This is simply surreal! Seriously, the highest law enforcement figure in the State of Virginia believes the President of the United States is not rightfully elected? I’m sorry, can Virginia look any worse in the eyes of the country? This bizarre conspiracy theory is simply unfathomable to me.
You can click here to read the entire transcript.
Just out of curiosity, where does Obama’s mother fit in to all of this? How totally absurd.
I cannot believe that the AG actually believes this nonsense. And they wonder why I call him Kookoonelli? Because he is a birther!!!
Every day, I feel like the world gets a little crazier…
Sounds like a very even analysis. I’m pretty happy that the AG would even answer it as many are reluctant to either take a position or offer a (legal) opinion one way or the other. Pretty neat.
Why doesn’t Cuccinelli check with Virginia’s Secretary of State to determine why Obama was allowed to be a candidate on the state election ballot for the November 2008 Presidential election?
Each state has the responsibility to determine whether candidates meet the Constitutional requirements.
He is the Attorney General of Virginia. He has the authority to make such a request. He should do it if he believes state law has been broken.
What is it with Elena and “I’m so ashamed of Virginia”? To the casual observer, it’s very telling.
So I’ve listened to the tape, and I’m quite comfortable saying you probably should be ashamed, Elena……although not for the same reasons you are thinking. If I had to hand-pick a story you folks to get all hot and bothered over, I couldn’t have done a better job myself! I suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you get t-shirts made up that say “Cuccinelli is a birther” and wear them everywhere all the time! It’s a little like the “sign” Bill Engvall talks about.
Hey, I would feel a lot better if somebody would just explain away the Indonesian proof of citizenship requirement, in order to attend a Madrass. Has he ever claimed dual citizenship?
Kookenelli is such a moron. As Attorney General for the State of Virginia, he can request whatever documentation that was used when Obama petitioned to appear on the state’s 2008 Presidential ballot. I wonder if he realizes that he even is Attorney General for the State of Virginia. He has all the authority he needs to investigate Obama’s birth. He is either incredibly stupid or chicken
When did he say this? Did he say it two years ago or did he say it recently?
Slowpoke, Elena is so gonna kick your arse. I feel a dust up coming on.
Obama’s mother is an American. Case closed. I don’t care if his father is a martian. Please don’t tell me you are a birther also. And is that term offensive also? [worlds’s smallest violin being gotten out.]
The AG is just getting more and more embarrassing by the day. Is that part of the plot to have the Mr. Love Canals all over Fox News getting all girlie and giggly over his legislation that people don’t have to buy health insurance?
How about auto insurance? Is that next?
This video is definitely Cuccinelli’s Macacac Moment.
Let’s see, what is the test case for him to use….looking around in Marshall’s direction. Am I beginning to see the BP? (Big picture, lala land style)
Okay, so they took two statements and put them together. I always believe in reading the entire sentence together.
It went something like this–“so someone is going to have to come with forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, speculation is Kenya, and it doesn’t seem to be beyond the realm of possibility. ”
The comment was about someone coming forward with nailed down testimony, not that the comment was about being born in Kenya. In my opinion, notlarrysabato and this thread have put forward a bogus supposition.
And I don’t know this AG very much anyway but I still believe in calling someone by their name and not some middle school cutesy derivation. Obviously people who do that never had their name used in that manner like some of us.
Why don’t you do a thread about Speaker Pelosi telling the world that she is looking into having the health care legislation passed without voting on the Senate bill at all. This is the new civics–
“It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” The Washington Post–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html?hpid=topnews
It sure sounds like the people have a great health care legislation that is very popular with their own legislators that they have to vote on the bill without voting on it. So you can call the opposition the “party of no” all you want, but is this the democracy that everyone thought we had?
We aren’t discussing health care. This is about OUR attorney general. Nancy Pelosi is someone else’s problem. She doesn’t represent Virginia. What’s wrong with talking about our Attorney General? I agree its difficult to justify. It makes me want to change the subject also.
Quit changing the subject. Wassamatta? Can’t discuss your own party’s embarrassments?
To everyone that doesn’t seem to understand the relevance of what Cuccinelli said, how about this scenario. What if, instead, there was a democrat AG in Virginia, and someone posed to him a question about Bush being somehow responsble for 9-11, you know those bizarre out in left field conspiracy theorists. If subsequent reaction of that AG was not an emphatic denial but instead this statement…. ” so someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he somehow knew, speculation is President Bush did know, and it doesn’t seem to be beyond the realm of possibility. ”
I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Rez,Slowpoke, PW Taxpayer would not be outraged by such a crazy statement.
Rez, start your own blog and you can talk about whatever subject you like. but for now, lets stay on topic and not deflect from the issue at hand.
