The Politico reports that the “Barack: The Magic Negro” CD controversy may have helped Saltsman. I’m skeptical, but they have several members of the RNC offering a defense of sorts:
“When I heard about the story I had to figure out what was going on for myself,” said Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party. “When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”
Alabama Republican committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it “didn’t bother me one bit.”
“Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift,” he said. “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”
“I don’t think he intended it as any kind of racial slur. I think he intended it as a humor gift,” Oklahoma GOP committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. “I think it was innocently done by Chip.”
Maybe, the Politico knows something it’s not reporting, but none of these statements seem like overwhelming votes of confidence for Saltsman. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see any way Saltsman pulls this out or survives past the second ballot. However, this flap has clearly been a boon to Ken Blackwell:
As a result of his position, a source close to the race said that at least 12 uncommitted committee members have contacted Blackwell to thank him for his support for Saltsman and have expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis “for throwing a good Republican under the bus.”
12 is a little less than 1/7th of what Blackwell needs to claim the Chairmanship. And let there be no doubt, this has wounded Saul Anuzis and Chairman Mike Duncan:
“Those are two guys who just eliminated themselves from this race for jumping all over Chip on this,” one committee member told Politico. “Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this…”
In calls to committee members in recent days, both Saltsman and Blackwell have been reminding Republicans of how both Duncan and Anuzis reacted to the story.
“I wasn’t angered by what Mike had said, it was just revealing to me how each one responded,” said Ellis of Maine, who as an uncommitted member received calls from all six candidates Monday. “Their responses were kind of a surprise to me because I saw it as something that was not an issue, something that was manufactured from outside the committee.”
This process of electing a chairman is micropolitics. It doesn’t really matter what the bloggers think or the opinion of outside political leaders. What matters is what’s going on with the 168 members of the RNC and this is an issue that both Saltsman and Blackwell see as pay dirt, because Duncan’s response came off poorly with members of the Commitee. Whatever damage occurred to Saltsman, rather than adding to that damage, Duncan’s statement wounded his own campaign. Rather than coming off as strong and in charge, he came off as a weak panderer to his fellow Committeeman.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:57 am
How does one become a member of the RNC?
December 31st, 2008 at 2:02 am
One becomes a member of the RNC if you are elected by your state convention. Every State and U.S. Territory has 3 members of the RNC:
1) The Party Chair
2) A National Committeeman
3) A National Committeewoman
December 31st, 2008 at 9:16 am
BHO IS — or will NEED to be — “magic” — how else does he get around these items?:
1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.
2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.
3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.
4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.
5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.
6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.
7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Ted, you are a fricken moron.
Would you at least promise us one thing? If your predicition, in number 5, does not come to pass, you will admit that you are a fricken moron and get a life?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
You may be confusing “citizen” as under the 14th Amendment with “natural born citizen” under Article II which sets out that unique requirement to be President. It doesn’t matter where BHO was born. He could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House. So long as BHO’s father was a Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born, BHO is not, can not be, can never be, a “natural born citizen”.
I would suggest you read the case law and legislative history around Article II and the 14th Amendment. Again, this is not to say whether BHO is a “citizen” of USA — he may or may not be — BUT IN ANY CASE, he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Ted is a secret Joe Biden fanboy
December 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
FredsFighter — you MUST BE kidding!!! Biden’s got the lowest IQ in the US Senate (with the possible exception of Barbara Boxer).
December 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I do not know if Mr. Biden has the lowest IQ, but he is certainly a big buffoon.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Ted, just curious, but where do you get the notion that “natural born citizen” requires even one parent to be a citizen, much less both? Do you have case law or legal statute you can cite for this? If not, #3 is false, and the rest of your items fail.
The most the SCOTUS is likely to do, assuming they don’t dismiss the case (which they well might), is send it back to the lower courts for trial. Assuming it’s sent to the lower courts for trial, all the Democrats need to do is pass a resolution (and it would pass by a wide margin) declaring Pres Obama to be a “natural born citizen.” Questions about their ability to do so would create ANOTHER legal challenge, but only after the original suit was dismissed because of the new law. Take another trip through the courts to get to the SCOTUS, and if they don’t rule it Constitutional for Congress to do so, it will already be 2-3 years down the way, and the entire process of challenging his citizenship will have to start all over. This is the BEST scenario for those who want to remove Pres Obama this way, and the most likely of results would make it a campaign issue as Pres runs again in 2012, but not before.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
can you imagine how the GOP looks to the rest of the nation if, after the “Barack the Magic Negro” CD, Saltsman is still elected (primarily by those who support Huckabee). You can certainly try and argue that its no big deal, he is really a good guy, we are not going to let this stop us, etc., but the perception (i.e. voters) would be very troubling. Unfortunately, Saltsman is too much of an ego-maniac to withdraw.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Ted, there are far more pressing issues in politics right now than whatever tangent you’re obsessed with. We have the GOP desperately seeking its identity, and bizarre distractions such as this are a waste of time.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
FredsFighter, there is absolutely NOTHING more pressing than preserving this nation as a Constitutional Republic.
