Hot Air Survey: Vice Presidential Results

posted at 12:16 pm on June 23, 2012 by Patrick Ishmael

After a long run at the top, Marco Rubio has been overtaken by Bobby Jindal as Hot Air’s pick for vice president. Allen West came in third, followed by Paul Ryan and Condoleezza Rice. Over 2300 votes were cast:

How likely do readers think it is that Mitt Romney will win? Pretty darn likely, actually, to the tune of about a 73% chance overall.

And with how many electoral votes? The average, mode, and median EV predictions all hover right around 300. That’d be a very big win.

Also, the survey’s demographics have remained remarkably consistent over time; the number of voters over age fifty was roughly the same as the number of voters under fifty, and the gender breakdown was again right about 70-30 men-to-women. That’s all pretty standard for Hot Air surveys.

If you’re interested in mining specific stats (the original post is still live,) message me on Twitter and I’ll try to help you out.

Thanks for participating. These are always fun.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

It’s true the US Congress passed a resolution declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen but if the US Congress passed a resolution stating that 2 + 2 = 5 does that make the answer a natural born answer to the question what is 2 + 2?

Just to note, the Senate passed that joke resolution, co-sponsored by … Barky the Dog-Eater! Meanwhile, McShame had to cough up all sorts of documents for that joke to pass and then “conservatives” were scared to force the co-sponsor of that idiotic resolution to cough up anything of the same.

It’s incredible. Mind-numbing.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Sounds like you know more about McCain’s birth than I do. OK, I cede to you that McCain perhaps only qualified by legislation because he failed to meet the standard laid out in the 14th Amendment. How does that support your conclusion about those who definitely were born on American soil and subject to our laws.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 3:11 PM

PS, Dual Citizenship could reside in either my category 2 or 3 posted earlier. It would never fall into the Natural Born Citizenship category. Obama’s is a case of born with dual citizenship because his father was British.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM

And your stupid “year” argument is too lame to bother with. We are talking about defining the term natural born citizen in our Constitution.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

No. We’re talking about the general concept of definitions of first-level Constitutional language, which can only be defined either in court proceedings or by later amendment. But no one doubts the definition of “year” because we all know who the people were who wrote it and what sorts of “year”s they were talking about. There are many different types of years and the Founders were well aware. But it was a known and accepted term that didn’t need any further definition in the Constitution, just as “natural born citizen”.

But you could at least try to address the muslim candidate who claims eligibility because he is 35 years old per islamic years (though falling a bit short by normal years). How do you argue against that, since year is not defined … the same way that people claimed marriage law didn’t define that it was a pairing of opposite sex (even though everyone and their brother knew that and assumed it at the time)?

You would take apart language and leave nothing of meaning in your desire to not have some simple concept, at the least, adjudicated before we move headfirst into totally ignoring it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Don’t you get a kick out of the moonbats when they reveal themselves as the racist, bigoted liberal fascists they truly are? You know, the attributes they project onto everyone who disagrees with them? That’s rich.

Piyush “Bobby” Jindal is the most qualified candidate who could be chosen as VP. He’s also the story of America. He is the child of immigrants, and would be a help to Mitt in representing immigration policies.

He is a two-term governor. He also has served a member of the US House, an Assistant Secretary to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services as a policy advisor, and was a state official in the LA Dept of Health. He has been a LA state university system president. And he is a Brown U. grad and a Rhodes Scholar. And he has worked in the private sector!

The Dems are scared to death of him. They’ll unleash the Mormon and Asian bigots loose on Mitt and Bobby should they both be on the ticket.

Mitt, if you pass on Bobby, and I hope you don’t, he would be a great HHS Secretary. He is the only candidate I believe is qualified to assume or be elected to the president.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I guess we should expect more jobs going to india if Jindal becomes VP? Time to start applying for that Indian work permit I’ve always been thinking about.
Uppereastside on June 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us are actually the least tolerant of all?

And poor Bradky. Gov. Palin still lives rent-free inside his skull.

kingsjester on June 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Sorry, I’m not going to humor you about what a year means. You’ll just have to play with yourself.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Sorry, I’m not going to humor you about what a year means. You’ll just have to play with yourself.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

About what I expected. We have the concept of marriage attacked because people twisted the obvious meanings of terms – more obvious than “year” – but you won’t bother to present your argument for a simple point.

Okey doke. We both know what you mean.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM

R-A-C-I-S-T-S !!!

Oh wait….

stenwin77 on June 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I like these results. I’ve been following Jindal since he first came on the national radar. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he’s almost exactly the same age as I am, and just reading his resume makes me feel woefully inadequate in terms of significant lifetime accomplishments.

