappy backstabbers by our allies, so with all this failure happening, what is a failed leader and his sycophantic media to do?

A: Whip up some more "Them peoples is crazy" stories that purport that non-Dems are tinfoil-wearing kooks who are obsessed with birth certificates and being a secret Muslim and, oh yeah, HATE BLACK PEOPLE! They keep reporting it and the missing birth certificate keeps being shoved in people's faces along with ginned up stories that people are suspicious; anything but reporting on the failures of their anointed One.

All along Obama could've ordered the release of the birth certificate, but why should he when it's such a useful straw man? While a few kooks are buying into the myth - a myth first floated by HILLARY CLINTON's people in the campaign, NOT the GOP - that Barry was born in Kenya, the overwhelming majority know damn well that this America-hating, America-destroying empty suit is native born and programmed for destruction by the worst of America's elite academic institutions and domestic terrorists, like Bill Ayers. The problem for Obama is that he's a failure with a lot of shady friends, so he needs this phony Birther crap to distract from his shenanigans.

If more people suspect his citizenship, it's because the Left is diligently trying to create the impression that he's not a citizen in order to report that it's the other side who thinks he's an alien. While it stokes liberal's egos, it's a lie in its origins and a lie that if you keep telling yourselves, will lull you into thinking you can win with lies and failure instead of truth and accomplishments.

By all means, keep lying to yourselves.

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone give any attention to these imbiciles? Not only do they willfully ignore facts, but base all of their attitudes on fictions that fit their already preconceived misconceptions.
They are truly a pathetic bunch and should be mocked at every opportunity for their tin hat theatrics.

Anonymous said...

What the article fails to mention about this survey (biased crappy reporting again) is that 42% OF DEMOCRATS DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA WAS BORN IN THE US.

The press does its best to make conservatives seem unreasonable, the problem is two-thirds of this country identify themselves as conservative.

If I show up for a new job I must present valid ID, this is a reasonable request. If I fail to provide the required documentation it would appear to my prospective employer that I have something to hide. This is not unreasonable.

I recently had to apply for a new passport and because I was born overseas to US military personell, I had to provide 3 different documents to prove my citizenship. A "certifiacte of live birth" would not be considered acceptable for a passport and certainly is not acceptable for landing the job of leader of the free world.

I repeat, according to the survey 42% OF DEMOCRATS DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA WAS BORN IN THE USA.

Anonymous said...

This birther argument is ridiculous. Obama showed the necessary documents in order to throw his name into the race for the presidency. No one has EVER demanded 'the long form' for any other candidate - your GW Bush, your Reagan, your Nixon. The simple evidence was taken at that - enough evidence and no one ever questioned it. Why is there even a question about Obama's citizenship? Could it be because you can't stand it that not everyone in his family is a White American?

Anonymous said...

What's probably most ironic about the bizarre "controversy" surrounding Barack Obama's birthplace is that he's actually the only sitting President in US history to have made his birth certificate public (it's online for everyone to see and has been confirmed by the State of Hawaii as being his real birth certificate.)

So What About That "Long Form Birth Certificate"? There's really no such thing. What these conspiracy theorists are probably referring to is the "birth certificate" that people sometimes get at a hospital (often times complete with the baby's footprint, etc) but the truth is that kind is actually nothing more than a souvenir meant for scrapbooks and has absolutely no legal meaning.


Bruce said...

What the whole argument about whether Obama was born here is distracting us from, is the fact that the definition of "Natural Born" as used in the constitution not only requires born on American soil, but that also BOTH parents must be American citizens. Obama's father was never a US citizen, and was in fact a British subject at the time of young Barrack's birth. So it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii to an American Mother. He still was never qualified as "Natural Born" to run for President. There is a big difference between being an American citizen at birth, like Obama was, and meeting the higher standard as "Natural Born Citizen" which Obama was NOT. If being "Natural Born" only needed one parent to be an American citizen at birth, then the constitution would have used the term American citizen as listed for lesser offices and never used the different term "Natural Born" for President.

Bruce said...

