Ron Paul about Rick Santorum: Is this dude serious?
posted at 12:50 pm on February 21, 2012 by Tina Korbe
Something about Rick Santorum must really get under Ron Paul’s skin. This weekend, the Texas congressman said Santorum’s voting record in the Senate was “atrocious.” Today, his campaign released an ad to run in Michigan that calls Santorum “fake,” a fiscal conservative poser.
However – and this is the “but” – the point of this ad shows the difficulties that Paul and Mitt Romney will have in driving up Mr. Santorum’s negatives. Yes, we’ve lumped Paul and Mr. Romney together here on purpose, since they have pretty good relations and Romney is also trying to outmaneuver Santorum to his right.
Santorum is pretty clearly conservative, in the traditional, social sense, due to his positions on abortion and other hot-button issues. To try to separate out the fiscal part of conservatism and brand Santorum unstable on that is a difficult political task, since voters will be predisposed to equate his social conservatism with overall conservatism. …
You can see this reflected in the latest numbers out of Michigan. Take the Public Policy Polling survey released Sunday, in which Santorum leads Romney overall, 37 to 33 percent. Break down the demographics, and you’ll see that Santorum has a double-digit lead among voters who describe themselves as “very conservative” – 54 to 23 percent. He leads among tea party adherents by 55 to 20 percent.
“Santorum’s advantage over Romney seems to be a reflection of voters being more comfortable with where he is ideologically,” concludes a PPP data analysis.
That may be — but I happen to think Rick Santorum is also genuinely more fiscally conservative today than he was as a senator during George W. Bush’s administration. Voters understand how he has come to be a deficit reduction hawk because they’ve traveled the same journey. They don’t penalize him for his growth in that area the same way they penalize Mitt Romney’s flip-flops — because a gradual change of opinion on fiscal matters makes more sense to them than an abrupt shift on matters of presumed deep conviction.
Ron Paul has advocated a reduction in the size of government for a long time and it’s fair of him to want to be recognized for that. But why does it frustrate him that Santorum has come around to his fiscal message?
Rick Santorum voted for a debt ceiling increase five time when he was in the Senate, yes — but this is now. Before last summer, it was unprecedented to harness a routine vote to increase the debt ceiling to attempt to achieve conservative gains. Last summer’s deal fell short of what the nation needed — but it still represented a novel attempt to take debt and deficit reduction seriously. It’s encouraging that today’s Republican candidates consider a debt ceiling increase what it is — a license to spend more money we don’t have — and are willing to stand up to business as usual. Again, Rick Santorum’s move to the right on spending mirrors the movement of the Republican Party as a whole and proceeds from the reality that, as time has gone on, the fiscal outlook of the nation has become both more dire and more apparent to those who are paying attention. Would Ron Paul, that champion of fiscal conservatism, rather see Rick Santorum remain in favor of routine debt ceiling increases?
Meanwhile, the Rick Santorum response to this ad is also true. “For all of Ron Paul’s blustering about conservatism, the bottom line is that he’s been in Congress for decades and has not had a single accomplishment to forward the cause of conservatism. Not one,” Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley told CNN. Paul’s lack of legislative accomplishments and his own hypocritical embrace of earmarks make this ad ring hollow.
My personal theory is this: Both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul speak with sincerity. Both have deeply-held convictions. Yes, Rick Santorum has a more positive view of government than Ron Paul and also, obviously, engages actively on social issues, from which Ron Paul shies away. Plus, they’re diametrically opposed on foreign policy. But the real threat Rick Santorum poses to Ron Paul is this: Santorum rivals Paul in his willingness to say what is unpopular. Ron Paul’s great appeal, especially to young people, is his candor — and Rick Santorum has got that, too.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Obama in Berlin: Climate change is the “global threat of our time”
Video: Whistleblowers claim cover-up in mysterious TWA 800 crash
Gun-control group’s list of victims of gun violence includes … Tamerlan Tsarnaev
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Rick loves unborn babies and foreigners. So he and Perry have hearts.
IlikedAUH2O on February 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Folks in Pennsylvania and Michigan love handouts. Maybe that is what we need. We are going bankrupt anyway.
IlikedAUH2O on February 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM
If Ron P is calling you out on being nutty……..
FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Small government principles annoy you?
iwasbornwithit on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Tina, what specifics has Rick offered for reducing the size of the Federal government?
antifederalist on February 21, 2012 at 6:22 PM
I’m not saying that it’s impossible from an accounting standpoint, but politically? I just don’t think that that is where Santorum’s focus would be if he were elected. There is not very much in his record to indicate that he is a fiscal hawk and much to suggest that he is not.
And, as you said, he hasn’t stated specifically (that I’m aware of) where he would cut. This is important to me from a credibility standpoint.
iwasbornwithit on February 21, 2012 at 6:24 PM
Has Ron Paul ever been serious?
Stoic Patriot on February 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM
“His” preoccupation?
Look the guy could have said something just once,.. and the Romney and Paul crowd would drag it around like a cat with a roadkill. Santorum isn’t only about the breakdown of social morality, and it’s destruction of the family,… but it’s nice that someone will duck the arrows of the hedonist lobby to mention..
60 years of lowering moral standards, ain’t worked out so well..
Bringing up, we should talk about what we are teaching our kids, ain’t kicking in anyones bedroom door, it’s attempting to repair the next generation, before they become another pants off the butt sleep around father kids like they got a prize for it lost generation.
That ain’t a bad thing..
and it’s not making anyone stop doing any of their favorite vices.. it’s just saying, are we not better than this?
I’m amazed so many people are afraid of even having the discussion..
almost like, they are sure, they will lose in the arena of ideas.
I just know Santorum hit’s a solid note with people from my generation, who remember what was, before libertines took over the entertainment media, and anything goes, was frowned on as a choice for those with no self respect.
mark81150 on February 21, 2012 at 6:27 PM
If conservatism is to be defined as political philosophy that opposes big government, how many accomplishments can Santorum claimed that has advanced conservatism.
antifederalist on February 21, 2012 at 6:27 PM
This is one of the major problems with Santorum. His reputation as a fiscal conservative rests almost entirely on his anti-tax record. To me, his record does not look conservative; it looks like Santorum loves talking out of both sides of his mouth. He votes for every tax reduction in site to pander to conservatives, while voting for every spending bill in site to pander to various special interest groups. Brings home the pork to pay off his buds who in turn give him campaign donations. It’s revolting, it’s what the Republican party has turned into, and it’s Rick Santorum, lock, stock, and barrel.
Well, spending has to be paid for somehow, whether you tax or you don’t. Either we borrow from the ChiComs, putting ourselves in hoc to an enemy, or we inflate the currency, which is just another tax. I’ll give far more credit to a guy who honestly tries to slow or shrink the size of government, while raising some taxes and fees to balance the budget in the process, like Romney did in MA, than I will to a hypocritical tax-cutter like Santorum who has helped put us in hock to half the world.
Mr. Arkadin on February 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM
no,
Pompous arrogant twits who wear self righteouness like body armor, and denounce virtually EVERYONE who doesn’t buy his whole schtick..
as Constitution hating neocon warmongers who love killing war and massive debt…
but maybe that’s just me…
Paul’s message, on fiscal matters might carry a bit more weight, if he wasn’t busy denouncing Americans for simply disagreeing with his isolationist stance.. He comes across as an adled old crank with no clue, how mean spirited and nasty he is, to folks who might find agreement on the debt.
Paul’s an a**.
That is why I find his annoyence amusing.
mark81150 on February 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM
I can’t speak for Mark, but twits who have been in Congress for multiple terms, who have done nothing but PREACH about small government, while participating in delivering big government pork to their districts annoy me.
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM
Why don’t you check Santorum’s campaign website, if you really want to know?
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 6:41 PM
He hits a note with me because of my Grand Father’s moral compass. BTW GrandPa was a lifelong democrat until 1979.
A lot of x,y and z generation are socially conservative but politically ignorant.
Rick’s problem is his rhetoric sometimes obscures the line between his elected position(job) and the personal wisdom he believes that he’s accumulated. I agree with the libertines here that the president should never be a religious figure. But I’m still supporting Rick as the best of the 2.
BoxHead1 on February 21, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Yes. His preoccupation. It isn’t just “once” Santy has espoused his moral superiority and his distain for gays, contraception, and anti-abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He proclaims his positions ad nauseam and ad absurdum. He was noted to have brought up these issues more than any other member of the House and Senate combined. HE IS PREOCCUPIED and it ain’t gonna garner moderate and Indie votes in the general.
Slainte on February 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM
It’s just icing on the cake, that the guy who annoys Paul so much, is the one I ended up supporting.