RichardM, the case is AIRTIGHT that Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen”. The SCOTUS knows this!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
#12 “RichardM, the case is AIRTIGHT that Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen”. The SCOTUS knows this!”
So you repeatedly say. I (and others) have asked you to back it up with SOMETHING that would prove that. His father wasn’t a citizen? Great! Show me the case law on this being a determining factor, and then we can talk. He wasn’t born in Hawaii? Great! Show me the documentation that proves he was born in Kenya. Again, asserting it’s airtight and it being airtight are two very different things.
Of course, the SCOTUS isn’t even hearing the case as to whether he’s a citizen yet, but whether the plaintiff has standing to sue (due to how the cases have been dismissed to this point). Again, even if they rule in the manner you want, the odds are incredibly slim they’d prevent his inauguration. They’d have to send it back down for trial, as NO TRIAL HAS TAKEN PLACE, AND A TRIAL IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!!! The trial would then go on for a time, with the Dems in Congress passing a binding resolution into law stating he meets the criteria (likely passed on a near-unanimous vote), which would immediately derail the trial and would have to be litigated up to the SCOTUS before it was struck down as unconstitutional (which I doubt it would be considered such). Then the trial would have to start all over again, and Pres Obama would likely be running for his second term by then. Quite simply, too many snags on the way for this to remove Pres Obama.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I never thought I’d take Tano’s side in an argument on this site, but Ted — you really, really need to put down the Kool Aid if you know what’s good for you.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This has to be looked at in the larger perspective of an enormous set back and blow to the chances of Huckabee. Huck put together a four year plan for winning the nomination. So far, even I as a Huck critic, must acknowledge that his plan has been ambitious if not well executed. Here was Huck’s plan:
1. Write a book that reframed the 2008 campaign favorably to himself.
2. Gain a foothold in the Fox News organization and conservative talk radio.
3. Get Chip Saltsman installed as RNC Chair so as to influence primary rules and scheduling in his favor.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Well said.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
#15, I thought #1 was-Huckabee gets himself named as the sixth most corrupt politician of 2007.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I don’t think the case against Barack Obama being a natural born citizen is airtight, but it should be allowed to bear itself out. Obama’s grandmother is on tape saying he was born in Kenya, that’s reason enough for Barack to have to produce his vault birth certificate-which would have much more information than the certificate of live birth he put on his website.
Also, to me the real question is if Obama LOST his citizenship when he went to school in Indonesia. Supposedly to go to school in Indonesia at that time you had to be a citizen, and Lolo Soetoro (who’s listed as Barack’s father on school transcripts) would have either had to adopt him, or acknowledge him for him to go to school there. Either would cost him his citizenship. Coming back to the US, he would have to be renaturalized, which would not make him a natural born citizen.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“Obama’s grandmother is on tape saying he was born in Kenya, that’s reason enough for Barack to have to produce his vault birth certificate.”
No it isn’t. What Obama’s grandmother says about Obama’s birth is hearsay and would never be admitted in a court of law, unless she claimed she was present at
the birth. Even then, you would have to subpoena her, and given that she doesn’t live in the United States, that would prove difficult. Obama’s birth certificate (excuse me, “Certificate of Live Birth”) is a government record, and any court can take judicial notice of its contents without any testimony. That is the law in pretty much every state in the US and the law in the federal courts. There is no case here. Not even a colorable one.
January 1st, 2009 at 9:27 am
Sean P #19 – Why is Obama’s grandmother saying he was born in Kenya hearsay. She claims to have been present at the birth, not just having knowledge about it. How much more direct testimony can you have than that???
January 1st, 2009 at 9:50 am
One’s Grandmother’s words may not be admissible in court, but to fluff it off as just hearsay is fighting words. I realize that I do not get offended easy over cartoons, but I would get offended if anyone accused any of my grandmothers (passed away) of talking ‘hearsay.’
January 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
#20/21:
Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If Obama’s grandmother is deceased, she can’t ever testify in court, therefore her statements are hearsay. (#20, were you making a joke? I honestly can’t tell. Assuming you aren’t — the legal definition of hearsay is what it is, I don’t understand how quoting it constitutes fighting words). If Obama’s grandmother didn’t speak English particularly well and her comments were made through a translator they aren’t even her statements, but rather those of the translator, which is another layer of hearsay.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
Thanks for clarifying that Sean P, I was not there for Mr. Obama’s birth, so I do not know the story one way or the other. I was also not aware of his Grandmother’s mother tongue. I just think we must be careful when we talk about grandmothers.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Just to clarify, I honestly don’t know if his paternal grandmother spoke English, or how well. Nor do I care, since the “certificate of live birth” is pretty much all the proof I need to put the matter to bed.