Natural Born Citizen is a higher standard than American Citizen. All Obama's birth certificate showing Hawaiian birth shows, is that he was an American Citizen at birth. Since his father was NOT an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth, then Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Many so-called "birthers" are aware of this fact, but since pollsters never mention dual citizenship in their questions, "UnNatural's" are forced to answer about his birth being in Hawaii, instead of whether he is a Natural Born Citizen or not. So the real ignorance lies in those who lump all birthers into being "nutcases".

Anonymous said...

Let's just call it like it really is and cut through all the crap: if Obama wasn't a Black man (100% or 50%), this question would never have been asked. After all, the Republican party was touting Arnold Swarzenegger to run for President and EVERYBODY knows he wasn't born in the U.S. The birthers are racists hiding under the cover of being concerned about the validity of the President of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Bruce is absolutely right. If he was born in this country, he is a duel citizen - not eligible to be Prez. I believe they have his real birth cert. which is from Kenya. It has the foot stamp, and doctors signature. His grandma said he was born in Kenya. He has scammed the American public into allowing him to hide his history, including education, and medical records. Trust but verify - we can't verify with this coverup - so I don't trust.
His mother was too young to confer her citizenship to him.
Those that believe the web that has been woven, are the fools.

Anonymous said...

To quote a nice elderly lady:
He either has it or he does not.
The obama has spent nearly one million dollars hiding any information regarding his "birth certificate".
You is or you ain't. Prove it and ALL this goes away.
I hope this becomes a big issue in the next election!!

Dustin Ingalls said...


What survey are you talking about? Certainly not ours. This was a poll of Republican primary voters.

"What the whole argument about whether Obama was born here is distracting us from, is the fact that the definition of "Natural Born" as used in the constitution not only requires born on American soil, but that also BOTH parents must be American citizens."

Completely false. "Natural-born citizen" means "citizen from birth," and because of the 14th Amendment, which naturally Republicans want to repeal, that includes anyone born in this country, regardless of the parents' citizenship status.

Tom said...

I am not a birther ..... Which is a dumb term anyway .

The bottom line is there is doubt . A simple Congressional hearing with the sopena power to see all base documents is all that is needed.

I can't imagine anyone being afraid of this .

We should all be truthers.

Alta said...

No White President has ever been asked to show his birth certificate - I wonder why? Could it be that the birthers are actually bigots who need what they perceive as a legitimate excuse for not supporting a Black President? YES! The demand to see President Obama’s birth certificate is a smoke screen used by bigots who don't have the courage to face the world and admit that they don't want a Black man in the White House. They would rather be seen as blithering idiots instead of racists. They are cowards and bigots.

wordkyle said...

Perhaps some clarification is called for. In the poll, the crosstab for "Party" and "Obama born in the US?" does indicate that 42% of Democrats surveyed did not believe he was. (Base = 51%, Republicans 53%, Independents/Other 39%.) Q16 indicates that 2% of those surveyed were Democrats. Can you please clarify what these numbers mean?

Interestingly, a higher percentage of women (53%) and young people aged 18-29 (58%) believed that Obama was not born in the US.

Bruce said...

Natural Born Citizen definition: (From Vattel's commentaries which was commonly used by the framers of the constitution, and is the only place other than the constitution where the phrase is commonly used. Blackstone refers to Native born Subject in his commentaries which may or may not be comparable.... )

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

So Obama having a British subject Father prevents him from being a Natural Born Citizen, which is a completely different thing than American citizenship, which is defined in the 14th Amendment which was passed to clarify the citizenship status of the newly freed slaves after the Civil War.

Sorry Dustin, but you are confusing two completely different terms with each other.

Anonymous said...

I am a Democrat who votes, gives money, and works for candidates.

I question if Obama was born in the US. He needs to prove it and settle the stupid issue.

If this was about Bush we would be all over him.

Dustin Ingalls said...