Slow, you can insult me all you want, it doesn’t effect me at all, the reality is Cuccinelli entertained the idea that President Obama was not a rightful citizen. I quote from Cuccinelli :
“You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.”
Q What can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing?
CUCCINELLI: It will get tested in my view when someone… when he signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it is not a law because someone qualified to be President didn’t sign it.
Q: Is that something you can do as Attorney General? Can you do that or something?
CUCCINELLI: Well only if there is a conflict where we are suing the federal government for a law they’ve passed. So it’s possible.
Q: Because we are talking about the possibility that he was not born in America.
CUCCINELLI: Right. But at the same time under Rule 11, Federal Rule 11, we gotta have proof of it.
Q: How can we get proof?
CUCCINELLI: Well… that’s a good question. Not one I’ve thought a lot about because it hasn’t been part of my campaign. Someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.
Don’t get mad at me over Love Canals. He said it, not me. Where is Lafayette to post the video?
Don’t attempt to hold me to a higher standard than you all are willing to hold your political group to. I am not going to play that game. I am amused that everyone knew I was speaking of Marshall.
I welcome a dust-up. This is truly funny stuff. You expect to get traction with this on anything other than MSNBC? Cuccinelli’s only sin here is following the young (and quite obviously inexperienced) reporter into his trap. But he does an admirable job of answering the question without going too far into the quagmire. To misinterpret what he’s saying into “he wants to see Obama’s birth certificate” is such a hard stretch, that no person in their right mind will follow. A quick look at the usual suspects with their Beavis & Butthead “yeah..he’s a birther…huh-huh” responses are all the proof one needs. But as I said, I think this is your hook here! Keep it going, because if I could choose something to wrap around your heads, this is a good one! It plants y’all firmly on the psych-ward lunatic left fringe. I like it!
Quite frankly, reading the interview – it appears he was answering questions that were asked of him leading him down that trail of supposition. It also says he pulled out of some event because of a birther being in attendance.
I find it interesting to see the distorted view of the news presented in this thread.
The reporter asked the questions and he answered them. He didn’t say he agreed with the trail of supposition. Maybe in the last paragraph, but again – the press have a way of manipulating things and getting people to say exactly what they want them to say.
I would have found it far more accurate a thread if it was mentioned he pulled out of some event because a birther attended – and THAT was what kicked off the whole interview with him. That was conveniently left out! And I find that interesting. That puts a whole other “twist” on things. Sure, the link was there for those who did click on it and read the introductory part that said he pulled out of the event because a “birther” attended it, but most people probably didn’t go read that. It is just interesting how things are slanted to fit the story that people want to portray. Does he not get any credit for pulling out of that event? I guess not.
I’m not defending him, but I’m just commenting on the slanted portrayal here. His comments take on a different light when you consider why he was talking about this in the first place, and the fact he pulled out of some event because a “birther” attended it.
I don’t believe any of that “birther” talk anyway – but this was an instance of the press asking someone questions, and him following along in their train of supposition. Sort of leading questions, as it were.
It can also be debated what exactly he meant when he said “And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.”
He may have meant that it isn’t beyond the real of possibility some birther will attempt to come forward with evidence that looks to be authentic to challenge some lawsuit. I don’t think we can really know – but the fact he backed out of some event because a birther was in attendance tells me something – that we aren’t seeing the full picture here.
And, I just find it interesting that fact is being conveniently ignored – and that fact is what caused this line of questioning! So, the top of this thread doesn’t tell the full story – to let the reader form his/her own opinion. Instead, it guides them into forming what may be an inaccurate opinion.
I just don’t know – but I find it interesting that piece of info was left out.
This gets into the subject of bullying. Bullies always don’t care about the ramifications of name calling, and other things. People who name call are a subcategory of bullies, and deserve to be considered as such.
Maybe that’s too strong a statement I just said. However, one has to be careful when name calling as it really seems there’s better ways to make a point in an argument than resorting to that.
Anyone that’s read this blog would know exactly who “Mr. Love Canals” is. Geesh.
For you to watch with your own two eyes and listen with your own two ears. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6k4RrKNk7s
Moon, I’ll never let you down when it comes to that video.
Actually, I could care less about this whole issue – my main complaint is a key piece of news was left out of the story, all in an attempt to sort of label the AG as a “closeted birther”. I guess he is “closeted” – since he pulled out of attending some event because a birther attended it.
Anyway, I just don’t like the news being served up in such a slanted manner. That’s the point I was really making in the above 3 posts. I somewhat got off track with the business of name calling, etc. and in retrospect, name calling of political figures is probably considered acceptable these days – and happens on both sides (Republican and Democrat).