God knows Paul and his band have been happy to annoy everyone else, karma is just, if not always swift….
mark81150 on February 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM
I didn’t say it was once,.. just it could have been once.. that’s all it would take.
The independents aren’t this rare species which responds only well to liberal policies.. they aren’t going to die when it’s disscussed… Reagan didn’t run from his positions either, and yes.. the media said he was “obsessed” with abortion..
I really think you’re wrong about the independents.
They aren’t single issue voters, and won’t run from a poltician just because he’s only 75% where they are. It’s a myth the mods keep shopping around, and the pols support that recently.
The indies aren’t that fragile and timid. The mods always sell them as being 9 10′s democrat, and it’s only by playing their game you can woo them..
Reagan proved that one false.
mark81150 on February 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM
Rick Santorum is NO Conservative.
Ron Paul is not a sane person.
Kermit on February 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM
I am still waiting for Paul to go after Romney. Easy peasy, right?
What, are you dying for a Romney/Rand ticket? How can I give delegates away with all the blood, sweat and tears (and all the speeches and hectic schedule) and just let it GO?
Paul’s huge signs are starting to pop here in NW PA and Romney is starting to bash Santorum on TV. Still waiting for Santorum to deliver in his home state.
Again: My disclaimer: I live in PA but I was not born nor raised here.
ProudPalinFan on February 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM
For that matter, care to talk about any of Paul’s “specifics” that don’t involve spiting our allies or gutting our military?
gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Can we make some arranges with Ed, Tina and the rest of the team and bus us all over to the Convention? Four days of fish-slapping will render us tired but victorious.
Fight fair, people. Keep names clean.
ProudPalinFan on February 21, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Santorum is a conservative.
Jasper61 on February 21, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Be careful, your stupid is showing. Constitutional requirements for President:
1) Natural-born citizen.
2) Resident of the US for 14 years.
3) 35 years old.
Jindal and Rubio both meet those requirements.
No candidate is more against my principles than Obama.
Asurea on February 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Take your pick:
1. Santorum, the Socialist Christian.
2. Paul, the bonkers absolutist isolationist.
3. Romney, the big government, liberal Kerry wannabe.
4. Gingrich, beltway lobbyist, serial adulterer.
—-
To all you guys saying that the tea party is throwing its convictions out the door, or this and that, .. with such a terrible slate of candidates there isn’t a single one that many of us would be saying the things to a friend if he/she had chosen them.
That’s the state of affairs. I’d add to that list Rick Perry, whom I thought was the best choice of the crowd. Maybe Daniels, but who knows what would have been dug up if he had entered.
The absolute best? Sarah Palin. A big effin’ PERIOD. We let the liberals, and haughty snob RINOS as well, absolutely destroy our best candidate. If you don’t think that was planned I’ve got a vacuum to sell you.
preallocated on February 21, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Forgot to mention that Perry couldn’t string a coherent sentence together as my knock against him. That doesn’t change the fact that if he was elected he would have been a major cut above anyone I just noticed, as well as Obozo.
preallocated on February 21, 2012 at 7:27 PM
Santorum wrote the welfare reform bill and helped pass it.
Santorum’s not perfect, he just happens to have a record (mixed though it is).
Compare that to Neville Chamberlain’s accomplishment-free history in congress…
shinty on February 21, 2012 at 7:29 PM
I’m mostly with you, preallocated… Sarah Palin is right on all the issues, but unfortunately they destroyed her rep during the last election cycle…
Hmmm, Santorum a socialist? He was going along with Bush, should have put up more of a fight, though. For me he’s the best of the lot, and of course much better than Obama.
shinty on February 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM
So Ron Paul thinks Santorum needs to write racist newsletters to be serious.
/
WhatNot on February 21, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Hell no.
I may not LIKE Romney as the candidate, but I will support him if he’s the nominee in the GenElect.
But if he made Paul VP? For one reason I’d ask WHY, but even then…if that happens, there is no way in Kansas am I gonna support that ticket. Not with a chance that his views on foregin policy could actually take root.
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 7:49 PM
And perhaps your words would carry some weight if you knew the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Because you are ignorant. Ignorant of what the job of a Congressman is and ignorant of what an earmark is.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Oh, my. This is too delicious.