The party question is self-identified, so people say they are Democrats or Republicans; it's not based on their actual registration. Also, in some states with open primaries, registered Democrats can vote in GOP primaries. Regardless, 2% of 400 respondents is 8 actual respondents, making the MOE on that subsample an astounding 35.7%--meaning that 42% of the almost nonexistent amount of Democrats who typically vote in Republican primaries could, in the actual population of them, be anywhere from 6% to 78%. Thus, you can take the results with anyone but Republicans in this poll and throw them out the window.

Patriot Act said...

Hey, mindless minions. If you look at page 24 of the full poll results (click the link at the end of the article above), you will find that 42% of DEMOCRATS think that Obama wasn't born in the USA. I guess that means that 42% of DEMOCRATS are insane, ignorant, moronic, nutty, retarded, far-right-fringe cowards, bigots, and above all, RACISTS who believe the moon landings were faked, etc., etc., yada yada. That's what you're saying. Did I miss any of your adjectives?

The fact that this article focuses only on the Republican results and completely ignores the Democrat results shows just how nakedly partisan and biased this organization is, and how incredibly easily duped you mindless minions of the left are. Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

This is meant to distract from the real issue
1.65 trillion dollar deficit this year.

Anything to shift focus from the fact that Obama and the Democrats are a complete disaster for America, right?

and forget the fact that most people in the muslim world think Obama is a muslim. Nobody ever mentions that

wordkyle said...

Dustin, thanks for the response. I guess that crosstab is where the previous commenter got the 42% for Democrats. If I understand correctly, of the 400 respondents, 340 were self-identified Republicans who said they were going to vote in a Republican primary next year. Wouldn't the actual claim be "53% of Republicans...?"

By the way, the 58% of respondents age 18-29 who believe Obama was not born in the U.S. heavily influences the numbers. (As does the 65+ crowd, at 55%.) Any ideas on why these two demographics have such high percentages, while those aged 30-65 are considerably lower?

Sailor said...

This is all so silly,he refuses to release his birth certificate because it will show his mother was not married.

NRH said...

Dear teatards: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Repeated: "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."

There is no requirement related to the citizenship of the parent. There is no exclusion for being qualified for citizenship of any other country. It's that simple.

Speaking of simple, there's Bruce! Page 1 of the results: "PPP surveyed 400 Republican primary voters nationwide from February 11th to 13th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%." 2% of the sample claimed to be Democrats who vote in Republican primaries, so less than the margin of error. 2% (rounded) of 400 could be anywhere from 6 to 9 actual respondents depending on rounding. Within that range, only 3/7 can come out to be a figure that comes out at 42%. Therefore, there were 7 people who claimed to be Democrats who nonetheless vote in Republican primaries, and of those 7 people, 3 of them claimed to be birthers. So of a vanishingly small subsample of people who claim to vote in the other party's primary, 3 of them are birthers, or made a mistake giving their partisan identification, or were screwing with the survey. Stop the presses!

Bruce said...

DUSTIN! Wikipedia! LMAO!

Bruce said...

Wikipedia is often wrong. Natural Born Citizen CANNOT have dual citizenship at birth!

From: The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

"As so many scholars and commentators have asked, what does “natural born Citizen” mean? Why did the Framers distinguish in Article II between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders trusted the occupancy of the Office of President to those born on or inhabiting the soil of or to those who naturalized in the Colonies or new States, all of whom belonged to the original citizen class because, even though they were born subject to a foreign power, they had evidenced their loyalty and attachment to the United States by fighting for the American cause in the Revolution. Also, for those born “natural born subjects” of the British Crown, through the Treaty of Peace of 1783, England absolved its subjects of the natural allegiance that they owed to it. But the Founders knew that there would be other foreigners coming to live in America in the future. The allegiance and loyalty of these future foreigners would not have been tested or even absolved in some manner as had occurred under the Treaty of Peace of 1783. The Founders feared foreign influence infecting the administration of the government. It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to General George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” (underlying in the original). Note that Jay wanted a “strong” check that would prevent a foreigner from becoming the Commander in Chief. Hence, any definition of “natural born Citizen” must provide our nation with the strongest check possible on foreign influence invading the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759). This law became American common law."

