Jindal: Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since Jimmy Carter

posted at 2:21 pm on June 12, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

It warms my heart when a politician is willing to just go the whole hog and call ‘em as they see ‘em. Of course, I’m sure Gov. Jindal has his own motives in mind — he’s an oft-discussed attractive possibility for Romney’s running mate. The Jindal camp has been fairly careful about explicit interest in the vice presidency (I mean, nobody’s going to actually come out and say, “Yes, I am actively angling for the Veep slot” rather than staying focused on the job they have), but he hasn’t said that he wouldn’t do it, either.

Speaking at CPAC Chicago on Friday, however, Jindal certainly had some fightin’ words for the Obama administration:

“I suspect that many in the Obama administration really don’t believe in private enterprise. At best, they see business as something to be endured so that that it can provide tax money for government programs,” said Jindal.

Responding to Obama’s statement that the private sector was “doing fine,” he added: “Mr. President, I’ve got a message for you:  The private sector is not doing well when 23 million Americans are unemployed and underemployed in this great country. This president — the private sector is so foreign to him, he might need a passport to actually go visit, and he might need a translator to help him talk to folks in the private sector.” …

“Did he not go to Wisconsin because he was afraid of hurting himself by backing a loser?” Jindal wondered aloud. “He shrunk from this challenge. He elected to stay away from Wisconsin for fear of losing. That’s not what leaders do.”

And if feels so good. It annoys me to no end when President Obama uses economic terms like “investment” and “job creation,” because he really doesn’t understand what those terms mean. Maybe he thinks he does, as-viewed through the lens of a big-government agenda, but the federal government does not create productive jobs and should not be making investments that Americans won’t make on their own. The private sector should be doing these things, and the federal government can merely help or hinder this process — and under Obama, it’s been all hindrance, all the time.

Romney has often reverted to the “nice guy” line — President Obama has good intentions but is just woefully misguided in the execution, or something. Jindal is far from the first to make the Carter-Obama comparison, but I still like hearing it, and Jindal might be trying to show that he can be the ying to Romney’s yang and that he’s willing to go on the aggressive attack as a running mate. A few weeks back, I had a hearty chuckle when Jindal admonished that President Obama “never even ran a lemonade stand” — it’s just so painfully true.

Just a little dose of Veep-speculation to brighten your day!


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

Solid, B+ material.

catalan on June 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

100

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Or first depending on how you look at it. 0 is still The Worst Ever!™

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

His most recent utterances are so at odds with reality that they cannot be anything other than incompetence. Gibberish with a megaphone is still gibberish.

BKennedy on June 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Smartest guy in the room, right :)…with the avalanche of gaffes coming from from 0 and his campaign lately cloward-piven and alinski would have no choice but flunk him :)…

jimver on June 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Christien

Ok.

Go back and take a logic course. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. I might add, citing a politician from one of the most corrupt states in the country as a reference probably doesn’t help your argument. And read my post more carefully. Nowhere did I assert that he would or even should be voted out. About the best this state can hope for is someone like Jindal.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Wasn’t Louisiana ranked last in transparency before Jindal took over and now near the top?
Wasn’t Louisiana ranked 46th in state integrity index and is now ranked 5th?

I know quite a few people (Democrats and Republicans) in Louisiana and they would disagree with your comment about Jindal needing to stay away from public office.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

President Obama “never even ran a lemonade stand”

Imagine if he had.

It would cost $25 for a cup, it would taste like sour grapes and if you didn’t buy it, he’d call you a racist.

NoDonkey on June 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Seconded.

Christien on June 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

One thing I forgot to mention. While I think that Romney is far superior in governing than Obama, I don’t yet trust Romney as a true conservative. Running as Romney’s running mate, Jindal would have to accept Romney’s policies whether he personally agrees with them or not.

We need very strong governors to help win back this country. Scott Walker proved that compromise is not necessary and Jindal has the same type of backbone as Walker.

