Dear Gov. Mike Huckabee:
For more than two years now, when asked about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate, you have consistently provided one answer.
It's all nonsense, you said, because you're confident that, if there were anything to the questions of constitutional eligibility, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have found out about it through their magnificent opposition-research machine and used it during the 2008 campaign.
I don't know whether you truly believe that or if it's just a clever dodge.
Taking that position on what may be the most important issue of the day – whether the man occupying the White House is actually legally eligible to be there – positions you as a reasonable person among your colleagues in the media, a comfortable stand that you might believe will come in handy should you decide to run for president.
But here's something else to consider: Based on the polling data I have seen, I would be willing to wager that 80 to 90 percent of your supporters know Obama is hiding something. I don't believe they will respect your position nearly as much as your media friends do.
It's not a sensible position. It's not a courageous position. It's not even a valid one.
First of all, you seem to have a very high regard for the Clintons. That worries me. Should we just have the Clintons determine for the nation who is qualified to serve as president – instead of some legitimate controlling legal authority according to the specific constitutional criteria? Do you really believe the Clintons are infallible – even with regard to political campaigning?
Newest WND bumper sticker gets to the heart of eligibility matter: "NO BC / NO DC"
Has it ever occurred to you the Clintons might have been just as suspicious about Obama's eligibility as most Americans are but didn't have sufficient documentation to make the case?
Did it occur to you that Hillary was the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination when the primaries began and, as the front-runner, made a calculated decision not to raise that divisive issue because she had more to lose than gain?
Is it possible that, when she found herself in a close race, raising the questions might have made her look desperate and mean?
Has it escaped your notice that Hillary got a plum job in the Obama administration?
Quite honestly, it sounds like a cop-out to me.
Or perhaps you just haven't familiarized yourself with the central issues of this controversy. The fact remains that, even today, Obama has steadfastly refused all calls for simply releasing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, the only document that could ever begin to put the questions to rest. In addition, he remains an enigma to Americans because of his refusal to release almost any personal documents for the inspection of the public – school records, college records, university records, travel records, health records, law school writings, you name it.
On top of that, his official life story – from his birth narrative to adult associations – is full of holes, lies and deceptions on top of half-truths and deliberate dissembling.
And the only thing you have to say about this is that the Clintons would have smoked him out?
Look how much they missed!
Recently, in reaffirming your half-baked stance on the eligibility issue, you stated that Obama grew up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather. One of your spokesman later said you meant to say he grew up in Indonesia.
Could it be, at this late date, you are still so woefully ill-informed about Obama's actual story?
And since you were mistaken about where Obama grew up, is it possible that you might also be mistaken in your unwavering confidence in the Clintons?
Is this really the way we should select presidents in America in the 21st century – on the basis of a tacit blessing from Bill and Hillary?