Is Fox News trying to embarrass Brewer after she vetoed the birther bill?

[highplainsdem]

http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-jan-brewer/2011/04/19/why-gov-brewer-vetoed-arizonas-birther-bill

I don't believe Fox is usually in the habit of recording stuttering and mispronunciations in great detail -- at least not when they like the person being interviewed. (I don't recall a single transcript of Bush talking about "nucular" weapons, for instance.)

But here's the start of the transcript of a phone interview on Greta Van Susteren's show (video at the link, too):

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: This is a "Fox News Alert." There is big news in Arizona. Governor Brewer vetoes two controversial bills. What are they? Well, let's ask her. Governor Jan Brewer joins us on the phone.

Good evening, Governor. Governor, let's talk about these two bills that you have vetoed. Let's start first with the so-called birther bill. What is the bill, and why did you veto it?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ. (Via Telephone): Well, the birther is the requirement that any presidential candidate or any other candidate would have to show proof of citizenship, and if they didn't, then they would have to show a batt -- baptisiminal -- baptisimal -- baptismal certificate or a certificate of circumcision. So it is something that I felt very, very uncomfortable with and I feel that it serves no purpose. So today, I went on record and I vetoed it.

-snip-

Emphasis added.

And yes, it is ludicrous that Brewer can't pronounce baptismal.

But I've seen Fox News transcripts that were edited in a very "forgiving" way in the past, so their not doing so this time makes me think they're upset with Brewer.

[polmaven]

1. To be honest....

I can't for the life of me figure out what a circumcision or a baptism has to do with a presidential candidate proving where s/he was born.....:shrug:.....What am I missing?

[Aerows]

3. I wonder the same thing

...but it also forces the candidate to declare a religion, which is not Constitutional in any case.

[Chellee]

4. Because it's not about that.

It's about proving that they're Christian and male.

[polmaven]

5. Well...

Male, anyway. Circumcision is not a ritual exclusive to Christanity, by any means.

[Aerows]

2. While I completely disagree with Jan Brewer

on nearly everything, on this one, she's right. Requiring documentation like that essentially requires a candidate to have a religion, and that is not Constitutional.

I'm sure she vetoed it for the wrong reasons, but in this case, it is irrelevant to me why she did, just that she did.