Kingfisher on June 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM

HEADLINE
Obamasells Louisiana back to France

katy the mean old lady on June 12, 2012 at 3:35 PM

GOPRankFile

I really don’t care about any rankings. They’re mostly arbitrary B.S., anyway, sort of like the ones that say America has the 37th best health care in the world. I live in the most conservative district in La. and one of the most conservative in the U.S. and people here are complaining about Jindal on a host of issues from ethics reform to his not having shrunk government or cut taxes. The ‘Cajun Rush Limbaugh’, Moon Griffon has been so disappointed by Jindal that he changed his affiliation from ‘Republican’ to ‘independent. And a lot of La’s. conservatives listen to this man. But I concede Christien’s point that he’ll stay in office if he chooses. Aside from the fact he was Mike Foster’s chosen heir (and that matters in this state), a much better politician doesn’t have a chance in this state as things currently stand. Culturally, this state is very tolerant of corruption and graft. For La., he’s good. I just think he’s highly overrated as a potential national officeholder. It is sad that the GOP has so few persons of quality, that we latch on to some ‘superstar’ who isn’t. Throw in our apparent (and relatively recent) desire as a party to play the identity politics game, and all kinds of weird things happen.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM

correction: not from Republican to independent, but to ‘no party’. (Same thing practically, but for accuracy’s sake…)

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

No worries. I just put more stock in the opinions of Louisianans who have worked directly and successfully with Jindal on numerous occasions.

Then again, I’m not an authority, as I don’t “live in La.”

LOL.

Christien on June 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

President Obama “never even ran a lemonade stand”

Imagine if he had.

It would cost $25 for a cup, it would taste like sour grapes and if you didn’t buy it, he’d call you a racist.

NoDonkey on June 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM

And if you did buy it, tasted it and then ask for your money back, he would refuse, saying that it wasn’t his fault it tasted bad- because Bush made it in the first place!

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

From Vice President Biden to Vice President Jindal…would that be the highest increase in IQ from a predecessor to his successor in history?

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Going from little Bammie to Governor Romney mmight beat that.

slickwillie2001 on June 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

He doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements for VP. Check your 12th amendment.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Well, there are plenty of arguments to be made for both sides.

As I see it, since his parents were both here legally (green cards) and he was indisputably born on US soil, he would be eligible. Remember that the Constitution never does define either “natural born” or “native born”.

Are you sure you want to go there?

My guess is that if a Federal Judge rules that in fact Jindal is eligible to run for VP or P, you’ll just say “I don’t believe the Judge.”

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Christien

Ok, good for you. But I will point out, that if you are trying to argue against the idea that Jindal is not VP material, it doesn’t particularly add to your argument to use as references people who work with him and stand to gain from working with him (or as you framed it, ‘successfully’). Of course they’re going to say good things about him. The fact that they’re working with him already indicates they’re well disposed towards him or that they have common interests. Reference to someone a little less…directly involved might lend more credibility to the argument.

As for your last comment, I guess that’s an attempt at sarcasm or humor. Cool, chief. I didn’t claim to be an authority. But I do hear a lot more about him (from voters and constituents) than someone like you who has the word of some politicians, perhaps a few friends from La. and a glib ‘conservative’ media to rely on.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Here’s Sowell quibbling with giving the Socialist label to Obama

What socialism, fascism, and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist/print

r keller on June 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM

That’s fine if you don’t care about rankings just like I’m sure a lot of people don’t care about people like you and Moon Griffon who happen to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Jindal’s governance. If people were disappointed in what he’s doing and how he’s done it, you could have ran someone against him. Heck, he’s so popular there, the Dems couldn’t even find a serious candidate to run against him. There’s a reason why he’s the most popular Governor in America. But if Moon Griffon doesn’t like him…lol. Most of my conservatives friends in Louisiana stopped taking Griffon seriously when he called Jindal a “tax-and-spend liberal.”

It’s funny that he’s called the “Cajun Rush Limbaugh” when of course the real Rush Limbaugh has called Bobby Jindal “the next Ronald Reagan.” I’ll go with the real thing rather than the wannabe.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Don’t hold back, Bobby. Tell ‘em how ya really feel!

LaserBeam on June 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Well, check around I’m sure there are some Long family left. Elect one of them.

katy the mean old lady on June 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Heck, he’s so popular there, the Dems couldn’t even find a serious candidate to run against him.

It goes a little beyond that.

Running statewide as a Dem, post-Katrina, is like trying to ice-skate uphill under the best circumstances because the New Orleans political machine has been smashed.

The usual gang of idiots on the Dem side, like Buddy Leach and my former classmate Caroline Fayard, knew better than to waste money running for Governor instead of one of the lesser offices where they had a better chance.

teke184 on June 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Then again, I’m not an authority, as I don’t “live in La South of I-10.”

LOL.

Christien on June 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Fixed. (Just messing with you avgjo, though I do have a quite prominent aunt from Monroe.)

Christien on June 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM

President Obama “never even ran a lemonade stand”

Imagine if he had.

It would cost $25 for a cup, it would taste like sour grapes and if you didn’t buy it, he’d call you a racist.