I also don’t think it’s a fair comparison to talk 9/11 conspiracy theories – where a lot of people got killed. That’s a completely different matter and you are talking lives here. People get a lot more worked up about things when you are talking about invalidating why 6000+ people are killed. It is sort of an “apple to oranges comparison” as it were, and not a valid one. Not that I agree with any of this birther stuff on Obama – but that’s a far cry from saying some conspiracy theory of 9/11 is possible – that would maybe claim the US had some involvement in killing those people, or that it wasn’t terrorists like Al Qaeda, etc.
Gainesville,
Would you mind answering my hypthetical regarding Bush and 9-11 conspiracy theorists?
Cuccinelli’s statement, right before the “realm of possiblity” is that he could have been born in Kenya. That connective statement is pretty cut and dry. Why is everyone so resistent to admitting it was inappropriate at best.
Elena, good point as usual. You stumped the other side.
From the master of “stumped”.
Thanks, Lafayette, for bringing back Love Canal….maybe I should say Mr. Love Canal.
The comparison is relevant, in that both are ridculous suppositions. President Obama was in office almost a year when Cuccinelli made these ridiculous statements. His response should have been, unequivically….. “President Obama is the rightful President, and, as the Supreme Court has rejected any lawsuit regarding his legitimacy as President, I certainly would also”. DONE, issue DONE. But, that is NOT what Cuccinelli did, and for that, he looks like a someone who gave credibility to “the realm of possiblity” that Obama was born in Kenya. Even IF he were born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-birth-certificate1dec08,0,7258812.story
Text:
Q What can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing?
CUCCINELLI: It will get tested in my view when someone… when he signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it is not a law because someone qualified to be President didn’t sign it.
Q: Is that something you can do as Attorney General? Can you do that or something?
CUCCINELLI: Well only if there is a conflict where we are suing the federal government for a law they’ve passed. So it’s possible.
Q: Because we are talking about the possibility that he was not born in America.
CUCCINELLI: Right. But at the same time under Rule 11, Federal Rule 11, we gotta have proof of it.
Q: How can we get proof?
CUCCINELLI: Well… that’s a good question. Not one I’ve thought a lot about because it hasn’t been part of my campaign. Someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.
Washington Independent
Let’s pose the story another way…do we want our attorney general to be entertaining birther talk? Doesn’t Virginia have some real problems? Did anyone see the budget cuts listed in the WaPo yesterday?
Does it embarrass anyone else to see Virginia being laughted at nationally for having a birther AG or an AG who wants to remove sexual orientation from list of policy protections?
Again, only the lunatic left would listen to or read the transcript and be able to teleport all the way to “Cucinelli is a birther”. Thankfully, that’s a very small group of people (most of them are in Congress or the White House now). I know of nobody laughing at Virginia. In fact, most people I have heard are applauding the ruling Friday to protect our citizens against the stink-bomb health care legislation. I’m sorry, but rational individuals just won’t follow you down this path. I repeat my best wishes for y’all as you journey down it, though! Bon Voyage!!
This whole thing smacks of extreme desperation. Do you really need to make up stuff in order to sleep at night? I suppose it makes sense for a irrationally partisan group to hallicinate once they realize their leftist fantasy world is falling apart, though. It’s just a little sad…….but just a little. 🙂
What hypothetical was that? It didn’t mention me in it, so why should I answer it? I still say, that isn’t a valid comparison – you are comparing someone saying that it was a conspiracy to kill 6000+ people versus someone saying that the President of the USA was not born in the USA. One is implicating the USA in killing people, one is not. That is an apples to oranges comparison. I expect most Americans would be unhappy with the implication that “we” killed 6000+ people – and would provoke a far more visceral reaction than some statement about the President of the USA possibly not being born in the USA.
While neither are valid, I would expect more people to be up in arms with the first statement than the second.
If that doesn’t answer you, I don’t know what will.
No, she didn’t “stump the other side”. Get real.
Of course, no one said a thing about how it was conveniently left out about the fact that the AG did not attend some event because a birther decided to attend it. I know, because that’s a contradictory statement to the idea that the AG himself sympathizes with the birthers.
I still say that interview is not clear, and it is like putting a witness on the witness stand and asking intentionally leading questions on some hypothetical thing.
Anyway, this is a silly argument – the birther stuff is nonsense, and the great majority of people don’t believe it. It isn’t going anywhere, so who cares what anyone thinks on it.
Actually, the real “stumper” is why we are wasting time arguing about this – when none of this “birther” nonsense is going anywhere. The real stumper is why some idiot reporter decided to even question the AG about it, and lead him down this stupid hypothetical path.
But, if the liberals want to make hay out of it – let them – it’s a very unimportant thing in the grand scheme of things. As such, I’m beginning to feel like it’s a complete waste of my time to debate this any further. No laws in Virginia are going to change one way or the other as a result of this!