So English common law is not applicable, nor is the 14th Amendment or clauses that are about American Citizenship. Admit it Dustin, you are wrong. Natural Born excludes dual citizenship as well as not being born here. De Vattel clearly applies in this case and your Wikipedia case law citation were all about American citizenship at birth cases which is a completely different subject. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period.

Anonymous said...

obama was indeed born in Kenya and NOT Hawaii as he claims! After a short visit to Kenya with her purported husband, obama's mother was not immediately allowed to fly back to Hawaii because she was too close to her delivery date (airline regulations). Nevertheless, obama AT BIRTH was and always has been a U.S. citizen. obama's father was already married (kenya wife/wives) at the time of his purported marriage in Hawaii to obama's mother. Their purported marriage was legally 'VOID FROM INCEPTION' under applicable Hawaiian bigamy laws. Hence, certain U.S. laws were CONTROLLING in determining obama's U.S. citizenship at birth. Being that obama's unmarried mother legally met BOTH U.S. time-line residency and minimum age requirements prior to giving birth in Kenya, obama was automatically born a U.S. citizen! I didn't vote for obama in 2008 and I will do likewise come 2012.

Anonymous said...

My name is Wayne T Inman from North Carolina, and I'm one of the liberals so called nutty uneducated Birthers who strongly believes that obummer is not a natural born citizen. With that said it really bothers me that liberals are as stupid as they are. They should be barred from commenting on the birther subject until they go back to school and learn what a natural born citizen is and what is in the 10th amendment of the US constitution. I don't give a damn if obummer was born on top of the capital in Washington DC, his father was a citizen of Great Briton at the time of obummers birth, he was not a US citizen, only his mother was a US citizen, that means only one parent was a US citizen, are you liberals starting to understand yet? Any questions so far? So both parents must be US citizens in order for their child to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, other wise they are just a citizen, like obummer if he was born on US soil. Now, his parent don't have to be born in the US for him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, but they both must become citizens before he was born. Do you liberals follow this dumb, stupid birther so far? Any questions? Yhis makes obummer a fruad and O'riley a lieing left wing liberal who is just as stupid as the rest of you liberals are. I will go now.
Wayne T Inman
Stupid, uneducated BIRTHER

Bruce said...


1. "Natural Born Citizen" is a completely different legal concept and a higher standard, than being an American Citizen, so as I've said repeatedly in these posts, the 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with the definition of "Natural Born Citizen". I know this is complicated mate, so please try to follow along!

2. I never made any comments whatsoever about the 2% of democrat poll respondents of this poll, so again you are confusing and getting wrong who is posting exactly what on these comments. Please pay more attention. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

It's at least refreshing to see that at least one birther person knows & admits that he's stupid. Wayne T Inman of North Carolina, I salute you, and encourage you to instruct your friends on this subject to self-identify as stupid and uneducated -- truth in advertising is a virtue for sure!

NRH said...

@Bruce - Well, you have one thing right; I meant Patriot Act about the 2% issue.

You have a very delusional interpretation of 'natural-born' though. The Supreme Court ruled on that specifically in Minor V Happensatt, 1874:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

They also ruled further in US vs Wong Kim Ark, 1898:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

So go right ahead and cite some crackpot's opinion column; the Supreme Court has the relevant opinion, and this is long, long since settled law. It does not matter whether one or both of his parents were not US citizens; it does not matter whether he might qualify for citizenship in some other country as well.

It is a really clever tactic on their part to let the teatards make fools of themselves so publicly and help put all the rest of the right-wing idiocies like tentherism, climate change denialism, and anti-science dogma into the proper context.

Price said...

Yes, yes Wayne T and Bruce...we get it. You are saying that a natural born citizen is someone born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens.

Although this definition of "natural citizen" is not given in the US Constitution, Bruce has explained, and quoted from another source, that the founders used the concept of "natural born citizen" as it was defined by Emer de Vattel.

That's all good and well except that Emer de Vattel defined "natural born citizen" according to Swiss law 10 years after the ratification of the US Constitution. Consequently, the framers might have been aware of Vattel's contribution to the Swiss, but not until after the US constitution was passed and a president had already served a term.