NoDonkey on June 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM
And if you did buy it, tasted it and then ask for your money back, he would refuse, saying that it wasn’t his fault it tasted bad- because Bush made it in the first place!

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

And then he’d head off for the golf course.

NoDonkey on June 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Well, there are plenty of arguments to be made for both sides.

As I see it, since his parents were both here legally (green cards) and he was indisputably born on US soil, he would be eligible. Remember that the Constitution never does define either “natural born” or “native born”.

Are you sure you want to go there?

My guess is that if a Federal Judge rules that in fact Jindal is eligible to run for VP or P, you’ll just say “I don’t believe the Judge.”

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Sure, his parents were here legally, but they weren’t American citizens when he was born. Being born on US soil makes one native born, but not necessarily natural born, and natural born is the criteria.

Yes, we can go there. The Constitution is not a dictionary. That’s not its purpose.

You’re guess would be wrong. It wouldn’t be, “I don’t believe the judge;” it would be, “the judge is wrong.”

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM

katy the mean old lady

That makes no sense. Next.

GOPRanknfile. I never said anyone cares about my opinion, although you apparently do enough to have commented twice on it (and frankly, I don’t care one way or another). Further, your ad hominem really had nothing to do with my response to your implicit assertion of the reliability of rankings. As for your comment about Griffon; first off, Rush doesn’t live in this state, and he doesn’t know state politics like Griffon (he can’t, his focus is national). So your argument really makes no sense. As for your comment about him being a wannabe, cool. But a lot of conservatives in this state listen to him, and many do so more than to Rush, esp. on local matters.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

teke184 on June 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Well, yeah there’s more to it than that but the reason why he’s so popular because he’s just good at what he does. I mean the guy received 66% of the vote in a jungle primary.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Christien 3:51

Now THAT was funny! Point well taken.

Although, I will point out that when I do listen to Griffon, most of the most vocal critics are from your aunt’s neck of the woods.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I remember 1977-1981, so…

Jindal: Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since Jimmy Carter

FIFY

LaserBeam on June 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

There was nothing ad hominem about what I said. If you took it as such, then I apologize. I was simply stating that if you don’t care about rankings (I cede they can be easily manipulated), then that’s your call, but they’re as valid, if not more valid, than your own personal feelings.

Does Rush know the state as well as most people that live in the state? I think it’s safe to say that he probably does not, but when Moon Griffon called Jindal a “tax-and-spend liberal,” many people that listened to him started to believe that Griffon didn’t know much about the state either.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 4:05 PM

No offense taken. This is a calm, cool, rational debate, which I’m enjoying.

Question:

Do you know why that charge was made against Mr. Jindal?

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 4:10 PM

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And to think, you could’ve chosen “avgjeaux.” ;P

Christien on June 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Christien,

Well, hindsight is 20/20, mon ami. : )

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Viva Piyush!!!

Jindal is exceptional among today’s Republicans – seriously intelligent and politically agile, ruling with conviction a state whose most famous modern ex-governor, Democrat Edwin Edwards, served 16 years in office before serving 9 years in a federal penitentiary. Bobby J is singlehandedly “vouchering” Louisiana teachers unions into submission and has slashed spending across state government. He’s made deals when necessary but always retains the upper hand.

On a national ticket, Jindal’s story would present an excellent foil to Obama: Bobby’s immigrant parents were also in academia (Parents’ address on Piyush Jindal’s (Bobby’s) birth certificate is listed as “Physics Department, LSU”) yet the Jindals fully embraced their new home and raised a son who went on to become a Rhodes Scholar (no secret about grades there!), U.S. Congressman and 2-term Governor. During Barry’s prime “chooming” years, Bobby was working in a concession stand at Tiger Stadium.

Great story, great man. Much better choice than Rubio …

BatonRogue on June 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

From what I’ve read, it’s because of his support for the Stelly Tax. He later signed the repeal of the Stelly Tax. That’s fine if you don’t agree with a particular policy of a person, but calling him a “tax-and-spend liberal” because of a policy disagreement is a bit hyperbolic for my taste. The reality is that most conservatives/libertarians are going to take the Cato Institute who has analyzed every single bit of Jindal’s fiscal policy (and has given him an “A”) more seriously than a guy who is known for being an inarticulate shock jock.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

IDO the definitions of “native” and “natural”, right?

To me (not a lawyer), in this situation “native” means “within the nation”. That implies a geographic standard, right? Do all agree that standard is met?

Now, “natural born” is where it gets tricky. A natural birth implies all sort of medical issues. I think we can agree those would be irrelevant here. And, we’re all “born”, so let’s concentrate on “natural”.

