Jeb Bush: Make Rubio the VP nominee; Update: Perry: “I have a better gig”

posted at 9:15 am on March 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday’s endorsement of Mitt Romney by former Florida governor Jeb Bush sent the implicit message that the time had come to wrap up the nomination process and begin focusing on the general election.  Bush made that more explicit in an interview with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Salena Zito — and Bush had an idea how to make the ticket even stronger:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has earned the right to take on President Obama in November.

“It is time to get behind the nominee,” Bush told the Tribune-Review on Wednesday during a visit to Pittsburgh. “And it is time for the country to focus on the most important thing, which is to elect a president who will create a climate for high growth and job-creating abilities for our country.”

Does he want to be VP?  No, but he knows the man for the job:

“Marco Rubio,” he said of the freshman Florida GOP senator, who served as a volunteer on Bush’s governor’s campaign. Bush described Rubio, 40, as “dynamic, joyful, disciplined and principled.”

“He is the best orator of American politics today, a good family man. He is not only a consistent conservative, but he has managed to find a way to communicate a conservative message full of hope and optimism,” Bush said.

No doubt, Rubio would be a popular choice for a running mate in the GOP.  He routinely wins the polls here at Hot Air for the slot, for example.  If Romney does win the nomination — and that seems just short of certain now — he’d need a popular figure like Rubio among conservatives, and I’m not sure there’s another choice that could help him consolidate the base as effectively.

However, I’m still not sold on this as an effective general-election choice.  Rubio has not had any executive-branch experience yet, and has been in the Senate for a mere 14 months.  He needs more time to garner broader experience before one can make the claim that he has a resumé that justifies him being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  (Yes, I know Obama only had two years in the Senate before beginning his run for the top spot.  Look how well that’s working out.)  As talented as Rubio is, he has a brilliant career ahead of him if he shows some patience and builds a record of more than just fabulous oratory.  He needs a full term in the Senate with his name on significant legislation, then a term as governor in Florida.  With that kind of record, Rubio might be unbeatable in any cycle.  With four or eight years as VP after less than two in the Senate, Rubio could end up being a historical footnote.

Bobby Jindal makes more sense as a running mate in this cycle, or Nikki Haley, both of whom are governors outside of Washington with Southern draw.  Jindal probably would be better in getting conservatives to coalesce behind him, and he has a real track record of political reform in his second term in the top spot in Louisiana.

Update: Fox asked Rick Perry about rumors of his being on the shortlist, and Perry says that rumor is all it is:

“Texas governor versus VP? The balance on that one isn’t even close,” Perry said. “I would suggest to you that’s deep in the rumor category and I got a better gig where I am, thank you.”

Perry would make a pretty good running mate, though, and would help Romney get conservative backing.  I don’t see Perry in a #2 slot, however, and I doubt he sees himself there either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4 5

You are wrong on McCain. That part was U.S. territory at the time

The Canal Zone was not an official US territory at the time. It was an unincorporated territory.

That’s why the citizenship status of Americans there had to clarified with another law in 1937.

This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403. It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Rubio is young, photogenic and articulate all of which contrast nicely with Biden. Together with a greying Obama, now more closely matching Romney in appearance, a Romney/Rubio ticket provides a visual display of youth and energy, neatly countering “Hopenchange.”

Rubio has strength in Florida, of course, and his Cuban roots appeal to latin voters, all hair-splitting aside. He is a successful role model for legal immigration, which is popular with hispanics.

“Birther” controversies will only shine more light, by reflection, on controversies and conspiracies about Obama’s own status. Simply by reminding voters that Obama had a “foreign” father and lived himself in a “foreign” country makes the Birther issue a net-loss strategy for Democrats.

Finally, Rubio’s publicized financial difficulties contrast nicely with Romney’s wealth, providing contrast, balance and a nice story about the opportunities America provides for those willing to take risks, work hard and pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Seems like a good combo. Plus, “Romney/Rubio” just has a nice ring.