Neither Rubio nor Jindal are natural born citizens. Their parents were not American citizens at the time of their births.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 7:55 PM
I know exactly what an earmark is. I also know that Paul gets them for his district, by inserting them into bills that he knows will pass, and then brags about voting against them. That’s hypocrisy, although you’re too STUPID to see that.
What has Paul done, as a congressman, to rein in big government? What has he done to promote fiscal responsibility in his long tenure in Congress? Nothing. Not. One. Thing.
Just repeating the same garbage about what Paul wishes he could do, if he were president, doesn’t cut it. Pretending that he’s the only one of the candidates who talks about cutting the budget doesn’t cut it, either.
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 7:56 PM
I have listened to what Herr Doktor has said. Perhaps if you could defend what he actually says, rather than splitting hairs about terminology, you might do better. Although, I have to say that I’ve seen you try and defend Paul’s foreign policy, and you’ve failed miserably.
BTW, you said this exact same thing on a thread earlier. Do you have a list of “Dante quotes” that you copy and paste from, to save time in posting your propaganda?
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 7:59 PM
I agree with you, based on what I believe the founders intended, but I’d like to see a reference for the official, constitutional definition of “Natural born citizen.” As far as I know, it doesn’t exist.
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Sarah supporters – why do you support someone who resigned an elected office to become a celebrity? Just curious.
Professor de la Paz on February 21, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Paul will close five departments. Your move.
rndmusrnm on February 21, 2012 at 8:12 PM
I’m for closing all BUT five of them, which I know neither Rick Santorum NOR Ron Paul will be willing, let alone able, to do in eight years. So given Ron Paul’s history of talking big and accomplishing next to nothing,
/YAWN
gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Sarah haters — why do you seem to feel a need to talk about her in every thread in which she is even obtusely mentioned?
gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Same reason we supported an ex-actor who co-starred with a chimp.
sharrukin on February 21, 2012 at 8:16 PM
You have it backwards. Paul states up front that he will vote against the appropriations bills. Paul has explained earmarks time and time again and what their purpose is. It’s not something he’s run away from. However, it is his job as Representative to represent his constituents. It is THEIR money seized by the federal government, and he is their advocate. This is the job of a Congressman. Do you think that money seized by the federal government for spending purposes shouldn’t be spent in his district? Should his constituents not get to see their money returned to them?
Sure, if you deliberately choose to ignore his voting record then you can say he’s done nothing. If you choose to ignore his floor speeches then you can say he’s done nothing.
Your problem (well, one of them) is that you are deliberately dishonest.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Noting that non-interventionism is in no way, shape, or form isolationism is not splitting hairs. Correcting misconceptions and perpetual lies is not splitting hairs.
It’s funny that you say I’ve failed miserably in defending Paul’s foreign policy. I like it when you jump into discussions, because on two separate occasions, you tried to jump in mid-discussion to vehemently disagree with me, only to make the same exact point – my exact argument – I had made earlier in the thread. Twice in one thread, even.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Whoa! Huh?
Article 2, Section 1 (h/t The Founding Fathers)
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article 1, Section 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Constitution of the State of Louisiana
http://law.justia.com/constitution/louisiana/Article4.html
Basically you just said that neither Rubio or Jindal…who met the requirement to hold Executive Office at both the State and Federal level now cannot meet the same requirement to be President?
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Ron Paul is enjoying himself spouting fantasies that sound good to young folks. But he has a 40 year history of being the false prophet of a his mind controlled cult called the John Birch Society.
The John Birch Society was the ruin of many a proud conservative until William F Buckley went to war to stop them. Reagan stood up against them too.
That makes Ron Paul a natural enemy of a main stream Conservative like the Catholic boy from Pennsylvania.
jimw on February 21, 2012 at 8:37 PM
The qualifications for governor are up to the states. The qualifications for president are outlined in the Constitution. Neither Jindal nor Rubio are qualified for the presidency because they are not natural-born citizens. Their parents were not American citizens at the time of their births.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 8:48 PM
And that’s because the requirements for each office are different. Different offices, different requirements. It’s not complicated.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Paul is a nutter on foreign policy.
Santorum is a nutter on social policy.
They each think the other is a nutter, and they’re both right!
CatoRenasci on February 21, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Paul’s foreign policy is that of non-interventionism. It is the foreign policy of conservatism.
The interventionist foreign policy, which our nation has followed for the past 100 years, is the foreign policy of progressives. You might want to give it a second, or perhaps a first, thought.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Santorum has a plan that cuts a trillion dollars a year from the deficit. He has said that Ryan’s plan is not big enough and does not work fast enough.