Could the reference be to “natural” as in the root of “naturalized”? If so, wouldn’t that standard be irrelevant to him because he is already a “native born” American?

LaserBeam on June 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Jindal: Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since Jimmy Carter

I disagree.

Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since long before Jimmy Carter. I’m guessing since Woodrow Wilson, but I don’t know my history well enough to say with authority.

The Rogue Tomato on June 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It warms my heart when a politician is willing to just go the whole hog and call ‘em as they see ‘em.

I like that about you, too, Erika. You’re a great addition to HA.

The Rogue Tomato on June 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Correction; Of all time! The Worst Ever!

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Correction of Correction; Of all time! The Worst Evah!

Ya gotta put some finesse into it, plus raise your donut pinky finger while sipping whatever you sip.

timberline on June 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM

President Obama “never even ran a lemonade stand”

Imagine if he had.

It would cost $25 for a cup, it would taste like sour grapes and if you didn’t buy it, he’d call you a racist.

NoDonkey on June 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM
And if you did buy it, tasted it and then ask for your money back, he would refuse, saying that it wasn’t his fault it tasted bad- because Bush made it in the first place!

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

And then he’d head off for the golf course.

He’d make it mandatory for all Unions to have their employees pay for it, with a 200% markup on cost of course

He’d have a couple of Black Panther thugs armed with billy clubs to intimidate anyone who thinks of passing by without buying a cup.

Per Michelle’s orders, it would be organic, sugar free, gluten free, and taste free. Meanwhile she and her hubby will be swigging kool aid…

The press will rave about it, how good it tastes, and how everyone should have some.

ArtVandelay on June 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Moon’s accent is hard to deal with. But I think his reputation stems from (a) his accent (there is a lot of prejudice regarding education towards anyone with a thick souther accent) and (b) people who don’t like his uncompromising positions. If you actually listen to him, he makes reasonable arguments and documents them well.

My big problem with the Stelly Tax is that he was at first aiding and abetting a redistributionist scheme. It was the typical ‘tax the rich’ crap, which drives jobs from a state that’s already shot itself in the foot by clinging to a weird legal system. If there is a litmus test for fiscal conservatism, redistributionist schemes should be it.

As for spending…

I think he awkwardly played his cuts to education. I remember one of our professors couldn’t make copies for us of a reading because the dept. could not spare paper. And that was after our fees had almost doubled in the preceding few years. All we saw in exchange for that was more ‘administrative’ personnel (bureucrats) and fewer classes (in legit fields. Women’s studies was left intact, of course.) That said, Jindal’s in a hard place. La. needs spending badly, because our infrastructure sucks. But there are smarter ways to do it, than increasing administration numbers and pays while cutting that of the rank and file teachers and departments.

I don’t doubt he’s a conservative. I just don’t think he’s the conservative superhero people think he is. And his initial support for a redistributionist scheme (whatever his intentions) and his less-than-completely-consistent ethics reform (from which he exempted himself and certain of his appointees) are not (to me anyway) minor position differences.

Please forgive me; i have a night class. I really enjoyed the civil discussion and i look forward to reading your response later.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM

It was a pleasure having this discussion with you. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Have fun in class and I look forward to speaking with you more in the future.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Right now I consider Jindal the most attractive VP choice for Romney. He’s got the executive experience as a governor, he has some actual leadership stories to tell (including the reponse to Katrina), and he’s right up there on the wonk scale with Paul Ryan when it comes to explaining the solutions to the entitlement program meltdown. Naturally he’s got his flaws, but then again so does everybody and Jindal’s certainly don’t disqualify him.

Fafhrd on June 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I truly believe that this is Romney’s strongest argument, yet he refuses to use it.

It’s simple Mitt, and it goes like this:

“Barack Obama has never had a job a day in his life. How on earth could any of us possibly expect him to know how they are created? How can we expect him to know why someone invests, or what makes a business successful. We can’t, which is why his presidency has been a complete disaster.”

DCnative on June 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You’re guess would be wrong. It wouldn’t be, “I don’t believe the judge;” it would be, “the judge is wrong.”

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM

lol! What’s the difference?

What if a 9 judge panel all ruled he was eligible? Or 7 of the 9?

Would they all be “wrong” too?

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

He should not insult carter this way.

gerrym51 on June 12, 2012 at 5:20 PM

lol! What’s the difference?

What if a 9 judge panel all ruled he was eligible? Or 7 of the 9?

Would they all be “wrong” too?

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

They would be wrong because WND says so.