The Resolute Desk on March 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

McCain was not born on US soil. His parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. Therefore, McCain passed only one of the two tests. That’s not good enough. McCain is not eligible.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Oh brother. If you’re right, there are a LOT of US military brats running around who are not US citizens. This is a joke, right? McCain’s father was stationed in Panama.

Portia46 on March 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

That’s why the citizenship status of Americans there had to clarified with another law in 1937.

This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403. It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You cite to Sec. 1401 of Title 8 after trying to state that it didn’t apply in your post to me. You can’t even stay intellectually honest in the same thread.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Romney/Christie? Will certainly nail down the states in the Northeast
part of the country.

Romney/Martinez? The Hispandering ticket with an inexperienced
woman from a low electoral vote state

Romney/Jindal? A Mormon/Native Born American ticket. See the
Presidential Qualifications Clause

Romney/Rubio? Another Native Born American ticket (See above) with
the Native Born American having a few months
of Senatorial experience.

Romney/West? Uh…won’t happen.

I.E. None of the above

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I’m for West. He is the only one with convictions, and not shy to tell the other side what charlatans and liars they are.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Nominating 2yr senator Rubio would be a blatantly obvious and self-demeaning pander to the Hispanics. It would be laughed at by Hispanics (and everyone), we would be the laughingstock.

“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is not a winning strategy.

anotherJoe on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The Resolute Desk on March 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Wow, you should join the media. Their dereliction of duty w/b complete. It’s already at 99%.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Oh brother. If you’re right, there are a LOT of US military brats running around who are not US citizens. This is a joke, right? McCain’s father was stationed in Panama.

Portia46 on March 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

See my post @12:30. Emperor Norton & Dante are running around this thread posting misinformation about US citizenship because (1) they don’t understand it or (2) they’re just morons.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM

This VP is about Demographics.

Rubio is a twofer (Florida and the Hispanics)

Martinez is a twofer (Female and Hispanic)

If you’re not a woman or Hispanic the gop will NOT be calling you for the VEEP spot.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Portia46 on March 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

At that time it was U.S. territory, and both his parents were U.S. citizens. McCain is totally legit. It was just a stupid discussion in 2008, because of Obama.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I want President Rubio, putting him on the bottom of a losing ticket is no way to get him there!

vegconservative on March 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

but it could get him out of the way, and damaged so that JEB BUSH could run in 2016.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

If you’re not a woman or Hispanic the gop will NOT be calling you for the VEEP spot.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Not true. The VP to Mitt will be VA Gov. McDonnell.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Bobby Jindal makes more sense as a running mate in this cycle, or Nikki Haley, both of whom are governors outside of Washington with Southern draw. Jindal probably would be better in getting conservatives to coalesce behind him, and he has a real track record of political reform in his second term in the top spot in Louisiana.

I like Bobby Jindal, too, but he’s guy a pretty dry, intellectual air to him. Mittens needs a more emotive guy by his side.

As for Nikki Haley, I really don’t like the cess pool that is South Carolina politics. My guess is that, were she nominated, someone with a score to settle would start peddling really vicious rumors about her and create scandal. (Remember the allegation that she was having an affair with a campaign consultant?)

Hate to say it, but I think Marco Rubio is going to be our guy. He’s light on Senate experience, but he was Speaker of the Florida House for 2 years and a member of that body for 10. And, Florida is so huge (geographic, population, and media-wise) that if he can succeed there, he can succeed in the entire country.

Outlander on March 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

but it could get him out of the way, and damaged so that JEB BUSH could run in 2016.

PappyD61 on March 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Precisely why Rubio should show Jeb an imaginary big finger. Jeb was fro Crist, for crying out loud.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Just for you Schadenfreude, becuase you are still deserving of respect:

There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Source you ask? Not from horace, that’s for sure.

No, its the Congressional research service. Congress’ own think tank.

Summary

pdf

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The US Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born citizen” but the authority to define it is 100% given to Congress, so your lame point is wrong, again. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. In fact, the fact that you don’t realize that Congress has the authority to define citizenship is another reason you really should keep your misinformed 2 cents out of it.