He also has a tax plan, an energy plan, a plan to bring back manufacturing and a plan to give education back to local school districts and eliminate the Dept. of Education. Just for starters.
fight like a girl on February 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Of which for all three I posted.
For that matter, I did forget to include this: the 17th Amendment:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#17
What proof do you possess that shows that neither their parents OR themselves were not legal citizens?
It would have to be pretty compelling, since Jindal was able to convince the Secretary of State to certify the results, and the Louisiana AG nor the Dept of Justice challenged it.
Then Rubio was able to one-up Jindal and convince the Senate he was a Senator. Not to mention, convince the Gov of Florida and the Florida Legislators…and the voters.
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM
So Regan wasn’t a Conservative? And to follow that kind of thinking, Obama would be considered Conservative because he’s ending all of our overseas commitments..
…wait a minute. He DID kill OBL in Pakistan, so I guess he’s a NeoCon? :o)
Well, in that case, Progressives have been in power since Jefferson (maybe as far as John Adams if you prefer to quibble), because we did send troops overseas as far back as then until…well, now.
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 9:15 PM
This garbage has been debunked so many times on this site, I couldn’t begin to count the number of debunkings.
Get some new talking points. These are stale.
JannyMae on February 21, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Except there is nothing in his record to indicate that he is interested in actually cutting anything. Quite the opposite in fact.
iwasbornwithit on February 21, 2012 at 9:18 PM
He was 25 years in Washington and never sponsored a single spending cut bill. He just kept pushing for more and more spending and borrowing.
And suddenly he has all those plans?
Seems legit.
Really, who won’t believe this man?
joana on February 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Outside of the fact that he really did cut back on government with welfare reform. Besides actual reality there’s no political proof he wants to cut anything. /
sharrukin on February 21, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Medicare Part D. Against right to work. NCLB. Debt increase 5x. Endorsed Specter. Stuff like that.
iwasbornwithit on February 21, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Newt and Santorum are still the only ones running who have ever actually done something to cut back on government.
sharrukin on February 21, 2012 at 9:37 PM
And some, like Santorum, have done more to increase the size of government than they have to shrink it.
iwasbornwithit on February 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM
I couldn’t care less about the requirements for governor, Senator, or the 17th Amendment. None of these have anything to do with the Constitutional requirements for President of the United States.
Dude. You aren’t listening. We’re talking the Constitutional requirements for the presidency, not any other office. The requirements for the president are not the same for Senator. And the requirements for governorships are set by the individual states, NOT by the federal government.
It isn’t that their parents weren’t legal citizens; they weren’t citizens at the time of the births. Unless you want to call Rubio and Jindal liars. The information is out there.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM
You are not a smart person. Logic and reason are beyond your grasp. Have a good life.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 9:52 PM
How does one debunk the truth?
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 9:56 PM
LMAO! Oh, that’s funny.
Dante on February 21, 2012 at 9:56 PM
I read the article on Ron Paul in the current issue of New Yorker. It actually did not trivialize or caricaturize him and was fair in its tone, which came as a surprise coming from a liberal magazine.
galtani on February 21, 2012 at 10:11 PM
It is to my great surprise that the liberal side has been the one not to devolve into gibbering insanity whenever Ron’s name is mentioned.
MelonCollie on February 21, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Well, i don’t think I’m being too unreasonable Dante, but as I look at your post I think I asked already, but I will ask again:
Do you mean by your above statement that if either of these gentlemen to be elected President, they couldn’t LEGALLY hold office because they were not US citizens? Or is there another deficit in the requirement such as you believe they are politically incapable of holding office?
Finally: I take away from your above assertions that you have source material to quote on their inability to hold office due to their citizenship status or some other reason. Could you cite the material, be it webpage or book.
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM
If logic & reason were beyond my grasp, then we wouldn’t be having a civil discourse, would we?
You made a claim that one policy would nessiarly be better than the other. I did not go out of my way to be rude, but if you would like Let me ask this way:
Can you tell me who’s policy of non-intervention from prior Presidents do you feel the next President should mirror? Or which candidate has that policy that you feel matches that for non-intervention.
And by non-intervention, I am under the assumption you mean ANY use of the military other than a direct attack on the shores of the continental US…and this includes any treaties we may have signed or other interest in other countries that might be hostile to the US directly.