Since most of the US Constitution was based off of English common law (as opposed to a Swiss person's interpretation of Swiss law 10 years in the future), it is more reasonable to believe that the idea of "natural born citizen" used by the founders was based on that used in British common law--that is, a natural born citizen is any person born in the country, regardless of the parents' citizenship.

So, while you think we're all just idiots who can't understand why we don't recognize "that both parents have to be citizens," the reality is that you are grasping at straws. The reality is that you are wrong, both historically and legally.

Montana said...

To all the “Chicken Littles” that keep saying that the sky is falling, please growup and get back to work.

The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?

Anonymous said...

Polls like these are worthless. Real scientific polls don't wildly differ from other polls. This data is unreliable.

goinguplive said...

There is nothing wrong with with someone asking to see a stupid silly birth certificate to prove a person is qualified to run our country. NOW there is something wrong with the people who think asking to see the birth certificate is just crazy. Commie Idiot chris matthews is even asking for the bc.

Anonymous said...

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was Kenyan.
This is a FACT. When a majority of the states make him prove his citizenship, then we will know.

When the lies are truth, and truths are lies.

Anonymous said...

Here it is: http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

BC said...

While it's all too easy to write off modern American Republicanism as a refuge for the badly confused and not so bright, one has to wonder about where are all these people getting their "information." This is the year 2011, and we've had computers in the home and Internet access now for over 25 years, as well as an explosion in the amount of news available with the click of a TV remote -- so what's the problem? Too much information makes people dumb? Only newspapers are allowed to have real news and they have been dying out?

Perhaps, maybe the real reason is both banal and insidious -- real, responsible news reporting and journalism fading in place of much more financially lucrative infotainment: media featuring more entertaining barstool-level opinionating, finger waving, heated arguing, the casual dropping of utterly unsubstantiated, and usually agenda or politically driven charges and claims, and whatever else it takes to attract a big audience and big money advertisers. And then mix in the new Wild Wild West of the blogosphere, and you have something akin to The Disinformation Age.

The current Global Warming "controversy" for example is an utterly manufactured political one with no relevance to the scientific community other than being a colossal nuisance -- the core science has been pretty much settled for a while with only details needing to be still worked out. It's research, not politics, but would the average person watching & reading the average amount of "coverage" on TV and online know this?

Bruce said...


Your comments on the nature of the mainstream media today have merit. The media, to sell airtime and advertising do spend way too much time on bogus and petty "celebrity news" and the like. Even Fox News channel will get into the act such as the latest Lindsay Lohan peccadillo's at which point I head for the nearest History or Science channel in response!

As for your comments on Climate Change, if you are saying the coverage of it has been at least somewhat one-sided in favor of the man-caused CO2 causing global warming, then I agree. The mainstream media coverage of climate change science has been very one-sided in that regard! How many people who only get their news from mainstream sources would have heard about the climate-gate scandals? I have been surfing through a lot of science blogs, and have observed that the only remaining scientists who still believe the man-caused CO2 warming the planet theory are a small cadre of climatologist computer modelers. Geologists, astronomers and others have a much more varied range of theories, observations and conclusions in regards to the nature of climate change. The mainstream media always follows a template in how they cover stories and currently the template is that man is causing global warming, which is being more and more debunked as a valid theory, and that all birthers are nut cases. Also a blatantly false assumption.

Montana said...

To all the “Chicken Littles” or should I say "Chicken Hawks" that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never bet against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and the rest of you phonies are wrong!

The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?

YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles said...

Obama Birth Certificate and School records

Why is President Obama not disclosing his Birth Certificate and other Educational documents requested by the public and alleviate all talks about his eligibility to be the President of The United States of America?
Unless President Obama has something to hide, and providing the documents could be detrimental to Obama holding the office of the President of the United States of America.
Many employers require these types of documents in order to qualify for a job.
Why is President Obama who holds the highest office of the land in the United States of America should be exempt from providing such documents.

Web Statistics