GOPRanknFile on June 12, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Obama: making Jimmy Carter look almost semi-competent!

profitsbeard on June 12, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Jindal is far from the first to make the Carter-Obama comparison,

Yeah, Romney has been making the comparison for while now.

Dark Star on June 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Regarding the Natural/Native born mess…..it seems that as long as the candidate was born in the US it probably doesn’t matter about his/her parents. Besides Obama…aren’t their other past presidents, especially early ones, that had foreign born parents?

maables on June 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Go Bobby Jindal!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Jindal’s nuance.

maverick muse on June 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

LaserBeam on June 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM

As I said in an earlier post, neither word is defined in the Constitution.

Of course, our friend Dante, who plays a “Constitutional Scholar” here on Hot Gas, will whine that “the Constitution is not a dictionary!” (see post upstream in the thread).

That claim of course is laughable; the Constitution defines lots of stuff-it defines what comprises Congress, defines the minimum age for a member of Congress, etc. Another section has 8 definitions for limits on Congressional power.

Jindal (or Rubio for that matter) have never had their right to serve as Congress critters challenged. As I said, if the Ron Paultards want to go down that road, let them make fools of themselves.

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Just a bit more fuel. Native™ or Natural™ ?

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Go Dire Straits!!..; )

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Besides Obama…aren’t their other past presidents, especially early ones, that had foreign born parents?

maables on June 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Yes, there were 6 Presidents before him with foreign born parents.

1. Jefferson (mother born in England)

2. Jackson’s parents both born in Ireland

3. Chet Arthur had an Irish father.

4. So did James Buchanan.

5. Woody Wilson’s Mom was born in England.

6. And Herbert Hoover’s mother was born in Canada.

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yes, there were 6 Presidents before him with foreign born parents.

1. Jefferson (mother born in England)

2. Jackson’s parents both born in Ireland

3. Chet Arthur had an Irish father.

4. So did James Buchanan.

5. Woody Wilson’s Mom was born in England.

6. And Herbert Hoover’s mother was born in Canada.

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

That’s pretty much what I figured…so it’s just someone trying to stir up controversy!

maables on June 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

incompetent? ..NO smart like Fox.

he’s been trained well ..Some Call It Treason & Subversion.!

“The Obama administration has little left to use for leverage.

except Fear and Violence.. and were seeing it !!

Capt-Dax on June 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I know why Romney says Obama has “good intentions” – Republicans aren’t allowed to question the motives of Democrats, blah blah blah. He wants his focus to be on “Obama believes in stuff that doesn’t work” – talking about anything else is a distraction.

BD57 on June 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Rubio would be a better choice for VP. Hit the libs in the ribs with a minority to put the growing Hispanic vote in play, he can guarantee FL and possibly NM, solid conservative so it’s a conciliatory move to shore up the conservative base, good speaker and debater, GOP will retain the Senate seat easily, young, handsome, a tough fighter, full of promise, the list goes on. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with Jindal per se but he does not strengthen the ticket like Rubio does.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM

lol! What’s the difference?

What if a 9 judge panel all ruled he was eligible? Or 7 of the 9?

Would they all be “wrong” too?

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Yes, they would be wrong as well. Do you think this is about numbers?

Regarding the Natural/Native born mess…..it seems that as long as the candidate was born in the US it probably doesn’t matter about his/her parents. Besides Obama…aren’t their other past presidents, especially early ones, that had foreign born parents?

maables on June 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Foreign born doesn’t matter. What matters is the parent’s citizenship status at the time of their child’s birth. Yes, it does matter. If you would read your Constitution, you would know that language was included to grandfather in those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Rubio would be a better choice for VP.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM

He isn’t Constitutionally eligible either. Besides, he’s anti-free speech and believes we should use our military for regime change against countries that never attacked us.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I’ve got news for you Dante: if you are born in this country you are a native, natural, born citizen. It’s called Jus Solis, law of the soil. It doesn’t matter where your parents come from. A Mexican woman could give birth on the bank of the Rio Grande and the baby would be eligible for the presidency/vice presidency in 35 years. That’s how the law works in the U.S. The only exception would be for a child of diplomats not fully subject to state or federal laws.

The stuff about Rubio being against free speech and reckless regime change is silly.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM

katy the mean old lady

That makes no sense. Next.

avgjo on June 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

So, you aren’t really from LA.
You just proved it by not knowing the Long family. Move on kid.

katy the mean old lady on June 12, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I’ve got news for you Dante: if you are born in this country you are a native, natural, born citizen. It’s called Jus Solis, law of the soil. It doesn’t matter where your parents come from. A Mexican woman could give birth on the bank of the Rio Grande and the baby would be eligible for the presidency/vice presidency in 35 years. That’s how the law works in the U.S. The only exception would be for a child of diplomats not fully subject to state or federal laws.