And regardless of how much you want to say it, Sec. 1401 of Title 8 specifically defines natural born citizens, i.e., people who are “citizens of the United States at birth.” So again, you are ignorant of the facts.

Now, you can keep on trying to insult me & you can try to spin your b.s. that “a citizen of the United States at birth” is not “natural born citizen” or whatever else your feeble mind desires, but I stated the proper definition of natural born citizen as defined by Congress under the authority of the US Constitution, and I’m not spending my day arguing with a fool.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The requirements for the presidency can only be changed through the amendment process, and the 14th amendment does not do that, nor does the 14th amendment define natural born. It doesn’t matter what your Sec. 1401 of Title 8 says.

But for kicks, here’s your Sec. 1401, and note the title and note that natural born is not to be found anywhere in it:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

You are dead wrong.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

(1) they don’t understand it or (2) they’re just morons.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Door number 1 and door number 2 Monty.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM

See my post @12:30. Emperor Norton & Dante are running around this thread posting misinformation about US citizenship because (1) they don’t understand it or (2) they’re just morons.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I have posted no misinformation at all. You, however…

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution (1789) is not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (1868). Congress is authorized to clarify the 14th Amenedment. They are not authorized to clarify the Constitution, except by a Constituional amendment.

and the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

There you go again. This is not a question about what makes a citizen, but what makes a natural born citizen. If you can’t get that distinction right, you’re hopeless.

Sec. 1401 of Title 8 specifically defines natural born citizens

No, it doesn’t. The phrase “natural born citizen” doesn’t appear once in 8 USC 1401. Heh.

You would do better, at least if you were not a screeching Democrat, if you would think about why, according to the Constitution, that a US Senator or Congressmen must be a citizen, but only the President must be a natural born citizen. Go ahead, look it up. It’s in there.

People who are “citizens of the US at birth” are native born, it’s true, but they don’t necessarily have the required credentials to be the Commander in Chief. The Founders did not use the phrase “citizen of the US at birth.” In their description of the job requirements for President, they used the phrase “natural born citizen” which they believed was different. Even the 14th Amendment doesn’t allow citizenship if someone in born in the US–there is also the disclaimer “. . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

All told, you have not changed anyone’s mind with your hysterical rant.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

People who are “citizens of the US at birth” are native born, it’s true, but they don’t necessarily have the required credentials to be the Commander in Chief. The Founders did not use the phrase “citizen of the US at birth.” In their description of the job requirements for President, they used the phrase “natural born citizen” which they believed was different. Even the 14th Amendment doesn’t allow citizenship if someone in born in the US–there is also the disclaimer “. . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

All told, you have not changed anyone’s mind with your hysterical rant.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Not all of them, only those born on U.S. soil are native born.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It appears some posters think that any and all babies born here are natural born Citizens.

Question for them; if citizenship of parents does not matter, have you thought about where that leads?

If you can’t come up with any bad scenarios after a few minutes, you should study the situation longer.

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

And Rubio and Jindal are not natural born citizens, so forget putting them on a ticket anyway.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

social-justice on March 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Hmm Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farah of World Net Daily or Scalia and Thomas?

I’ll go with Scalia and Thomas on this one. Nice try, though. They’re both natural-born citizens.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

It appears some posters think that any and all babies born here are natural born Citizens.

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

And you think otherwise? Guess what, for good, or bad, they are.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

How about a Palin/Birther/Gay Marriage Open Thread?

10,000 comments, easy.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

10,000 comments, easy.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Over 9,000 of them would be you reposting your deranged birther crap.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The money quote from that document:

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” nor are the notes from the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 instructive as to any specific collective intent of the framers concerning the meaning of the term. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has never needed to address this particular issue within the specific context of a challenge to the eligibility of a candidate under Article II, Section 1, clause 5, the only place in the entire Constitution that the phrase appears, although federal courts have discussed the concept extensively with respect to other issues of citizenship. Consequently, although there are numerous Supreme Court cases, as well as other federal and state case law, discussing the phrase and its meaning from which conclusions may be drawn, there has still been certain speculation on the scope of the language.

