LIVE VIDEO: I-70 mountain corridor traffic cameras

Dems unearth Beauprez ‘birther’ comments from 2010

Bob Beauprez talks to FOX31 Denver about launching a late campaign for governor.

Bob Beauprez talks to FOX31 Denver about launching a late campaign for governor.

DENVER — Can a birther comment Bob Beauprez made four years ago questioning whether President Barack Obama is an American citizen hurt the Republican now that he’s running for governor?

Democrats, who discovered the comment and shared it with FOX31 Denver, certainly hope so.

In June 2010, Beauprez appeared as a guest on The Talk to Solomon Show, and was asked about whether President Obama was born in America by the host, Stan Solomon, a favorite of fringe conservatives who is an anti-gay birther who said last year that Trayvon Martin “deserves to be dead.”

“On the birth certificate, I don’t know,” Beauprez said, responding to Solomon’s claim that there “is no birth certificate.”

“I’ve heard both sides of it. I find it absolutely astounding that, if he has one, if this is all just a myth, why in the world not put it to bed? There’s a reason why they haven’t at least settled that controversy.”

In April of 2011, after Donald Trump’s birther turn sparked a new wave of media attention around the issue of the president’s American nationality, the White House obtained the original long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii and released it to the public.

Beauprez, in the radio interview 10 months prior to that, went further.

“I address it another way: if this guy is an American citizen, he’s a different kind of an American than virtually any that I know,” Beauprez said.

“My dad and mother taught me a long time ago that you’re known by the company you keep. We should have figured out a lot, and some of us did. When this guy’s friends are Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rev. Jeremiah Wright — his mentor, again, is Saul Alinsky — what do you think you’re going to get?”

Beauprez, a former congressman who lost the 2006 governor’s race by 17 points, made a late entrance into this year’s race in late February after being urged to run by the Republican Governor’s Association, which wasn’t satisfied with any of the other candidates in the field.

Many establishment conservatives believe Beauprez may give the GOP its best chance to beat Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.

And Democrats may believe that too.

Progress Now Colorado is making a conscious decision to release the four-year-old birther video now, rather than saving it until the fall’s general election campaign — a sign that Democrats would probably rather see Tom Tancredo or Scott Gessler win the Republican nomination.

It’s unclear how much damage the four-year-old comments will do to Beauprez with conservatives, with the GOP state assembly just weeks away and the primary not until June 24.

Clearly, Democrats are hoping the release of the video will make Republicans think long and hard about how electable Beauprez really is.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, survived a similar birther comment in 2012, winning reelection in November six months after he was caught on tape saying that he didn’t believe that President Obama was “an American in his heart.”

RELATED: Beauprez argues he’s the Republican who can beat Hickenlooper

12 comments

  • SpamFace Plant

    Where is the transparency in vetting the other sides candidates? They want health records and everything else from the right, but won’t release anything from their emperor with no clothes background. What are they hiding? We’ll never know but the resultant impact to America stand are in plain site. Promises to Putin after election on display!!! Elections do have consequences!

    • smrstrauss

      Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, where Obama’s birth notice was published, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).

  • Tom Sanders

    We have seen over and over that democrats will dig up anything 20-30-40yrs ago to make a repub. look bad and of course your corrupt and biased FOX 31 NEWS will print it….BUT NOT ONE WORD OF ALL THE CORRUPTION IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION….vote these democrats out and stop doing any bussiness with FOX 31 NEWS and boycott their advertisers.

      • smrstrauss

        The answer, of course, is that presidents and presidential candidates do not have to release their transcripts or other academic records, and by far most don’t. Bush didn’t (his grades were leaked by Yale, but Bush did not release them and other colleges do not have to leak grades just because Yale did), and Mitt Romney and John McCain did not release their transcripts, nor did Clinton or Bush41 or Reagan or Carter or Ford, Etc., Etc.

        So the question: “Where are the college transcripts….” is a stupid question. It implies that presidents and presidential candidates normally release their transcripts, and they DON’T.

  • David Farrar

    ‘Birthism’ has absolutely nothing to do with the color of one’s skin. Obama wasn’t the only, nor even the first, 2008 presidential candidate sued in federal court over his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications. Those dubious honors belong to John McCain. In fact, just the opposite is true. It would have been racist not to question Obama qualifications given his unique history and his reluctance to publish personal records to substantiate that history.

    The fact that Obama admits his father was a British subject at the time he was born, and that he, too, admits he was born a British subject, is more than enough to question his presidential qualifications. True, that is not how our courts have looked at this issue, but it is a legitimate question of constitutional law which has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin.

    This is the same problem Sen. Cruz has and why many, including this “birther” state the he, too, is not eligible to take the oath of office of the President of the United States, if elected.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David Bryan

      “True, that is not how our courts have looked at this issue…”
      As you should well know, because you’ve already tried that mess in court, and got beat by an empty chair. Be sure and let me know when we start turning to just any old crackpot that comes along for how such issues are resolved, instead of to the courts and other responsible authorities.

    • smrstrauss

      Re: “‘Birthism’ has absolutely nothing to do with the color of one’s skin.”

      Absolutely right. It has to do with STUPIDITY, and people of all skin colors can be stupid. It takes an immense amount of STUPIDITY to think that there is even a rational POSSIBILITY that Obama was born in a foreign country.

      For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

      (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

      (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

      (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

      If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

      So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

      (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

Comments are closed.