BlaxPac on February 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Rick Santorum is actually making Ron paul look sane by comparison.
V7_Sport on February 21, 2012 at 11:21 PM
What you declare as truth is your own personal version of reality, which matches that of Ron Paul. His foreign policy is not realistic. It fails to account for the reality that exists in the world today, and completely ignores the threat of radical Islam. You have failed to support Ron Paul’s suicidal foreign policy every time you have been challenged on it. I’ve seen your bullshit debunked numerous times. Your denial of reality doesn’t change that.
JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Recap:
So, how do you debunk the truth? The truth is our foreign policy changed to interventionism under Teddy Roosevelt. The truth is that non-interventionism was the foreign policy of conservatism.
These are facts. None of what you just wrote addresses my point at all. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone as willfully ignorant as you.
Dante on February 22, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Um…the Confederate Constitution was an almost carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution.
The Articles of the Confederation (which was the government that saw us to victory in the War for Independence) was decades prior to the Confederacy.
cavalier973 on February 22, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Not only is Ron Paul Hitler, he’s also Neville Chamberlain.
cavalier973 on February 22, 2012 at 1:04 AM
It doesn’t matter whether his parents were citizens under the current interpretation of what confers citizenship at birth. Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, LA. He is, by current law, a natural born citizen. His parents were even legally here, so he’s not even an “anchor baby”.
Rubio, similarly, was born in Miami, FL. Etc., etc.
Furthermore, the only “disqualification” either has admitted to was a lack of immediate desire to run for the Presidency. Rubio claims inexperience, since his political resume is about the same as Obama’s when he was elected. Jindal seems to be leaving things more open, but also seems more content to work on retaining his governorship for the time being.
If you wish to argue the exact definition of “natural born citizen”, I’ll only discuss the current reality, where a man whose father wasn’t even an immigrant, but an educational tourist, qualifies.
As I said, your stupid is showing. Please bother to spend 5 minutes on Google before you repeat your ridiculous claims of Constitutional ineligibility. Lack of immediate desire is not permanent lack of ability. And if you’d like to redefine “natural born citizen” from the currently-accepted definition (and I would certainly agree it needs to be changed *cough*anchorbabies*cough*), there’s a legal process to do that through either legislation or Constitutional Amendment.
Asurea on February 22, 2012 at 2:21 AM
I think I’ve tried to get an answer similar to your question. I’m surprised since Dante seemed to be willing to state with conviction that both these gentlemen were not qualified for higher office.
I am still however going to assume that a reply is forthcoming, just have to wait and see.
OT: But still in light of the whole Ron Paul is the candidate to beat meme:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_98/Associate-Confronted-Ron-Paul-About-Flights-212541-1.html
BlaxPac on February 22, 2012 at 6:26 AM
You are wrong, and you should have the facts before you call anyone stupid. Yes, Jindal and Rubio were born in America. This does not make them natural-born citizens. It might make them native-born citizens, but not natural-born citizens, since – and this is key – their parents were not American citizens.
Dante on February 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Dante, yes.
That’s the constitutional onus on any who seek the Office of the President of the United States of America. (Readers, not simply “higher office” as mentioned above, but specifically the POTUS.)
That Congress fails to uphold and adhere to the Constitution has long been problematic as politicians corrupt our government into a centralized authoritarian state.
That the SCOTUS denied US Citizens “standing” when attempting judicially to enforce and uphold that constitutional measure is also problematic.
But that so many Americans are completely ignorant fools is the real problem, compounded by authoritarian enablers playing Alinsky in order to distract from the fact by projecting the fancy.
maverick muse on February 22, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Santorum v. Satan
campaigncrusade, a 2012 electoral losing proposition.Mr. “I’ll Attack China!” is emotionally unbalanced, to say the least.
Santorum in the “international community” will be the biggest joke we ever played against ourselves.
maverick muse on February 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Wow thats an analysis. I kinda like this telegenic faith healer so I am going to say his beliefs have changed without providing any supporting evidence???