Natural Born Citizen needs to be defined. I’m not sure if he can be done by legislation from Congress, or it requires a constitutional amendment, but it needs to happen, so we can avoid more controversies in the future.

It’s time for sane people to address the issue, instead of screeching “Shut up, you stupid embarrassing birther” at people who want NBC clarified.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Thank you. None of that makes anything so. It’s all about how the media would treat, or not treat, the individual cases. It has never been fought in court, because it never had to be. There were excpetions, a few, in history, I know.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Natural Born Citizen needs to be defined.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The summary clarifies what has been shown by case law in the pdf. The last third of the summary is pretty good at defining it. And what has already been settled by case law.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

It has never been fought in court, because it never had to be.
Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

It has been, many times. Just not at SCOTUS level.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

(Yes, I know Obama only had two years in the Senate before beginning his run for the top spot. Look how well that’s working out.)

I know you’re joking a bit on this here. But, it wasn’t the fact that Obama only had two years that is his problem. The problem was that everybody was blindsided by the oratorical style over the substance of his career (or lack thereof).

For Rubio, his oratorical style is a complement to exemplary career.

Apples and oranges.

Pablo Snooze on March 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

It has been, many times. Just not at SCOTUS level.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Sorry, that’s the court I meant. I wish that it w/b fought there, and soon, so it will be settled.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I’ll go with the Founders and ratifiers, thanks.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

cozmo, the SC has had occasions, but never took the cases. I wish they would.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Natural Born Citizen needs to be defined. I’m not sure if he can be done by legislation from Congress, or it requires a constitutional amendment, but it needs to happen, so we can avoid more controversies in the future.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Clearly, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to consider the ramifications of cloning on the election process.

digitalhap on March 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Clearly, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to consider the ramifications of cloning on the election process.

digitalhap on March 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

They were excluding C-sections *

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Sorry, that’s the court I meant. I wish that it w/b fought there, and soon, so it will be settled.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Settled?

Dred Scott v. Sanford?

Roe v. Wade?

Clearly, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to consider the ramifications of cloning on the election process.

digitalhap on March 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Heck, they didn’t even address caesarian section. What makes you think they wanted to solve the cloning problem for us?

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’ll go with the Founders and ratifiers, thanks.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

That’s exactly what Scalia and Thomas did, considering they’re originalists. Nice try, though.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Wow, you should join the media. Their dereliction of duty w/b complete. It’s already at 99%.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I don’t understand your unnecessary jab.

However, adding to my previous comments, Rubio is also popular with the conservative “base,” making the ticket more palatable to some conservatives who are not Romney fans. Plus, I strongly suspect that adding a young Latino to the ticket will add pressure for Obama to replace Biden with Clinton, as the new “historic” component to his own campaign… which will only underscore Obama’s poor decision-making skills in selecting Biden in the first place, plus remind voters of the rivalry, sexism and charges of racism in the Obama/Clinton fight during the ’08 primaries.

Adding Rubio to the ticket makes a lot of political sense.

The Resolute Desk on March 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

That’s exactly what Scalia and Thomas did, considering they’re originalists. Nice try, though.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Dante is a birther. He channels the founding fathers regularly.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

That’s exactly what Scalia and Thomas did, considering they’re originalists. Nice try, though.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM

If their criteria would have Rubio and Jindal be natural born citizens, then they did not go with the Founders and ratifiers.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If their criteria would have Rubio and Jindal be natural born citizens, then they did not go with the Founders and ratifiers.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Dante is a birther. He channels the founding fathers regularly.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Lol clearly!

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

If their criteria would have Rubio and Jindal be natural born citizens, then they did not go with the Founders and ratifiers.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Ya’ got that right. Those dang redskins weren’t citizens either!

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Lol clearly!

