The time has come for Mitt Romney to prove it once and for all: Is he or is he not a unicorn?
Let me stipulate that I have no proof that Romney is a unicorn, and indeed I want to believe that he is not. But I haven’t seen proof of this because he has not released the original copy of his long-form birth certificate.
There are many others who feel as I do — 18,000 people to be precise. I first began to consider the possibility that Romney might be a unicorn when I heard that LeftAction, an online petition operation created by Democratic PR guy John Hlinko, was campaigning to get the Arizona secretary of state to certify that the presumptive Republican nominee is not a mythical beast before allowing his name to be on the presidential ballot.
“There has never been a conclusive DNA test proving that Mitt Romney is not a unicorn,” the group wrote last week. “And if Mitt Romney is or may be a unicorn, he is not constitutionally qualified to be president.”
The mittromneyisaunicorn.com campaign came about because Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, citing allegations that the birth certificate President Obama released is a fraud, threatened to take the incumbent off the ballot.
Obviously, the likelihood that Romney is a fanciful equine is no more plausible than the claim that Obama was born in Africa. So why is the unicorn fair game? Because Romney has made it so.
Romney held a fundraiser Tuesday night in Las Vegas with Donald Trump, the nation’s most prominent “birther.” The real-estate tycoon, in interviews last week with the Daily Beast and Tuesday with the Las Vegas Review-Journal, revived his charge that Obama was born in Kenya.
Romney on Monday declined to repudiate Trump, telling reporters aboard his plane: “I don’t agree with all the people who support me. … But I need to get 50.1 percent or more. And I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
It’s not the first time Romney, who once distanced himself from the birthers, has failed to stand up to sinister elements on the right. But this is a particularly unsavory crowd.
Some members have already turned against Romney. In a lawsuit filed in March, a group of birthers sued to require California to verify the eligibility of all presidential candidates. Obama is “arguably ineligible,” the plaintiffs wrote, and “a similar situation may exist concerning the Republican Party candidacy of Mitt Romney.” A lawyer for the birthers said the claim is related to George Romney’s time in Mexico as a child.
Give these birthers some credit: They may be crazy, but they’re nonpartisan. In fact, if Trump and his ilk want to be fair about it, a white presidential candidate with a foreign-born father deserves to be badgered into releasing his birth certificate just as much as a black presidential candidate with a foreign-born father.
There actually is a minor controversy surrounding Romney’s birth certificate. Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, pursuing a theory that the candidate’s middle name is “Milton” rather than “Mitt,” asked Romney’s campaign five years ago for a copy of the birth certificate. The campaign declined.
I would prefer it if presidential candidates didn’t need to produce vital records to prove eligibility. But if Romney is going to pal around with birthers — especially a newly reborn birther such as Trump — he shouldn’t be surprised that people want him to play by the same rules.
That was the thinking behind the unicorn campaign. When Arizona’s Bennett said he was investigating Obama’s eligibility because he received 1,200 emailed requests, Hlinko’s group wanted to see what Bennett would do if presented with even more requests to investigate an equally implausible claim against the Republican. LeftAction claims 18,000 have petitioned Bennett so far.
The secretary of state has retracted his threat to keep Obama off the ballot after Hawaii yet again verified the president’s birth. But the request for a unicorn probe, Bennett said, is “ridiculous.”
The “corners,” as unicorn movement followers call themselves, agree that it’s “a cockamamie conspiracy theory with no basis in reality,” as Hlinko put it. And yet, he told me, “it’s arguably more plausible” than the Obama-Kenya claim, because nobody has seen whether Romney has a unicorn’s horn beneath that ample mane.
“If he would just shave his head, the whole thing would be disproved,” Hlinko offered.
I’d settle for a long-form birth certificate.
Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is danamilbank@washpost.com.
Excellent response to absolute nonsense and the fact that Romney panders to anybody who he thinks will give him a vote is whorish beyond belief.
If Romney is part unicorn, then he can not be a “natural” born citizen, since unicorns are well known to be “supernatural.”
Speaking of unicorns, Id like to see the now invisible $500 billion that Oblamer gave to a company already going bankrupt. Can you or any of the democrat crooks in this administration get us a refund from Solyndra? Steve Spinner is one of your bundlers, and just so coincidentally also is the primary owner of Solyndra. He’d be a good one to ask about the refund. Im guessing the likelyhood of us taxpayers getting any money back are about as good as the chances a democrat will actually pay his or her own income taxes. Which for you Occupy people means a very, very low chance.
You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see the now invisible billions upon billions of dollars that were shrink-wrapped and slapped onto pallets and flown into Iraq never to be seen again. That’d be great to see again. Wonder what happened THAT money?
Absolutely. BDNisHYPOCRITICAL is hypocritical unless he/she/it also wants to know where the pallets of cash went that Republican “crooks” (to quote BDNisHYPOCRITICAL) Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld shipped to Iraq.
But the important question is, is Romney a unicorn? And if they have nothing to hide, why don’t they provide evidence that he isn’t a unicorn? For that matter, can BDNisHYPOCRITICAL prove that he/she/it is not a unicorn?
Hey Dana, he may not be a unicorn but he
sure isn’t a marxist. Did you ask which dog
is happier? Rommney’s who rode on the roof
or the one Obama ate? You going to next tell us
how much business smarts Obama has and how
he is a financial wizard? Have you picked apart
everyone on the left who has said something
Obama supposedly had no control over? How about
covering all the stuff you didn’t cover about Obama
when he first was the wonder of the planet. Have you covered
the Rev Wright’s wonderful words of wisdom and attribute
them to Obama? After all this guy was his mentor and guiding
light. Better yet, how about trying to define what this pres has
accomplished instead of a foolish argument.
The “foolish argument” you mention was raised by the silly right-wing “birthers” who will not accept the piles of evidence that prove that President Obama was born in Hawaii, just as the Honolulu newspapers reported at the time (there were birth notices in the newspapers at the time — do they think Democrats took a time machine back to place those notices?).
Romney has praised Social Security, so by the standards of Fox News and the Tea Party, that makes him a Marxist.
Yes, the Rev. Wright issue was covered over and over ad nauseam four years ago. As for the religion non-issue, both major candidates have problems — Mormons believe that any Mormon male can potentially become a God with their own universe to rule, and that the God of the Bible was once a man like us. That’s not exactly mainstream religious thinking.
But the bigger question is, is Romney a unicorn? And if not, can he prove he isn’t?
Romney was 36 years old when he put that dog on top of his roof and drove to Canada – and when the dog was sick with the runs, Romney stopped, washed off the car and the dog and put the dog BACK on top of the car.
Obama was..8…10? Not sure of the exact age, but he was a child and the food was put before him.
There’s a big difference between the two. Not really comparable as much as Fox and Friends will try.
Ha………………………..haaaaaaaaaaaaa LMAO! Hell yes I’d sign.
This is really pretty weak stuff. Romney doesn’t want to alienate voters who’d otherwise vote for him? Political pandering (if saying he doesn’t agree with birthers is ‘pandering’ to them) is something new in America?
Oh, well, it gets the big har-de-har-har from the progressives: proving, mainly, that they’re easily amused.
Very funny. It highlights how stupid Trump and those birthers are.
I’m more concerned that Obama’s a natural-born Marxist.
Sure is a whole lot of evidence for that.