The Huffington Post has a new article out by Terry Krepel, “Birthers at WorldNetDaily Won’t Hold Cruz to Same Standard as Obama,” charging WorldNetDaily with hypocrisy, for not raising the same eligibility objections to the foreign-born Ted Cruz as they did against Barack Obama.
Apart from the editorial position of WND, birther commenters there and elsewhere (e.g. Mario Apuzzo and David Farrar) consistently declare the ineligibility of both, although they leave me wondering how they would actually vote. I have a 2016 election poll that I’d really like birthers to respond to:
If the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were polling within 5% of each other, would you vote
- Hillary Clinton? (58%, 15 Votes)
- A third-party candidate you believed eligible? (31%, 8 Votes)
- For the Republican candidate you liked ideologically, but believed Constitutionally ineligible? (12%, 3 Votes)
Total Voters: 26
WND has not been completely silent on the issue with an article 2 days ago by Cheryl Chumley titled, “Rubio runs, tea party turns on him.” No loss of irony is seen in her selected quote from Rubio (pictured right) , who called himself “uniquely qualified” for the presidency. Despite that teaser, WND readers will find that the core objections against Rubio are policy based.
Indeed, one has to get pretty deep into the article before they touch the eligibility question:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
The article itself takes no position on Rubio’s eligibility.