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

So copy and past Thomas’ and Scalia’s opinion. I doubt it says what you think it does.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Dante is a birther. He channels the founding fathers regularly.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Also, it’s interesting that birthers claim to respect the intent of the Founding Fathers, when I’m not sure they even know what the purpose of that clause was in the first place.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

So copy and past Thomas’ and Scalia’s opinion. I doubt it says what you think it does.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Oh geeze, searching is too hard for you?

You have ignored all posted evidence contrary to your birther religion.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ya’ got that right. Those dang redskins weren’t citizens either!

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

They weren’t. You really don’t know anything about our history, do you?

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You have ignored all posted evidence contrary to your birther religion.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

All you’ve done is make ignorant sniping comments from the sidelines, which is because you are intellectually deficient for participation in this discussion.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Also, it’s interesting that birthers claim to respect the intent of the Founding Fathers, when I’m not sure they even know what the purpose of that clause was in the first place.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Its not interesting in any way other than birthers have a learning disability. The real founding fathers, not the spirits these nutballs follow, made it pretty clear that they were following laws already in place while writing the constitution. Laws that defined natural born citizen. They figured there wouldn’t be any fools moronic enough to question settled common practice.

The whole “natural born” thing was to keep European aristocrats from taking over.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

So copy and past Thomas’ and Scalia’s opinion. I doubt it says what you think it does.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Gladly. From Thomas’ and Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:

“The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’”

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The whole “natural born” thing was to keep European aristocrats from taking over.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Precisely.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

They weren’t. You really don’t know anything about our history, do you?

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Oh, I was hoping one of you birthers would fall for that.

You came through in spades.

So now, native Americans are not native born?

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

“The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’”

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

That’s exactly what I figured you’d post.

Now where does it say anything about natural born citizen or the presidential requirements? It doesn’t.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

And you think otherwise? Guess what, for good, or bad, they are.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

At least you understand that your confused,lax definition of nbC can lead to “bad” consequences. Did you think about how or why or what? Or are you comfortable with “bad” consequences?

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

All you’ve done is make ignorant sniping comments from the sidelines, which is because you are intellectually deficient for participation in this discussion.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Sniping from the sidelines? Honey I’ve been giving you broadsides and you cannot come out of your spiritual trance long enough to notice your masts are gone.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Despite all the talk of inevitability, Mitt Romney is not going to win the presidency if he is the nominee. People do not break their patterns. For all of his political life, except for the last couple of years, he has been far to the Left of most of the Republican Party. That is where his heart is, and absent his actually DOING something that is irrevocable heresy to the Left; it is his default position. He has tried to TALK a conservative game, but even with an overwhelming monetary advantage in the Republican primaries, the wholehearted support of the Institutional Republicans, and a most uncharacteristic lack of attacks by the MSM; he is not trusted.

And as part of his pattern, he has repeatedly stuck not only one, but both, feet in his mouth whenever he might be getting the base of the party to tolerate him. Either he, or his close advisors, will say something that royally hacks off the base. It can be his love of firing people, not being a NASCAR fan, but knowing people who own NASCAR teams, his likely HHS nominee saying that they will not repeal Obamacare, despite what Romney says, and right after winning Illinois [with a low turnout] having his Communications Director put out the “Etch-a-Sketch” line that puts the credibility of all his statements to the base in question.

He is going to need to not micturate in the Wheaties of the Republican base and unite them all in order to win against the vote fraud, illegal acts, illegal money, and 100% support of the MSM for Obama. He is sufficiently tone deaf and contemptuous of the base that he is incapable of doing that.

His campaign is going to make Dole’s look dynamic.

NO, Marco, don’t commit political suicide by joing a ticket with a loser like Romney! We went through this same thing with McCain and look how the establishment treated Sarah Palin and is treating her now. And a lot of the Romney campaing staff is the same as McCain’s – they can do the dirty work of stabbing you in the back while Romney and Jeb come off smelling like roses. That way, old Jeb will be primed and ready to step in when you’re too extreme and conservative in 2016. I hope no conservative will pair up with Rmnoney if he’s the nominee. We’ll need them without that baggage in 2016 after the democrats beat yet another moderate/liberal republican.

mozalf on March 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM

There is the point above, too. If a Conservative running mate is selected, neither he nor the Institutionals will tolerate them becoming more popular or effective than Romney. If they do so, they will be politically assassinated from within the campaign. We have a record of seeing them do that. Fool me once …..