Inexperienced? Keep in mind that Jindal

was appointed as Secretary of Louisiana DHH at age 25 (youngest to hold this position)and brought the state’s Medicaid program out of $400 million deficit (bankruptcy) into three years of surplus totalling over $200 million. (Sounds like the kind of leadership our country could benefit from right now . . . )

was appointed as head of the University of Louisiana system at age 28.

served as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation under George W. Bush.

Has served in Congress as a Representative of LA’s 1st district (was “President” of his incoming freshman class). Was House Assistant Majority Whip from 2004-2006.

Is in his second term as Governor of Louisiana.

What he has done to reform education in LA is reason enough for me to like him. Second place goes to his dynamic response to the LA oil spill and the way he stood up to Obama’s lackluster response to that crisis. I personally don’t care about his so-called disappointing response to the State of the Union address that had everyone so dismayed back in 2009. Results matter much more than speeches, and Jindal gets them.

Finally, any guy who can help his wife deliver a baby at home gets my vote as someone who can capably handle moments of crisis.

Frankly, I don’t know how much more leadership experience it’s humanly possible to have at age 41. I admire the guy, and think he would make a wonderful vice president, or president, for that matter.

pianomomma on June 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM

MJBrutus, I agree with you that under the 14th amendment, that Jindal and Rubio are US Citizens at birth. That puts them in the second category I elaborated on earlier. That does not put them in the Natural Born Citizen category. I will even agree with you that Jindal and Rubio’s birth are more crystal clear cases under law for citizenship than McCain. McCain had to wait several years after birth for his citizenship (and that of many of other likewise births) to be affirmed. Jindal and Rubio never had any questions about their US born citizenship. But all three fall in category two, none of the three meet the Natural Born Citizenship crystal clear definition. Not the Supreme Court could rule that McCain’s situation does meet the requirement. If you go back to the Minor vs Happersatt ruling it is evident that the Court’s paragraph is not stating 100% that no other situations of birth could be declared a Natural Born Citizen.

More than anything else, what the group of citizens like me want is this issue pushed so that the Supreme Court and definitely decide all such birth situations as to which meet the Article 2 Section 1 requirement. It is one area of the Constitution never elaborated on in the courts exclusively pertaining to a Presidential election, and it’s only been elaborated on in a secondhanded way in reference to immigration or voting issues.

It could be the case the Supreme Court might have allowed McCain’s situation to meet the requirement, but it could have ruled otherwise. But because McCain, the wimp, never pushed this issue, and he did have standing to have pushed it to the courts, we will never know. At best we can have the courts define the issue for Obama. We were betrayed in 2008 because the GOP establishment, which had standing, failed in its constitutional duty to uphold the constitution.

It’s ironic, Obama won his first political election in Illinois because he had the candidate disqualified for eligibility reasons. It would be full Karma if such happens again but to him. But it won’t be because sites like Hot Air are making this a legitimate issue to talk about. We’re all taboo bringing this up. Never in my life did I think the fairy tale, “The Emperor has no clothes” become true but it certainly has become true. Only a few whispers exist in the crowd admitting such.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I guess we should expect more jobs going to india if Jindal becomes VP? Time to start applying for that Indian work permit I’ve always been thinking about.

Uppereastside on June 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM

.
As tempting as it is to take this as a PURE racist comment …

… it was just the first thing UES could come up with that aligned with the Talking Points he has been given:

- Use every opportunity to reference Romney’s time at Bain as “shipping jobs to India”.

Impaired critical thinking capabilities limit a liberal’s ability to focus on the implied messages which they may have inadvertently included in their statements.

Litmus test: Would someone whose lineage is from the sub-continent of India find this remark offensive?

Yes, I believe a quick sampling would return a greater than 80% vote that it makes a negative implied statement.

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Rice before Rand…? HA posters are growing closer to the dark side with every new generation.

Rice is a progressive. 121 Dolt’s at HA!

katy on June 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM

My, what clear, well informed reasoning capabilities you have. Especially clever of you to use the term Dolt’s to demonize those who disagree with you.

/sarcasm off (I was going to go with /s but was pretty sure you’d miss it.)

Rather than talk at a level YOU can comprehend (e.g. modified movie quotes – “We are in this for the SPECIES COUNTRY, boys and girls.”) I am going to directly address the weakness of the rest of the list and the thinking of a lot of people on this blog.

One of the things I detest about the SCOAMF is how massively weak and ineffectual his administration has been on the global stage.

THIS is a SERIOUS problem and you only need look to the Russia-China-Syria situation to realize it can make foreign policy a top issue in the campaign before the weekend is over.

Condaleeza Rice is the only person on the list with ANY foreign policy experience.

