February 24, 2010 5:57 PM

J.D. Hayworth: McCain Birther Spot Reflects "Desperation"

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Campaign 2010
John McCain's campaign released a web ad Wednesday linking right-wing talk show host J.D. Hayworth, McCain's opponent in the Arizona Senate Republican primary, to the birther movement.

"These are serious economic times. Yet some are consumed by conspiracies," the spot suggests as it opens. It then cuts to comments by a pair of so-called "birthers," Orly Taitz and Phil Berg. (Birthers are those who believe that President Obama was not born in the United States, despite copious evidence to the contrary.)

Next comes Hayworth. "All I'm saying is, for every race across the country, especially with identity theft in the news, it would be great that people can confirm who they say they are," he says.

Hayworth is then heard saying on his radio show last year, "sad fact is, questions continue. And until President Obama signs his name and in fact has the records revealed, the questions will remain."

As a picture of Hayworth fills the screen, an announcer then says, "The only difference between these people? Only one is running for the U.S. Senate."

Late Wednesday afternoon, Hayworth's spokesman told Politico that the spot, "Identity," reflected McCain's "desperation."

"I love the smell of 24-year incumbent desperation in the afternoon," said Jason Rose. "He hears those conservative footsteps a comin' and knows his political fate, like Gov. Crist, is a matter of time. And he knows full well it was J.D.'s job as a talk-show host to provoke discussion. Questions were raised on the air. They have been answered."

Hayworth, a longtime McCain critic and former Arizona congressman, is seeking to capitalize on the country's anti-incumbent mood, as well as the frustrations of conservative voters who have dubbed McCain a "Republican in Name Only."

Seemingly in response to the challenge, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has moved right on issues like immigration, the bailout bill, closing the Guant?namo Bay detention facility and repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Hayworth trailed McCain by more than 20 points in a January poll. But McCain aides are taking the talk show host seriously, having seen Tea Party darling Marco Rubio close a major gap against another alleged "RINO," Charlie Crist, in the Florida GOP Senate primary.

Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by Repubforlife February 27, 2010 12:19 AM EST
The reason this article is even on here is b/c of the election, not b/c Obama is going to 'find' his birth certificate...This is btwn JD and McCain...the race, well not really b/c McCain is way ahead in the polls-There is NO way JD will win this thing, the past reputation he left in Congress was not even decent and there are no second chances once you lose your seat b/c of assocations with convicted lobbyists.
Reply to this comment
by jonnyjalled February 27, 2010 12:09 AM EST
McCain being desperate is a total joke. Polls show his lead as great over JD and not one single person I know would even entertain the idea of electing the blowhard, boozer, big spender to Congress. We are sticking with McCain!
Reply to this comment
by DirtyDaug February 26, 2010 5:23 PM EST
Thank God For Barak Obama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is right ? I will say it THANK GOD FOR BARAK OBAMA


He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine ? Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary?s Presidential aspirations ? something no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you!

He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty ? No more Kennedy?s trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight!

He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes!
Dennis Moore had never lost a race ? quit
Evan Bayh had never lost a race ? quit
Byron Dorgan ? had never lost a race ? quit
Patrick Kennedy. Decieded not to run.
Harry Reid ? bid for re-election doesn?t look good
Nancy - History
These are just a handful of the Democrats that whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be!
In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party.
In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.

He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well!
Liberals tax, borrow and spend ? check
Liberals won?t bring themselves to protect America ? check
Liberals want to take over the economy ? check
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone ? check
Liberals aren?t happy till they are running YOUR life - check

He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan
In One year he rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans
Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!

In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat out wrong.

When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them!
Barak Obama woke up these Great Americans

Again I want say Thank you Barak Obama!
__________________
Reply to this comment
by mld678 February 26, 2010 8:52 AM EST
I don'y know why, but I just feel like JD is a trickster. As if he feeds words to the people he is facing at the moment. Not exactly a man that I want representing me, or my state. Might not just be a feeling though, he's already proven to AZ that his commitment to conservatism can be swayed, if the priice is right! And let us not forget - the Ghost of Abrahmoff is not gone. Going to have to go McCain.
Reply to this comment
by mld678 February 26, 2010 8:51 AM EST
I don'y know why, but I just feel like JD is a trickster. As if he feeds words to the people he is facing at the moment. Not exactly a man that I want representing me, or my state. Might not just be a feeling though, he's already proven to AZ that his commitment to conservatism can be swayed, if the priice is right! And let us not forget - the Ghost of Abrahmoff is not gone. Going to have to go McCain.
Reply to this comment
by forseti1 February 25, 2010 10:29 AM EST
taylorsucram, many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. You appear to be the latter. Furthermore, when the Left does not have the facts and the law on their side, they resort to name-calling, smears, and playing the race card. It is all they have.

