Little 'distractions' like the Constitution

Have you heard the latest from the Republican Party elite?

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are warning the Republican presidential contenders to avoid any distractions from Barack Obama's political record – distractions like his character, his concealment of virtually all meaningful records about his past and even whether he is eligible under the Constitution to serve as president.

Those little distractions.

{$evsignupform}

"Republican candidates should categorically reject the notion that President Obama was not born in the United States," said Bush. "It is a complete distraction from the failed economic policies of the president."

TRENDING: Poll: Stunning number say Biden suffers 'cognitive ailment'

Barbour added, "Look, if this election is about Barack Obama's policies and the results of those policies, Barack Obama is going to lose. Any other issue that gets injected to the campaign is not good for the Republicans. Republicans should want this election to be what American presidential elections have always been: a referendum on the incumbent's record. Barack Obama cannot win a second term running on his record. Zero chance. So anybody who talks about anything else is off-subject."

Even Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who raised the issue in a recent Parade Magazine interview, called it a "distraction."

Why is it, I wonder, that of all the many issues raised in a presidential campaign – from Medicare to defense to Social Security to the type of music the candidates like – that the constitutional fitness of Obama and the bigger question of presidential eligibility in the future – is a "distraction"?

Does this mean Republican presidential candidates get too easily distracted and are incapable of keeping their eye on more than one issue at a time?

Does this mean constitutional requirements in general are just trivial matters?

Does this mean Obama's secrecy about all of his personal records is not a legitimate campaign issue?

How about his character in general? Is that off-limits, too?

From my standpoint, there is no bigger issue than faithfulness to the Constitution. I'm surprised and disappointed, for instance, that Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution in the presidential race, seems to concur with the Republican establishment's veil of silence on Obama's legal qualifications for office.

Is the plan simply to scrap Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution in the future – thus allowing Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates to circumvent the rules as equal-opportunity ignorers of the law of the land?

Why is it that this issue – and this issue alone – is so universally characterized by Republicans as a "distraction"?

Can someone help me answer that question?

Personally, I believe the American people want to see what Obama has been hiding. Yes, what he has showed us publicly is certainly more than bad enough to reject him. But, I believe, Americans are ready for a clean sweep from the secrets and the character flaws Obama has revealed, too. I believe they want an open hearing on the facts – something neither the Republicans nor the news media have been willing to provide. I believe they want the pressure on Obama turned up, not turned off.

Remember the response Donald Trump got as a potential presidential candidate when he raised the issue? He went right to the top in the polls. Why would Republicans be afraid of an issue that sends their party to the top of the polls? Why are they actively participating in the cover-up?

And if they aren't willing to talk about an issue of this magnitude in a presidential election campaign, do we really have any hope of ever getting the answers to the questions so troubling to the American people – even after Obama leaves office?

If one can't answer the simple civics question of what it means to be a "natural born citizen" and constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency, wouldn't that be a disqualifier for anyone seeking the office?