She has the foreign policy cred Romney lacks and needs on the ticket. It may all be “It’s the economy, stupid” right now … but that can change in a heart beat (Syria, Iran, Egypt, Israel, China, Russia, etc).

She has been in the White House before and tied into the National Security apparatus. What she does not know off the top of her head would take her 15 mninutes to get up to speed on after her first classified briefing.

She blunts, if not outright trumps, the Race card because she is not an “identity politics” selection but the “head and shoulders above the rest” selection for foreign policy credentials compared to the rest of the list. Being an African American woman of no small accomplishments – there are going to be African American voters deeply unhappy of the gay marriage evolution who would have a reason to vote for Romney. There are a lot of women who will see ANOTHER man being selected as VP as an absolute glass ceiling.

Condoleeza Rice debating Joe Biden on any topic is as close to re-enacting Christians (Biden) being fed to lions as you are ever likely to see on your television. It would be a bloodbath.

Glad to discuss this with anyone above the name calling level.

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I don’t recall Joe cracking a 7-11 joke about Piyush. We sure can’t say the same about the Kenyan jokes on your side of the aisle.

Uppereastside on June 23, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Isn’t this just typical of liberals? They don’t remember anything that doesn’t further their agenda. They have no memory of how they treated President Bush, the assassination movie, the effigy’s, the now non-existent war protests, etc.

BTW, Obama did, at least once, and for personal gain, say he was born in Kenya. Was he lying then or is he lying now? Who knows. Instead of having really big ears, he should have a really long nose.

Oh, to stay on topic, I wrote in John Bolton.

Night Owl on June 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM

And no, the children of foreign diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction at the time of their birth.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Why not? They’re BORN in America. What do they lack? BTW, our State Dept has been issuing American citizenships to the children of foreign diplomats born here. You know that, right?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Accredited foreign diplomats are not subject to the law of the foreign country which has received them. That’s the reason their children are not citizens by birth.

Are you sure that the State Department has issued American citizenships to them? They are only eligible for lawful permanent residence.

Gelsomina on June 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM

It’s mind-boggling that Jindal is so accomplished at such a young age. Mitt also was an overachiever. Maybe it’s time we put two brilliant overachievers in the White House so they can set an example for how to be more successful, disciplined and focused.

Sick of the Nanny State dictating what’s good for us. I can handle it on my own.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I like Jindal. And there’s no one on that list that I wouldn’t vote for as vice president.

J.E. Dyer on June 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM

More than anything else, what the group of citizens like me want is this issue pushed so that the Supreme Court and definitely decide all such birth situations as to which meet the Article 2 Section 1 requirement. It is one area of the Constitution never elaborated on in the courts exclusively pertaining to a Presidential election, and it’s only been elaborated on in a secondhanded way in reference to immigration or voting issues.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Well I’m on board with you there. My opinion, and it’s just that, is that the 14th does settle the matter. However, I can understand that language is an imperfect medium and since the terms of the 14th (citizenship) are not identical with the “natural born citizen” clause there is reason for the SCOTUS to rule on it.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 3:51 PM

And Jindal has released his birth certificate, lol. If he and Mitt release college transcripts, that would be awesome.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 3:53 PM

She has the foreign policy cred Romney lacks and needs on the ticket. It may all be “It’s the economy, stupid” right now … but that can change in a heart beat (Syria, Iran, Egypt, Israel, China, Russia, etc).

So what? Romney can get all her knowlege in a good sec def like Bolton… West is the only one who has any defense knowledge- don’t see you recommending him.. Rice is a progressive. Romney is progressive enough- we don’t need two on the ticket.. capice?

melle1228 on June 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM

A big thanks to our commenters for helping to explore this complicated Constitutional issue. It has been a delight to read the opinions and info presented here. I would also like to give thanks to having not had to endure insults being hurled at these commenters such as the derogatory term Birther. Great thread!

Bmore on June 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

the results are no surprise to me. thats what you get when you poll severe conservatives. you know, the ones who are for cap and tax, open borders and single payer. they love them some big government.

forget drill baby drill! in 2012 its grow government grow!

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

And poor Bradky. Gov. Palin still lives rent-free inside his skull.

kingsjester on June 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yes KJ when someone makes a statement as the poster did and I provide facts to rebut that it means rent free blah blah. I realize the the capacity to flow the sequential flow of dialog is in short supply for you but it appears that I live rent free in your head more than Palin lives in mine.

Bradky on June 23, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I don’t want to get into a Palin vs. Jindal debate because I think they both have the experience to be VP.

With that said, there’s a bit more to Palin’s resume than just

Two terms on Wasilla City Council

Two terms as Wasilla Mayor

2 1/2 years as Governor of Alaska

Such as:

Board member of the Alaska Municipal League and President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Served as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004.