Ok Tina, do you honestly believe they are competing for the same voters? Libertarian college kids are not Santorum fans. Your analysis needs some work
snoopicus on February 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Ron Paul asking someone else “if they’re serious”? The epitome of pot calling the kettle black. ‘Nuff said.
dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM
Now you’re trying to squabble over terminology. Yes, in 1748 The Law of Nations made the distinction. By the start of the Civil War, the terms were used interchangeably. By 1900, at least 3 Supreme Court cases had decided in favor of anyone born here, to parents who are not tourists or foreign diplomats, is a natural-born citizen. The decisions stemmed from cases seeking to argue black men weren’t citizens because their parents, as slaves, weren’t citizens. The decisions were based on the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the 14th Amendment.
The last person to seriously try to argue this “modern” interpretation was one of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign managers. And we all know what a bastion of conservative principle he was (/s).
Both Rubio’s and Jindal’s parents were in the naturalization process when they were born. Barring a Constitutional Amendment narrowing the definition of “natural born”retroactively, they are eligible. Legislation could narrow it going forward, but could not retroactively strip them of this status.
I’m explaining “what is”, you’re arguing “what should be”.
Asurea on February 22, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Nicely done, Asurea.
I mean I could a locked it up faster just by saying “anchor Baby” since short of declaring them Persona non-Grata, there is no legal basis i could find that would support Dante’s assertion that they could not hold elected office.
Especially since, as before, the requirements for President, Senator & Representative, all have the same requirement.
A quick search online turns up this fun factoid page from Wikipedia, I present it not as the finial arbitrator of truth, but ya gotta admit, it does lead to some interesting governmental links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
I’ll let the list of those challenged speak for itself…lol
BlaxPac on February 22, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Just as a side note, Dante was correct in his assertion that the Presidency is unique in requiring “natural-born” citizenship. Other political offices only require simple citizenship, IE, a naturalized immigrant could be elected to hold them. See Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think you two were simply arguing past each other.
Otherwise…yeah. The original intent of the clause was to prevent European nobles from coming over and buying their way into leadership of the new nation. So long as the legal immigrants are on the path to naturalization before their baby is born, I see no reason to disqualify that child. They’re an American from birth. Once the other two requirements are fulfilled, let them run.
This should have read, “try to argue against* this”. When it’s a hundred years and more stable and accepted, a complete reversal would seem rather short-sighted. Not all of those Supreme Court justices could have been stupid. Should it be modified? Absolutely. I’m rather frustrated with the whole “anchor baby” and “childbirth tourism” mess the current extra-Constitutional and extra-judicial interpretation has created.
Anyhow, main article aging, so going to sign it off here.
Asurea on February 22, 2012 at 11:33 PM
You have a very difficult time reading and understanding. For one, I have never said that they cannot hold elected office. For another, the requirements for president, senator, and representative ARE NOT THE SAME. Only the presidency requires one to be a natural-born citizen.
It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who cannot read.
Dante on February 22, 2012 at 11:54 PM
No, but I do have a difficulty in trying to learn Mandarin or Cantonese…doesn’t mean I still wont try.
No you did not. But again, as I have asked you, can you cite CASE LAW, as defined by the US Supreme court, of any of thier prior rulings on the “Natural Citzen” clause.
As far as my research goes. I have not seen *any* ruling that states with definite certainty that the circumstances of their birth, or of their parents citizenship that would preclude same.
In fact, *you* Dante have stated this with such certainty, that I have *asked* repeatedly for you to cite some legal example that has challenged anyone’s prior belief that these men could run for President.
You have not. Again this isn’t a “one-up” challenge, I am asking you to cite or direct the uninformed of exactly where you got your information.
Will you do that now?
No offense, but if you’re trying to be insulting, you’re gonna have work a lot harder than claiming i can’t read…especially since I’m on here writing reasonably.
No one insulted you, nor did they threaten to take away your juice box or lunch money. Because it’s not so much that you can’t read, or interpret multiple requests for information, I again leave the ball in your court.
Could you cite, please some example of case law that will make the link that neither Rubio or Jindal cannot hold the office of POTUS?
And because I feel that your attitude will require it…can you cite more than the N.B clause? We already established that it exists, now we are looking for CASE LAW that will either support or refute your statement.
I will, with decorum, await your answer…please don’t disappoint by just saying “its out there” or “research it yourself”, alright?
BlaxPac on February 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM
There goes your crazy Uncle Ron again!?! Completely unelectable, but a pain in the ass!?! Folks need to know that your crazy Uncle Ron cut a deal with RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) to stay in and drain votes. Crazy Uncle Ron’s voters really need to get off whatever drugs they want to be legalized!?!
Colatteral Damage on February 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5