If Romney is the nominee, he will lose through his own actions and background; despite the country’s distaste for Obama. Thus, even if Romney offers the VP spot to a Conservative; it would be well not to take it without pondering what effect it would have on their future after they alone are blamed for the loss.

If Romney is the candidate, the electoral route to the White House is closed. The best we can hope for is to fight a delaying action for a while if we can get control of both Houses of Congress.

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

At least you understand that your confused,lax definition of nbC can lead to “bad” consequences. Did you think about how or why or what? Or are you comfortable with “bad” consequences?

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Confused and lax? Take it up with the courts. You are soooo much smarter than them.

Law is law, and making up your own facts won’t change that.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

The real founding fathers . . made it pretty clear that they were following laws already in place while writing the constitution. Laws that defined natural born citizen.

What laws?

These laws are. . .where?

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

That’s exactly what I figured you’d post.

Now where does it say anything about natural born citizen or the presidential requirements? It doesn’t.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Wow…cozmo was right. I am wasting my time. If you can find any federal case which supports your claim, then please do share. The only support you have for your position is your own interpretation. As far as the rest of the non-birthers are concerned, this is settled law.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

So now, native Americans are not native born?
cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Not interested in birther pie fights, but the Indians were not American citizens – at least back then. “America”, in the Constitution, refers to a nation, not a land mass.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM

His campaign is going to make Dole’s look dynamic.

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

My guess is you weren’t around then. A funeral is more dynamic than that campaign.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Willard and Bushie Rubio are not the answer.

wraithby on March 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM

“America”, in the Constitution, refers to a nation, not a land mass.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Yes, it was. And one group of people were given a choice. Some took it some didn’t. It became codified by law a hundred years later.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I don’t know about you, but when I see Willard and Marco Rubio together in the same photo, I think of Batman and Robin.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I don’t know about you, but when I see Willard and Marco Rubio together in the same photo, I think of Batman and Robin.

Emperor Norton on March 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

LOL…we rarely, if ever, agree but I have to give you props on that.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

My guess is you weren’t around then. A funeral is more dynamic than that campaign.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

*sigh*

I was, sadly. And I stand by my statement.

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Subotai Bahadur = DNC plant.

scotash on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I was, sadly. And I stand by my statement.

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Will you admit it if you turn out to be wrong?

Subotai Bahadur = DNC plant.

scotash on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Or a total downer.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Rick “gaffe machine” Perry vs. Joe “gaffe machine” Biden. That should be a comedy routine, not a VP debate. If Romney ends up nominee, Jindal is the better choice for VP. Two governors with executive experience vs. two Senators with yes/no/present experience and a terrible track record running the country.

ncconservative on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Emperor Norton & Dante are running around this thread posting misinformation about US citizenship because (1) they don’t understand it or (2) they’re just morons.

Dark Star on March 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM

A bit of both, actually, which is why I bailed out.

Del Dolemonte on March 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM

All you’ve done is make ignorant sniping comments from the sidelines, which is because you are intellectually deficient for participation in this discussion.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Sniping from the sidelines? Honey I’ve been giving you broadsides and you cannot come out of your spiritual trance long enough to notice your masts are gone.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Shiver me Timbers!

Del Dolemonte on March 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I have supported Romney since 2008 and Rubio as his veep since I voted for Rubio in 2010. Rubio needs to be plucked from the Senate NOW before he starts to change into something we might not like. Not his fault, it has happened to the best of them. Afterall, Rubio has far nore experience than Obama did when he ran in 2008. Rubio would be a great veep, with 2 terms under Romney then he’ll be prime presidential material. Romney/Rubio 2012

BabysCatz on March 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM

hussein was born in kenya and is not qualified, same as jindal and rubio.