Director of Excellence in Public Service, a 527 group, from 2003 to 2005.

Served as Chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission from 2007 to 2008.

Served as chair or vice-chair of various committees within the National Governors’ Association and the Republican Governors’ Association.

Flora Duh on June 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM

That’s a fair response. In terms of policy however, I’d point out that he has a wider range of policy experiences. Most of Palin’s background is in energy. Jindal has a background in healthcare, education, and more.

His biggest advantage is that it is very difficult for “the elites” and the independents who want someone who is “smart” and experienced” to reject him because of his resume. The media can’t define him because he has a great story that can’t be co-opted by an accent or a quirk. The guy has been nailing it out of the park for the past year or so and so I think he is ready if Romney offers it to him.

Bluray on June 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Bluray on June 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Sarah and mitt. oil and water. even if he win eventually his crony capitalist urges will bring those attached to him down.

why would Sarah want to attach herself to a loser the second time around. mitt doesn’t want a fighter. he wants a quite lamb. the slightest noise and the poor creature must immediatly roll over on its back and urinate on itself.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Bmore, thanks for your comment. This has been a little more civil than normal when this topic has been raised in a HotAir comment section. My only reason for bringing this up is to alert conservatives that if Jindal or Rubio are nominated for VP, Romney loses the vote of many, many constitutionalists. I know many who will vote for Romney in a second if he makes a VP choice that meets the NBC rules but will vote either Liberatarian or Constitution party if he doesn’t. I want to see Romney win but I can’t say that if he intentionally spits on the US Constitution even before he takes office.

MJBrutus, what you’re saying is that the terms “born citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” are 100% equal (since the 14th Amendment). There are many SCOTUS rulings that state that a qualification in the US constitution must be interpreted as a qualification. You’re saying that the word “natural” is no longer a qualification and is frivolous. While that might become the declared case in the future, it is not yet the case. SCOTUS has avoided this controversy (in the context of a presidential election, but it did make its finding in Minor vs Happersatt AFTER the 14th amendment) so far but until it decides and makes such a revolutionary finding, it’s very presumptuous to presume this is a valid interpretation to make now. So for the time being the constitutionalists concerned about the “Natural Born Citizen” clause have the constitution and Supreme Court case history on their side (albeit it’s a very weak SCOTUS history of law, something we’d all like brought to court and strengthened).

My own choice for Romney is either Allen West, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann or Ran Paul. I think West would be his best choice to dig deep into Obama’s voting base.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Are you sure that the State Department has issued American citizenships to them? They are only eligible for lawful permanent residence.

Gelsomina on June 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I know it’s crazy and totally un-Constitutional, but here you go.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

She has the foreign policy cred Romney lacks and needs on the ticket.

Rice was an AWFUL SecState and she screwed up in her own alleged area of expertise, as regards the Russians. If you hadn’t heard, Rice was one of the main leftward gravitational forces of the pathetic and terrible second Bush term.

But maybe you liked the way she pulled out that Road-Kill Map (which was broken by the palis on the first day and NEVER actually accepted by anyone) as if it was a binding agreement and even made any sense. Israel accepted itbut only with 14 explicit caveats, which were never mentioned by anyone again, though being broken in half by the other side nearly every day made it a joke, anyway. But Condi used to pull that piece of paper like it was a sabre when it was a plastic butter knife that was warped from sitting in the sun.

Then with Condi and the Indonesian Imbecile … I won’t even go into that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

…what you’re saying is that the terms “born citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” are 100% equal (since the 14th Amendment). There are many SCOTUS rulings that state that a qualification in the US constitution must be interpreted as a qualification. You’re saying that the word “natural” is no longer a qualification and is frivolous. While that might become the declared case in the future, it is not yet the case. SCOTUS has avoided this controversy (in the context of a presidential election, but it did make its finding in Minor vs Happersatt AFTER the 14th amendment) so far but until it decides and makes such a revolutionary finding, it’s very presumptuous to presume this is a valid interpretation to make now. So for the time being the constitutionalists concerned about the “Natural Born Citizen” clause have the constitution and Supreme Court case history on their side (albeit it’s a very weak SCOTUS history of law, something we’d all like brought to court and strengthened).

My own choice for Romney is either Allen West, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann or Ran Paul. I think West would be his best choice to dig deep into Obama’s voting base.