Now you stated, "As everyone knows no other President of the United States has been questioned as to their "Birth Certificate." My reply is that I believe that President Chester A. Arthur's natural born citizen status was raised. That aside, McCain had his natural born citizen status challenged, and I believe that Congress did investigate it by holding hearings. Since he did not become president the issue became moot. Obama's NBC status, on the other hand, was not rendered moot by his election. As for the rest of the Prsidents, they did not have red flags waving like Obama does. That said, questioning Obama's NBC status is warranted.
Reply to this comment
by taylorsucram February 25, 2010 5:01 AM EST
As everyone knows no other President of the United States has been questioned as to their "Birth Certificate" and if they are an American Born Citizen. As everyone knows this is merely a nice way for RACISTS to question a black man serving as their President. You people are nuts and you take all the meaning out of the word "stupid".

You're still in shock but you'll get over it.
Reply to this comment
by DirtyDaug February 25, 2010 4:45 AM EST
The fact is Obama is an American citizen, born of an american mother and an american father. This is what Obama is hiding, it is who and not where. Obama's mother was a black ***** and Stanley Durham fathered the child which became our President. Stanley Anne Durham was not the mother and Obama Sr. was not the father. The marrage between Obama Sr. and Anne Durham was only to cover up who little Obama really was. Stanley Durham wanted a boy and he got a grandson this way. Having an American wife and child on paper ment lots of favors to Barack Obama Sr. as he was an African citizen. The dates that Stanley Anne Durham did things don't add up if she was the mother. Maybe this is why Stanley Anne Durham and Barack Obama Sr. were never seen by anyone and also why Grandma Durham was always so cool to little Obama. Google yourself a picure Of Stanley Durham and see for yourself how much Stanley Durham and little Barack Obama look alike.

You will maybe think I'm a nut case for bringing the above up but its makes about as much sense as it does for Obama to hide all of his records.
Reply to this comment
by borderhawk February 24, 2010 8:32 PM EST
It is untrue to say that birthers believe President Obama was not born in the United States. Place of birth is not relevant, but it would be nice to see his long form birth certificate, in order to confirm a few things. President Obama was not born a natural born citizen. He was born a dual national, and therefore cannot become a natural born citizen.

14th Amendment: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

Under the 14th Amendment, if the mother and father are not US citizens,
then the baby, is not a US citizen, even if the birth occurred in the USA.

True, the 14th Amendment, says if a person is born in the USA they can
be a US citizen, however the birth must also meet the jurisdiction
requirement of the 14th Amendment.

A child born in one of the states united under the US Constitution, is
subject to the territorial state laws of the state (locum, jus soli) and the USA (locum, jus soli), but also under the joint jurisdiction of his mother's (personam, jus sanguinis) nationality and his father's (personam, jus sanguinis)nationality.
-- If one parent has US nationality, then the child is a dual citizen, but still a 14th Amendment US citizen.
-- If both parents have US nationality, then the child is a natural born US citizen.
-- If neither parent has US nationality, then the child is the nationality of the parents.
Reply to this comment
by earlysaid February 24, 2010 11:58 PM EST
borderhawk President Obama is our President and you can want any baloney crapola you want but you aren't going to get it. There was no need to write a book about the birther subject. You are just a simpleton getting bozo info from right wing wackos who got their info from bozo wackos.
by forseti1 February 24, 2010 7:31 PM EST
If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let?s consider something that is not nuts ? which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, you can use it to decide if Obama has met his burden of proof by posting his 2007 Certification of Live Birth on the Internet. You might, however, want to consider this fact before drawing a conclusion ? Although Hawaii calls the posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth an "official" birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a scant summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama?s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at http://birther.com. Look for the links in red.

Does anyone really know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won?t tell. Was it the one with a doctor?s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo ? state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an "official" scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of the "original" birth certificate." The issue is, do you trust that kind of a summary?

Apparently, all three branches of the government, as well as the media and the Left, do. To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government, or anyone else for that matter, has bothered to look at Obama?s 1961 vital record. They have instead just chosen to accept his posted 2007 Certification of Live Birth, a scant summary of that 1961 vital record, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -"Born in Hawaii." It reminds me of someone who tells another, "Because I say so."

What other evidence is the because-I-say-so kind that they are saying proves Obama?s natural born citizen status? How about that 1961 Hawaii newspaper birth announcement? For those who dare to scrutinize it, the Left claims that the birthers believe that the announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. This is their way of discrediting them. Let?s be honest here. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive ? the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack?s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

So there you have it, Obama?s evidence ? a 2007 scant summary (Certification of Live Birth) of an unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record, and an old newspaper announcement generated from that same unreliable and untrustworthy 1961 record. Has Obama satisfied his burden of proof? You decide.
Reply to this comment
by forseti1 February 24, 2010 7:34 PM EST
Apparently, this blog substituted a "?" for where I had written an apostrophe, or in some cases, a comma.
by earlysaid February 25, 2010 12:05 AM EST
Idiot moron. Go over to Fox News or somewhere where people will appreciate your loony stupidity. You are just showing how delusional and desperate you are to keep bringing up this crud. Stupid people are always going to be stupid people.
See all 14 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...