The stuff about Rubio being against free speech and reckless regime change is silly.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I’ve got news for you: you are wrong on all accounts. Native born does not equal natural born. Citizenship does not equal natural born. The Framers purposefully changed the wording from citizen to natural born citizen.

Rubio sponsored legislation that would create free of free speech zones around military funerals. He supported SOPA/PIPA. He said Obame should have used our military to overthrow Qaddafi.

Educate yourself.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

It annoys me to no end when President Obama uses economic terms like “investment” and “job creation,” because he really doesn’t understand what those terms mean.

He keeps using those words. They do not mean what he thinks they mean.

NoFanofLibs on June 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

That implies he has formulated some concept of ‘job-creation’ and ‘investment’ in his mind (whether it is right or wrong is immaterial). He has done no such thing. I believe the evidence seen so far from him over these past 3 1/2 tortuous years proves beyond all doubt that Obama is quite dim, and has little or no understanding of any subject (NBA not withstanding).

Anyone who credits Barky with anything more than idiotic buffoonery is giving him far too much credit.

RavingLunatic on June 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I’ve got news for you Dante: if you are born in this country you are a native, natural, born citizen.

Nope. Both parents have to be citizens. Right now, liberals are arguing you only need one parent to be a citizen while it’s fairly clear the Founders wanted no split allegiances. Back then, if the man was a citizen, so was his wife. So there was no need to mention it. The Supreme Court has never wanted to clarify this point because that would put egg on their face.

MrX on June 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Educate yourself.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

MrX on June 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I researched this thoroughly years ago when I first heard about the Natural Born President faux controversy. You are completely in error but this nonsense never stops being repeated ad nauseam on HotAir. It does have a tendency to bring out the Ronulans–you’re not Paul supporters by any chance?

and personally I’ve got a lot fewer quibbles with Rubio’s policy stances than with Mitt’s. Same with most conservatives.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Dante’s an uber-Paulestinian.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

“the most liberal, most incompetent president in the White House since Jimmy Carter

I disagree: Obama is tied with FDR for first place among presidents of living memory, and Jimmy teeth Carter is closely behind in third place.

burt on June 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Dante’s an uber-Paulestinian.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I know, I was just toying with him. A little divine comedy now and then.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM

He doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements for VP. Check your 12th amendment.
Dante on June 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

If Obama or the Dems want to go down this route in challenging Jindal, Obama’s own qualifications to be President would be in doubt.

teke184 on June 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I think we HAVE TO go down this route, the sooner the better. We absolutely cannot endure confusion on eligibility issues any longer. I don’t know how the courts would ultimately define “natural born” as it pertains to the Constitution, but we damn sure need a clear legal definition STAT. If Jindal is rendered ineligible as a result, so be it. But if there’s anything we need now, it’s clarity (on this and quite a few other issues).

Harbingeing on June 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Jindal: Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since Jimmy Carter

Since Jimmy Carter?

Did Jindal misspell including?

tom on June 12, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I researched this thoroughly years ago when I first heard about the Natural Born President faux controversy. You are completely in error but this nonsense never stops being repeated ad nauseam on HotAir.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Your research is sorely lacking.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I call BS Erika!

Obama ran a drug distribution business in high school and college:

He is one savy and choomy Prez.

/sarc

KirknBurker on June 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Obama is the smartest man in the room every time he walks into an empty room.

JP1986UM on June 12, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I have to tell all of you this. I am sick and freaking tired of the insinuation and out right name calling of folks as Birthers just because they question the electability of someone for the highest office in the land. Not one of you is a Constitutional Law Expert. Not one. The Constitution was not vague until it was amended as near as I can tell from the research I have done. I have spoken to several Lawyers about this issue and not one of them agrees with one another. It is not clear as it has never been heard before the Supreme Court. Dante and I are not likely allies here. He doesn’t like me as near as I can tell. But he has taken a great deal of time to study up on this issue and should not be insulted for doing so. I f there are any Constitutional Experts here that would like to way in, then great, have at it. The truth about the reading of the laws pertaining to Native Natural are vague. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. But quit with the Birther BS.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

I neither like you nor dislike you.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I neither like you nor dislike you.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Fine, but the rest of my statement stands.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Jindal: Obama is the “most liberal, most incompetent” president since Jimmy Carter

Jindal is being too kind.