I concur, and you beat me to the timeline point that the Court decision was after the 14th Amendment was ratified; with the minor exception that my list ends at Allen West, for the same reason. And as I noted above, Romney’s [and the Institutionals'] choice is almost certainly going to be white, male, and non-combatant. *sigh*

Subotai Bahadur on June 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I find the inclusion of the word “natural” to be puzzling. Is it there in opposition to an “unnaturally” born person? Perhaps clones are disqualified? To be honest, I just don’t know why that word is included in the phrase.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Romney’s [and the Institutionals'] choice is almost certainly going to be white, male, and non-combatant. *sigh*

Subotai Bahadur on June 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

yep, without a shadow of doubt. triple sigh.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Rice was an AWFUL SecState and she screwed up in her own alleged area of expertise, as regards the Russians. If you hadn’t heard, Rice was one of the main leftward gravitational forces of the pathetic and terrible second Bush term.

But maybe you liked the way she pulled out that Road-Kill Map (which was broken by the palis on the first day and NEVER actually accepted by anyone) as if it was a binding agreement and even made any sense. Israel accepted itbut only with 14 explicit caveats, which were never mentioned by anyone again, though being broken in half by the other side nearly every day made it a joke, anyway. But Condi used to pull that piece of paper like it was a sabre when it was a plastic butter knife that was warped from sitting in the sun.

Then with Condi and the Indonesian Imbecile … I won’t even go into that.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM


I would like to reserve the term AWFUL SoS for the current SoS.

For the sake of discussion, if I accede to the idea she was not a great Secretary of State, then who do the Republicans nominate as VP who has foreign policy credentials?

(Remember the quote about not interrupting your enemy when they are making a mistake? A Republican VP candidate with no foreign policy credentials fits it to a T from a Democratic campaign perspective.)

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I find the inclusion of the word “natural” to be puzzling. Is it there in opposition to an “unnaturally” born person? Perhaps clones are disqualified? To be honest, I just don’t know why that word is included in the phrase.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM

It was intended to be specific to represent the class of people well understood at the time of the writing – pure Americans, as it were. As John Jay illustrated in his letter of July 1787 top George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

i.e. having no foreign influence, at all – so much as circumstances of birth and raising could be defined. America was trying to institute a totally unique structure and having any foreign influence (even the slightest) would destabilize that and cause it harm (as we’ve all seen very clearly with the Indonesian Imbecile). It was not a perfect proscription but as good as could be done in explicit law.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I would like to reserve the term AWFUL SoS for the current SoS.

I hear you. Condi, as bad as she was, was leaps and bounds better than Hillary or Powell or Christopher … But that’s only grading on a very low curve. But I was grading on an absolute scale.

For the sake of discussion, if I accede to the idea she was not a great Secretary of State, then who do the Republicans nominate as VP who has foreign policy credentials?

(Remember the quote about not interrupting your enemy when they are making a mistake? A Republican VP candidate with no foreign policy credentials fits it to a T from a Democratic campaign perspective.)

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM

John Bolton is my choice. He’s my first choice, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Patrick Ishmael:

We don’t Twitter for security reasons, and I avoid Facebook for the same reason, plus I don’t have time to waste monitoring either of these. No article is interesting enough to make me want to give either of these sites my name and contact information…EVER!

Could you please confine your articles to the HotAir web site and/or the portion of the regular Internet which does not require Twitter/Facebook accounts?

Thanks -

landlines on June 23, 2012 at 4:53 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I’m with you there. Rice was terrible. The Fwench ran rings around her during the period leading up to the Iraq War. She screwed up things with Turkey at that time as well, losing us access to their air space.

As if that isn’t bad enough, she would neither confirm nor deny that she voted for Obama! Seriously?

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:49 PM

In a word, duh!

Except of course that your expostulation does nothing to add meaning or clarity to the inclusion of the word “natural” or to explain why the 14th Amendment definition is any different from the Article 2 clause.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM

This poll is a great idea – but it needs viable candidates!

First let’s eliminate those elected to office for the first time in 2010 (Rubio, West, Paul, Chirstie, Portman, Martinez, McDonnell, Walker) — these folks will be great choices in 2016.
Second, Those that do not want it (Daniels)
Third, Those unqualified (Jindal – parents not US citizens at his birth)

So we have Ryan, Rice, Pawlenty, DeMint — a small field that could be augmented by some former gov (Tommy Thompson (WI), Huckabee etc) and senior Senators who have been around the block(Kyl, Coburn, Inhofe, Enzi)

Just saying, let’s get some better choices.

