Correct.
There is limited upside on targeting Obama’s birthplace, Obama may or may not be forced to withdraw, and it would not impact his most ardent believers.
Then in the event everything is fine, Romney is painted as being a part of the fringe right wing and a kook.
My honest opinion, it’s a non-issue, we have 535 people in congress all of which have their own political ambitions. It has been said that 100 of those, senators, all believe they have the qualifications to be President.
So there are three options,
1.) Obama may not eligible to hold the presidency, and 535 people have not found a political gain from that information .
2.) Obama may not eligible to hold the presidency, and those out of the 535 whom have brought up the issue have been bought off.
3.) Obama is eligible.
Pick one.
I'm sure you're not interested in elevating this to a debate. And neither am I.
But I've always believed that there was only one "birther" argument that was worth pursuing. Was Obama born in the USA....or was he not? The outcome of any such investigation -- delivering proof, one way or another -- could be considered dispository.
The natural-born citizen argument has always struck me as a red herring. Everybody who gave a damn about who was going to be elected in 2008 already knew that Obama's daddy had been born in Kenya. Obama himself had written of it. If that singular event made him ineligible for the office of the President, why didn't even one of the thousands of politicians and lawyers and scholars whose business it is to know the Constitution and Electoral Law come forward with that proposition?
To my knowledge, none did...until we were several years into Obama's term. And, even then, we are left with an argument that can only be decided by a court -- whose verdict will never be announced so long as Obama is an elected President.
What an utter waste of effort...
I pick 3. We have to VOTE the bastard out, or prove he was born in Kenya.