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. An argument is rational because two irrational things are being compared! One is much more ridiculous – that the USA would be directly involved in the murder of 6000+ people! I would hope that most normal people would be highly offended by such a suggestion. That has a much higher “shock value” or is much more abhorent – as you are arguing an elected official had something to do with either causing or covering up the murder of people.
How anyone can say that’s an apples to apples comparison to the ridiculous assumption that the President wasn’t born in the USA – I just find that funny.
Anyway, you can’t claim it is a rational argument to compare two irrational completely unrleated things. That just defies logic.
So it is his fault that someone interviewed him and asked him these questions? Was he supposed to decline the interview? Maybe it was only part of the interview.
I just don’t get it. The purpose of the press is to stir up stuff. Looks like they succeeded.
What’s funny is if he declined the interview I’m sure he’d have been equally attacked. Sometimes you can’t win, this is one of them.
People keep ignoring a key fact – he declined to attend some event because a birther chose to attend. That I find interesting. If that key fact had been put at the top of this thread, I wouldn’t find it such a distorted portrayal of things.
How come it’s even up to me to answer it? I don’t see anyone else answering it and the question wasn’t even addressed to me. Your post indicates I was somehow stalling in answering it or some such thing, which I wasn’t. No one asked me the question, and I’m sorry if I don’t monitor this blog instantaneously to satisfy someone’s needs to instantly answer questions posed!
Actually, you said what I was trying to say in a bunch of different posts much more concisely. That really summarizes my feelings on this whole debate!
I should have just referenced this and not written much. I think I’m done with this beyond silly debate!
And here’s an example of StarryFlights jumping to a stupid conclusion, just because I didn’t answer Elena’s question in 14 minutes time (Starry’s post is right after hers – and sorry – I don’t monitor this blog 24/7 so that I can make instantaneous answers to questions posed of me).
The following exchange shows how silly some people are (I’m referring to the 2nd poster in this exchange – apparently by StarryFlight’s definition – if someone doesn’t monitor a blog non-stop and doesn’t answer within a grand total of 14 minutes – they are “stumped” – I’d love to see the rest of StarryFlight’s dictionary – as that’s an interesting definition of the word “stumped”):
#
March 16th, 2010 at 09:28 | #26
Reply | Quote
Gainesville,
Would you mind answering my hypthetical regarding Bush and 9-11 conspiracy theorists?
#
Starryflights
March 16th, 2010 at 09:42 | #27
Reply | Quote
Elena, good point as usual. You stumped the other side.
Slowpoke, many Virginians are concerned over the antics of the newly elected AG. Dismiss those concerns if you want. They are there. The people I have heard who are the most vocal are native Virginians who don’t want their state nationally known as an extremist state. And that is the image that is being placed out there.
The AG cannot help what he is asked. He can only help what comes out of his mouth. In this case, he is inflammatory. What do we think Bill Bolling would have said? I expect he would have dismissed the reporter and told him that he wasn’t going to discuss such nonsense, like a normal person would do.
Once again, Cuccinelli doesn’t attempt to hide his right wing extremism.
By the way, does the name Cooch bother you all as much as KooKoonelli?
I understand that line of reasoning – I just don’t think this “birther” story interview with the AG is that much of a major news event. However, I can maybe see the line of reasoning that it contributes to some people’s negative views of the AG. That is a fair statement – I just think some of the other things said in this thread are way overblown, and some of it was taken out of context since it was not mentioned about him declining to attend that event that some birther attended – which would seem to score a point in his favor.
Using StarryFlight’s dictionary – we’ve learned a new meaning of the word “stumped” today!
I see some of you backing off this topic because there is really no justification for the AG to have entertained such thoughts. Does everyone accept that birther conspiracy theory is bogus? Just checking.
I also don’t believe that the AG refused to go to anything at CPAC because a birther was there. I think that is an urban legend. Did you watch any of it? It was loaded with birthers. The statistics on birthers are alarming.
The point is, elections have been lost over what someone says to reporters. I don’t care if it is Macaca or birther talk, you political enemies will have a hay day, much the same as people are doing every single time Obama, Reid or Pelosi open their mouths.
Funny how its only wrong when ‘the other side’ does it.
GR, I will gladly eat my words if someone delivers proof that the AG actually disavowed a birther and birther talk. I haven’t seen it yet in my travels. And I will continue to dog after the AG in a way that I would not do over the governor. The governor, while not doing some things I like, has attempted to govern from the center.
The AG has attempted to govern from the far right and I don’t like it.
Yes, we get -ad naseum – that Cuccinelli did not attend some event where a birther was present. But, his answer panders to them particularly with the statement “You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.” Wink. Wink.
Elena is right. He should have dismissed the whole “birther” allegation as ridiculous. Would he have taken as much time to address martians landing in New Jersey? Of course not, he would have more than likely joked and moved on.