KenInIL on June 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM

John Bolton is my choice. He’s my first choice, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Oy vey. A career diplomat who never worked in any capacity outside of foreign affairs. Even if one wildly approved of his foreign affairs positions and statements (some of which I find rather questionable) he is not in any way qualified to assume the office of POTUS.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I had really liked Rice a lot because I had assumed she was taking a certain stance as NSA. When she became SecState and I saw what she actually thought and the actual policies she championed I was shocked and very disappointed. Really shocked and really disappointed. She could have been quite a force but I had been mistaking some of Cheney’s advice for hers, or for her being in assent with. Once I was disabused of that notion, that was it for me. Sad, really.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM

WHAT ABOUT PAUL RYAN????? Then we would have two smart ethical hunks on the ticket. BTW, shup up Renalin. If you can’t be anything but negative, shut up.

AReadyRepub on June 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM

He’s a very sharp guy who knows more about the financial situation than most others – which I found a bit surprising. I have faith in Bolton because I trust his thinking. I trust him the same way I trust Palin’s conservative instincts (if she doesn’t have all the details ironed out, she still will get there from her basic principles). But Bolton adds a real brilliance to that.

He would also make the left go absolutely apoplectic. I love the guy. A real mensch who would leave bloody, dismembered corpses on the debate stages.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM

John Bolton is my choice. He’s my first choice, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

.
I am thinking Bolton may have a shot at Secretary of State when Romney is elected.

He does not have the credentials for VP because he is not seen as someone who is ready to be President. His political skills do not show him to be a consensus builder … even in conservative circles … in any sense if the term.

I like Bolton but he comes across as the perfect person for Curmudgeon-in-Chief.

Who is your number two?

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Condi Rice? Jesus, no.

AshleyTKing on June 23, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Who is your number two?

PolAgnostic on June 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I’m really open to just about any half-decent conservative (who’s eligible) although even the squishes don’t bother me as VP (as long as they aren’t squishy on any of the few deal-breaker issues). I’d like to see Bachmann if I were pushed to a “favorite” pick, though I would really love to see her as Speaker … if I had any faith that the GOP would toss the Crybaby out.

I was not a big Bush fan but I trusted Cheney and felt comfortable with him there. Bush did do a great job on the courts, thanks to his religious stance, of all things, which was sort of serendipitous. I’m not Christian but I like candidates with strong traditional Christian values because it forces their hands on judicial picks to those who consider Roe v. Wade total junk, which immediately weeds out most of the nincompoops and idiots.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Third, Those unqualified (Jindal – parents not US citizens at his birth)

So we have Ryan, Rice, Pawlenty, DeMint — a small field that could be augmented by some former gov (Tommy Thompson (WI), Huckabee etc) and senior Senators who have been around the block(Kyl, Coburn, Inhofe, Enzi)

Just saying, let’s get some better choices.

KenInIL on June 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Ken: Jindal’s parents do not have to be citizens for him to be an American by birth and eligible to be president or VP. They were students who had green cards and the right of residency here. He was born in Baton Rouge, La., and by jus soli, he is an American citizen. No doubt about it.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I have a strong affinity for Bobby Jindal based on his accomplishments, competence and results

As a northerner living down in New Orleans the last 25 years. He has been a true blessing to our state

Many do not agree with this

His budgets keep Loisiana solvent but many have been very negative about his cuts in entitlement spending.
Health care,schools and other social services feeling the effects most.
Belt tightening is something not popular but that the country desparately needs.

LA residents have also been critical about his out of state campaign fundraising

I think he woukd make a great VP

But I feel the typical ill-informed and impressionably swayed voter will be put off by his ethnicity, smarts, and an antilitical personality.

audiotom on June 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Here are the Constitutional requirements to be president and VP:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must :

1) be a natural born citizen of the United states;
2) be at least thirty-five years old;
3) have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Thus, to serve as Vice President, an individual must:

1) Be a natural-born U.S. citizen;
2) Be at least 35 years old; and
3) Have resided in the U.S. atleast 14 years.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM

My top 5 (who I would prefer, not who I think will get the nod) are something like:

1. Jindal
2. DeMint
3. Walker
4. Ryan (I would put him at #1, but we really need him in the House to keep the heat on Romney on entitlements)
5. Rubio

Lawdawg86 on June 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

What a joke.

I would expect poll results like that from Democrats.

The only person even remotely qualified on that list is Portman, and he’s hardly gangbusters.

Jindal, Daniels, and Pawlenty are top-rated second stringers, on a good day.

The rest is identity politics, wishful thinking, and delusion.

Mr. Arkadin on June 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yes. The controversy seems to over what “natural born” means. There are some who apparently are convinced that Jindal and Rubio were born some other way.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:06 PM

MJ, that’s one of the cards that the libs will throw. I’m not surprised the libs have never read the Constitution, which explains that he is indeed an American citizen and eligible to serve in both offices. He has lived here his entire life, except when he was a Rhodes Scholar in Oxford, England.