GarandFan on June 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM

lol! What’s the difference?

What if a 9 judge panel all ruled he was eligible? Or 7 of the 9?

Would they all be “wrong” too?

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Yes, they would be wrong as well. Do you think this is about numbers?

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You’re a Cartoon Character now.

PS, I can give you a pass for taking an hour and a half to “respond” to my 5:10 PM post above, but how come you were afraid to respond to my later post downstream in this thread?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/12/jindal-obama-is-the-most-liberal-most-incompetent-president-since-jimmy-carter/comment-page-2/#comment-5917038

When Ron Paul and spathi tell you how to respond, have at it.

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 11:00 PM

The Framers purposefully changed the wording from citizen to natural born citizen.

Educate yourself.

Dante on June 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Thank you for contradicting your earlier post in this thread, where you Lied by saying the Constitution is “not a dictionary”. You just cited them changing a definition in the document in question.

Sorry, you make this too easy, Kid.

EPIC FAIL-

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

…that’s fair B !

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM

I have to tell all of you this. I am sick and freaking tired of the insinuation and out right name calling of folks as Birthers just because they question the electability of someone for the highest office in the land. Not one of you is a Constitutional Law Expert. Not one. The Constitution was not vague until it was amended as near as I can tell from the research I have done. I have spoken to several Lawyers about this issue and not one of them agrees with one another. It is not clear as it has never been heard before the Supreme Court. Dante and I are not likely allies here. He doesn’t like me as near as I can tell. But he has taken a great deal of time to study up on this issue and should not be insulted for doing so. I f there are any Constitutional Experts here that would like to way in, then great, have at it. The truth about the reading of the laws pertaining to Native Natural are vague. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. But quit with the Birther BS.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

+++AGREE+++

cptacek on June 12, 2012 at 11:55 PM

It would soothe my annoyance at having to vote in November for one of my last picks for Republican nominee, if I could also be voting for my favorite potential future Presidential candidate for VP.

Romney/Jindal would make me smile when I pull that lever in November and make putting the bumper sticker on my car less annoying.

And maybe Jindal might help remind a President Romney that he still has to appease conservatives for the 2016 election and it might keep him on the straight and narrow and even give him a little hutzpa to surprise us all and be a pretty good President.

Either way, let’s hope Republicans don’t mess this up and we lose this country forever with Obama unleased for 4 more years.

Elisa on June 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I researched this thoroughly years ago when I first heard about the Natural Born President faux controversy. You are completely in error but this nonsense never stops being repeated ad nauseam on HotAir.

spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Did you bother to even look up the Senate’s joke resolution that tried to declare that McCain was a natural-born citizen (it’s a joke because the Senate doesn’t have the power to determine or dclare natural born citizenship)?

Senate Rosolution 511 (110th Congress) – co-sponsored by … Senator Dog-Eater, interestingly:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

[...]

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: [...]

Note. It doesn’t say “children born to an America serving” or “was born to an American citizen” or that McCain was born with American citizenship, but that he was born to American citizenS. Both parents.

Any reasonable person would want this mess straightened out in court (or with a Constitutional amendment, though that would only be for the future, as it is too late for that, now). Only those who have a feeling that their defense of “anyone born an American” or “anyone born on American soil” (which clearly is false as children of diplomats born on our soil aren’t even citizens, let alone natural born citizens) is in error would be worried about the courts hearing and resolving this issue.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 13, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Yes. More Jindal, please.

For all of you out there that can’t get it through
some thick-skulls within your friends and
family, keep wielding the hammer of
persuasion. It’s working, I tell you.

A little bit of aplomb in that, may
certainly help. Never give up.

The rude awakening is wiping away
much sand from various eyes.

The truth needs no spin. It stands,
twirling, hiding right there in plain
sight.

If this is preaching to the HA choir,
and it is, know that it is most
certainly possible, even persuading
the unwitting.

mickytx on June 13, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Paul-Cincy on June 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Just words.
malevolent

Anyone doubting the doubtful incompetence
can only come to this conclusion.

I’m uncertain which and how either one
could be worse.

Sippy-cup is way too light a reference,
but I still get an occasional, tiny laugh from that one.

For me? Loathe is practically a compliment.
Yep, it is a deep abiding knowing.

mickytx on June 13, 2012 at 2:10 AM

I don’t really get how someone who signed a law saying Intelligent Design can be taught in public schools gets to call other people “incompetent”.

triple on June 13, 2012 at 5:56 AM

So will Erika’s posts now be the hangout for birthers?
That says something.