Mr. Sun on March 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Ummmm… as I remember, Hussein was born in Iraq. Jindal and Rubio were born in Louisiana and Florida, respectively, not Kenya.

BillH on March 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I have lost all respect for Perry after his “vulture capitalist” crap (and Newt too for the same crap) Face it, Perry would just be a younger version of Biden

BabysCatz on March 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Subotai Bahadur = DNC plant.

scotash on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I don thin so, Lucy.

BillH on March 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

After the way McCain and the rinos treated Sarah Palin, any thinking Conservative should reply to a VP offer from Romney with a firm, thanks, but no thanks.

The rinos have no time for Conservatives and we should happily return the favor.

RJL on March 22, 2012 at 3:56 PM

BillH on March 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Don’t harsh his mellow man. He was on a Belushi-esque roll.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Nominating 2yr senator Rubio would be a blatantly obvious and self-demeaning pander to the Hispanics. It would be laughed at by Hispanics (and everyone), we would be the laughingstock.

“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is not a winning strategy.

anotherJoe on March 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM

and yet, all politicians do, on both sides, now is pander. Go here, go there and pander, pander everywhere.

Maybe there’s something to it. Maybe all these minority and special interest groups just want to be pandered to.

I mean, if a man can be elected president based on skin color alone…

WhaleBellied on March 22, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Confused and lax? Take it up with the courts. You are soooo much smarter than them.

Law is law, and making up your own facts won’t change that.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I’m glad you have a “law” to support your odd conclusions.

Please share, no rush, and TIA.

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Please share, no rush, and TIA.

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM

All you had to do is look. The links are posted. But don’t let that get in the way of your delusions. Its that kind of knowledge that got Obama disqualified. man, we sure dodged that bullet.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I cannot stand Gingrich or Santorum but who the hell is Jeb Bush to tell anyone what to do?

Hilts on March 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I’m glad you have a “law” to support your odd conclusions.

Please share, no rush, and TIA.

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I somehow doubt that you will be satisfied (or that any birther will be satisfied regarding this issue). However, please find below a sampling of court cases determining what is a natural born citizen. Hint: No court case has ever supported your proposition that a natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents. See string cite below for “law” to support Cozmo’s statements regarding the law.

Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to service as President. See, e.g., Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); see also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Wow…cozmo was right. I am wasting my time. If you can find any federal case which supports your claim, then please do share. The only support you have for your position is your own interpretation. As far as the rest of the non-birthers are concerned, this is settled law.

GOPRanknFile on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Well that’s quite a dodge! You are unable to address my rebuttal. So tell me where in your quote it says anything about natural born citizens? You can’t do it because it’s not there.

Oh, I was hoping one of you birthers would fall for that.

You came through in spades.

So now, native Americans are not native born?

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Oh, my. Ignorance in your case is certainly bliss.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Oh, my. Ignorance in your case is certainly bliss.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Then in your case, you must be in heaven.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Why Rubio Jeb. So the media can destroy him with lies like Palin and you and the establishment not defend him. Therefore get rid of another conservative and the no tuff primary challenge for 2016. Assuming Romney Rubio lose. Which won’t happen

Conservative4ev on March 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I somehow doubt that you will be satisfied (or that any birther will be satisfied regarding this issue). However, please find below a sampling of court cases determining what is a natural born citizen. Hint: No court case has ever supported your proposition that a natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents. See string cite below for “law” to support Cozmo’s statements regarding the law.

Since the SCOTUS gave an earlier definition of nbC in Minor v Happersett, which of your listed cases overrule that decision?

1andyman on March 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I had people to do and things to see.