You can’t fix stupid.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Philly, please read the earlier posts. You are confusing all born US Citizens on US Soil with all Natural Born Citizens as meant in Article 2 Section of the Constitution. The latter is a subset of the former. The Obama camp wants us to forget this historical distinction. Again, look at the exemption clause in the US Constitution (quoted earlier), it would not be there if there was not a difference in the two classes.

The question was why was the NBC clause interjected to begin with? It was because the country was formed out of war with Britain yet the national language was English and closely allied to Britain. With the NBC Requirement, it minimized the influence of presidential candidates who as a child was under the influence of a foreign patriot (the fear being Britain at the time).

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

More than anything else, what the group of citizens like me want is this issue pushed so that the Supreme Court and definitely decide all such birth situations as to which meet the Article 2 Section 1 requirement.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM

If forced to rule on it, there’s simply no way that the Supreme Court is going to adopt a highly restrictive definition of Natural Born Citizen. No way. No chance. I can’t see a single vote for abandoning the Lynch interpretation. You can bet whatever you like on that.

At any rate, the federal courts have proven unwilling to consider it. That ship has sailed. The courts seem perfectly content with Obama’s qualifications of citizenship. And if it’s true for him, it will be just as true for Jindal or Rubio.

My only reason for bringing this up is to alert conservatives that if Jindal or Rubio are nominated for VP, Romney loses the vote of many, many constitutionalists.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Honestly, however, how many such voters are there? At the end of the day, they’re going to be confronted with only way to get Obama out of office. And voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist won’t accomplish that.

I’m not telling anyone that they must vote tactically. I’ve voted Libertarian for President myself, once upon a time (1992). But I’m a realist. The conservative base is ready to walk over broken glass to remove Obama. And there just are not that many people who will let a doctrinaire interpretation of the citizenship clause override all other considerations.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Maybe Rubio and Jindal were hatched, yeah, that’s the ticket.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Seeing Condi Rice and Tim Pawlenty do so well in this poll astonishes me.

The rest of the results seem reasonable from my sense of where most Hot Gassers (and most conservatives) are right now.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Wasn’t George Romney born in Mexico? That means Mitt isn’t a natural-born citizen, therefore the Constitution barres him from running for president.

And take, for example, Mitch Daniels. His paternal grandfather was an immigrant from Syria. That means that Daniels father wasn’t natural-born, which sadly prevents Daniels from serving as President or Vice-President.

What about Ron Paul? His great-grandparent was a German immigrant, Joseph Dumont. His son, Joseph Dumont, born in PA in 1874 wasn’t a natural-born citizen. Which means his daughter, Margaret (Dumont) Paul, wasn’t qualified to be citizen. She gave birth to Paul while not being American by birth, hence Ron Paul doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements to be President.

Let’s face it: once the SCOTUS restores the Constitutional Order, Elizabeth Warren will have an open-path to the White House.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Yes. The controversy seems to over what “natural born” means. There are some who apparently are convinced that Jindal and Rubio were born some other way.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:06 PM

MJBrutus, the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is in the context of what it meant at the time of the US Constitution and elucidated in

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

I do wish you wouldn’t try to turn this into a silly joke with no consequence. We have Obama as the president now because too few people are literate or supportive of the constitution.

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

goes into full details including citing all the SCOTUS cases that affirm this definition:

4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -

Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Joanna, the requirement is not for the parents to be natural born citizens but that the parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth. They could be naturalized citizens 1 hour before the child is born. The issue with Romney has been studied in depth. He does not have an issue. McCain had big issues, Romney doesn’t.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Don’t bother with joana. She’s brain-dead.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who seem to believe West is anything close to a viable VP nominee. A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The_Jacobite, let’s just hope the voters are not faced with two candidates, neither of whom support the constitution. Enough people have emailed Romney about this issue. If he wants to give them and the Constitution the finger, he is free to do that. Personally in that scenario, I … .

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:25 PM

A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

hey its hotair’s own kim kardashian. who would have guesed that you would despise someone who had been in the military/s

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Joana, wasn’t that the case with Obama, a one term office holder in the US Congress? The rational for West is to dig deep into Obama’s base and to strengthen his credentials with conservatives.

I made a typo in my own list, by “Ran Paul” as one of the choices, I meant “Rand Paul”. Rand Paul would dig deep into the college student base of Obama too and he’d stop a lot of Libertarians from voting from Gary Johnson, who is a threat to Romney.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Ken: Jindal’s parents do not have to be citizens for him to be an American by birth and eligible to be president or VP. They were students who had green cards and the right of residency here. He was born in Baton Rouge, La., and by jus soli, he is an American citizen. No doubt about it.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Indeed. If Jindal is not eligible, neither was Chester Arthur (father naturalized 14 years after his birth).