“I suspect that many in the Obama administration really don’t believe in private enterprise. At best, they see business as something to be endured so that that it can provide tax money for government programs,” said Jindal.

Just an absolutely absurd thing to say, but far from a prize winner in a climate where GOP’ers a fighting for the mantle of idiot-speak.
It’s gonna be a red meat year…

verbaluce on June 13, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Thank you for contradicting your earlier post in this thread, where you Lied by saying the Constitution is “not a dictionary”. You just cited them changing a definition in the document in question.

Sorry, you make this too easy, Kid.

EPIC FAIL-

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 11:31

You can’t possibly be this dense.

Dante on June 13, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Two points regarding your list:
1) The clause “, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” is the exception to “natural born” that allows half of your list to become POTUS. This clause became moot once that generation of citizens passed away.
2) Since the beginning of time, practically speaking, it is the FATHER that passes on the citizenship and the rights thereof. Thus, if a mother was a foreigner, by marriage, she became a citzen by virtue of the husband’s status.

Only in recent times did we evolve to include the mother passing on citizenship and more recently make spouses jump thru a byzantine maze of red-tape to get a Green card and/or obtain citzenship (classic example of meddling politicians creating stupid laws leading to unintended consequences etc – but our immigratuion laws is a separate topic).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Paul-Cincy on June 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM
LaserBeam on June 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM
maables on June 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Dante on June 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM
spiritof61 on June 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM
annoyinglittletwerp on June 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Harbingeing on June 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Words do matter and it matters very much to put what the Founding Fathers thought, said & wrote in context. If we’re sloppy about grammar and definitions vis a vis the definition of “citizen”, “native” or “natural born”, what leg do we have to stand on when anti-gun nuts misconstrue and conflate the definitions of “militia”, “people” and even argue over the significance of inserting a clause?

I contend that a straight up reading of the Constitution clearly means what it says in that only a person born to citizens within the US is eligible. That means some of my siblings and most of my kids can never become POTUS or VP, as much as I would rather otherwise. It also places my eligibility in question.

So for me, this is a question I was acutely aware of ever since I became of age decades ago, long before this controversy ever reared its head. Thanks to the interwebs, there’s easy access to source documents and citations for research, but ultimately, it’s still clouded due to which interpretation will stand as the law of the land.

Likewise, Jindal (I really like Jindal and only wish his parents were already citizens before he was born, so that this wouldn’t even be an issue) and Rubio are also textually ineligble, even though all of the aforementioned have a “greater” claim than Oboobie, whose father is a “British Subject” and by the Brits’ own laws in operation at the time of birth, automatically transfers British Citizenship on Oboobie.

Sooo, did Oboobie ever formally renounce his British citizenship? Nevermind. I’m not a birther, but I am a constitutionalists and I only see two paths forward.

Either the SCOTUS grabs this by the horn and issue their decision on this so we can put this behind us once and for all, or we’ll have to do a Constitutional Amendment. A divided SCOTUS such as the current one would be ideal for putting it to rest, but alas, it won’t happen anytime soon. But to continue on murkily will lead to unintended consequences down the road that we will live to regret, simply because we cannot agree on definitions within the law. I for one never ever want to see a damned anchor baby grow up to become POTUS. Imagine that, a illegal jumping our border, dropping a baby, mooching off our system until the baby grows up and becomes POTUS. Where do their loyalties lie?

Regarding the term “Natural Born”, there are two definitions and what I deem to be the 1st SCOTUS’ preference, in the order of precedence.
Vattel’s definition of “natural born”:

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

versus Blackstone’s definition of natural born:

Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject.

Added boost, from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Vattel’s definition:

John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.

To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

AH_C on June 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM

To those of us in Louisiana, Mr. Jindal was our great hope to take us out of the good old boy politics and move us into reality. He has been a failure possibly because we believed what he told us. He is head and shoulders better than the last governor, he is a great task manager, but he is an abject failure. He takes credit for everything good and does not address the things that are bad and still bad. His press conferences are jokes because he does not take questions. He sends out his handlers and advisors to address the questions. He is not a leader, he is a very smart man, a good and decent man who has been sucked up by a coalition of power hungry underlings who are pushing him for higher office.

Sid on June 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM

AH_C on June 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful comment AH_C.

Bmore on June 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Bmore on June 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You betcha. I want it put to rest, but not by ignoring the constitution or interpreting it to suit our wishes. I’m all for playing by the rules and not changing them in the middle of the game. If there’s a flaw, play thru with the rules as is, then change it afterwards.

AH_C on June 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2