Will you admit it if you turn out to be wrong?
cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Gladly, happily. If Romney turns into the founder of a new incarnation of the Sons of Liberty and takes on the Enemy; I will be overjoyed to be wrong. But I do not think I am wrong. I am a retired Peace Officer. Spent my career reading people. And the one thing that you can bet on is that people follow routines. When you are doing an investigation, what you look for is anomalies that do not match the normal pattern of their lives. We have plenty of data on the normal pattern of Romney’s life. His claims of being a “severe conservative” are very much the anomaly.

Subotai Bahadur = DNC plant.

Y’all believe what y’all want to believe. But you might want to google my nom d’ blog. If I am a DNC plant; damn, I’m good. I have been an active Republican for 32 years. There have been 16 caucus/convention cycles in that time, and I have been a delegate to the State Republican Convention for 14 of them, including the one next month. One of the years I missed was because I lost a son and did no politics at all. I have run a Republican presidential campaign in my county, and we kicked Democrat butt.

If I am any sort of a plant, I am a TEA Party plant. Except that I openly admit it.

I have only commented here a few times since the last open sign up period, but I have lurked here for years.

But, I’ll tell you what; if you are wrong and if Romney is the candidate and he leaves the pooch walking funny; will you admit that it was his fault as a candidate, or will you blame it on the e-e-e-vil Conservatives?

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I’m looking @ the commments. Jindal would make an excellent veep-but he seems happy in LA.. He IS eligible to be president-as is Rubio.
If you are a birther-you are are on permanent ignore.
If you are one of those who’s been acting like a 3 year old mid-tantrum with your shrieking about how you won’t vote for Mitt if he’s the nominee-you’re on permanent ignore. This blog seems to have been over -run by a bunch of whiny irrational, ideologues.
It’s well past time for the rational adults to wrest control of it again.

I wanted Perry. I’ll vote for Mitt.
Mitt/Jindal 2012!
Mitt/Ryan 2012!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Subotai Bahadur on March 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Well, I ain’t a Romney supporter. But if he loses it will be his fault for the loss.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 7:15 PM

This blog seems to have been over -run by a bunch of whiny irrational, ideologues.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Hey! quit pickin’ on me! At least I don’t bite.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Hey! quit pickin’ on me! At least I don’t bite.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Haters gonna hate.
*wink*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 7:50 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Shocking how you once again come down on the side against the Constitution.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Shocking how you once again come down on the side against the Constitution.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 7:57 PM

She understands it much better than you birther nutballs do.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 7:58 PM

If we’re going to pick someone without a lot of experience, pick Allen West. The Obama campaign will go after Romney and Rubio with a vengeance, but West would be better up to the challenge. Rubio might wilt under the pressure; West would not.

Also, the second Rubio is nominated, birthers will file a lawsuit challenging his eligibility because he is NOT a natural born citizen; he is merely a native-born citizen. Although he was born on U.S. soil, he did not have tow U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. Like Obama and Bobby Jindal, Rubio is not a natural born citizen.

In 1866 Congressman Bingham, “the father of the 14th Amendment,” stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Unscrupulous Obots—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

Colony14 on March 22, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Shocking how you once again come down on the side against the Constitution.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Blow, Ronbot!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Blow, Ronbot!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

They are smart enough to the meaning of that and they do it the right way. Though, from what I’ve herd, they aren’t very good at it.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I pronounce Dante the winner.

markcon on March 22, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I pronounce Dante the winner.

markcon on March 22, 2012 at 9:02 PM

The you are a nutball birther as well. How ’bout you “winners” put your rears in the game and go remove Obama from office since y’all won.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

The you are a nutball birther as well. How ’bout you “winners” put your rears in the game and go remove Obama from office since y’all won.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I’d love to, however the federal government is going to protect itself. After all, it gets to make the rules, to enforce the rules, to decide how to enforce the rules, and to decide to whom it will apply the rules. Without the will of the people to fight for the principles of our Republic and its Constitution, nothing is going to happen (especially with people like you who mock others for wanting to see the Constitution upheld). Look how accepting people are of the TSA. Look at how people are ho-hum about the NDAA. They just want their American Idol.

Dante on March 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Romney/Ryan works for me.

Lourdes on March 23, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5