I expect to have policy differences with just about anybody. And like you, I like animated personalities and a hearty "get-R-done" attitude.
I think the observations in the OP are valid, just the same. Brewer has proffered a reason to veto the "birther bill," in that it puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. She, as a recent Secretary of State of Arizona, KNOWS that this office has the duty to certify presidential candidates as qualified - she herself did this. The rationale she's fronting is a crock, and she knows it's a crock.
We're all stuck with speculation as to the real reason she vetoed the birther bill.
Going forward, the Arizona legislature has the issue back on their desk, and I thought it would be useful for the public to be better informed about how AZ law is currently structured. I suggest that my proposed legislative solution is simple, and workable. Give the public the statutory right to challenge the qualifications of presidential candidates, just as they currently have for all other candidates. The legislature can omit all the details of how one proves "qualified," all that "circumcision papers" and other statutory detail can be omitted.
It’s the birther thing, to me — I am happy and thriled to have Donald Trump pushing into it, because I am very unsettled about obama in so many ways. At the same time, to have the governor take hold of it, front and center, and write it into law marginalizes her in some way.
It’s like fighting DC from the Secy of State’s office in AZ. It’s not the way it needs to be handled, and it puts her in this camp in a way that others will feel free to discount her. Her work and accomplishments have been much broader and more significant than the birther issue and I do not think she should join that subset.