For some reason, our late 19th century forebears didn’t seem bothered by this question when it came up.

Conservatives who are…focused on this question of NBC have to answer the question of whether such a restrictive interpretation of the citizenship clause SHOULD be the proper interpretation, as a matter of principle. And they had also better answer the question of what would be the political costs of having the conservative movement, and the GOP by extension, adopt the same view.

The reality, like it or not, is that we are in a situation today where, for the first time, white births are no longer a majority. In two generations, therefore – barring some unforeseen major demographic event – whites will not be a majority either. We can debate how we got here all we like. But if the Republican Party wants to continue have *any* chance of remaining a majority party, it’s going to have an almost insurmountable bar to hurdle in convincing this increasingly non-white voter base that we aren’t pedantic xenophobes, if not outright racists. I’m not saying that those advocating a strict interpretation here *are* racists. Some out there are, I think (certainly a few I know personally seem motivated at least in part by race), but I like to think they’re a minority, and in any event it’s not fair to immediately assume such a motivation.

But the larger public won’t have such reticence.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

The United States bestows unconditional birthright citizenship to any child born here. Jindal’s parents were not diplomats, so lex soli does not appear to be an issue in this case.

Challenges to the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution have been made and failed.

Jindal and Rubio are citizens.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:32 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who seem to believe West is anything close to a viable VP nominee. A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I don’t think it’s helpful to take ad hominem shots at Allen West.

But I also think it’s entirely reasonable to argue that a candidate with one term in the House under his belt, and no other political experience to speak of, suffers under some real debility of experience in high office. And yes, it undercuts all the arguments we made against Obama, who, scanty as his resume was, still had more experience than West does.

It’s not about whether West would or would not be a better president. But there are good reasons why it’s extremely rare for anyone on a presidential ticket to have such little experience in high office.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Joana, wasn’t that the case with Obama, a one term office holder in the US Congress? The rational for West is to dig deep into Obama’s base and to strengthen his credentials with conservatives.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Since when is Obama an acceptable standard? Still, he had been Senator for 4 years, not merely a Congressman for 2 and had been a state legislator for years.

What’s exactly Obama’s base into which West would dig? That’s just bizarre.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I don’t think it’s helpful to take ad hominem shots at Allen West.

But I also think it’s entirely reasonable to argue that a candidate with one term in the House under his belt, and no other political experience to speak of, suffers under some real debility of experience in high office. And yes, it undercuts all the arguments we made against Obama, who, scanty as his resume was, still had more experience than West does.

It’s not about whether West would or would not be a better president. But there are good reasons why it’s extremely rare for anyone on a presidential ticket to have such little experience in high office.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 6:35 PM

What was exactly the ad hominem shot?

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Indeed. If Jindal is not eligible, neither was Chester Arthur (father naturalized 14 years after his birth).

For some reason, our late 19th century forebears didn’t seem bothered by this question when it came up.

Chester was, though, as he destroyed and hid as much of his documentation as he could, which is why the story circulated that he was born in Canada (untrue).

As to the strict definition, it is best that the definition gets ironed out in court (since no one is willing or able to push any Constitutional amendment defining it through). It would have been nice to have this taken care of 5 years ago, when it should have been done with. If the Court rules that it’s the totally permissive interpretation, then fine. I personally doubt they will, which is why the courts have treated the whole question like kryptonite, but they are able to make the whole question go away and give us a clean definition of what the term – important enough to be explicitly required – actually means, legally. If it were such an open and shut case as many say (to the permissive side) then one would think the courts would have already dispensed with it. Something has been stopping that and all it ends up doing is sucking more public faith out of one of our fundamental institutions, which already lacks a lot of the public faith necessary to be a really effective institution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 6:37 PM

personally, i don’t get the rationale for jindal. why give the dems a card to play against us? mitt plays the odds.

renalin on June 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Well excuse me, but this post of yours was the very first time in this thread that you even attempted to provide a definition of the term. So, I felt like having a little fun with it :-)

Up until now all I heard was that whatever it means, Jindal and Rubio aren’t it.

And once again, I maintain that the intent of the authors of Article 1, whatever it was is unclear and that the 14th Amendment provided an explicit definition.

I know that we’ll disagree and that’s cool. As I said, along with you, I would be glad to see the SCOTUS rule on this point.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The_Jacobite, the truth about Chester Arthur didn’t come out until the last 5 years and even still most historians won’t admit it because then it implies Obama cheated too. Arthur went to great lengths to hide the facts. Read up a little, ok?

If you can cite some historical documents that prove me wrong, please do, I’d like to know but from what I’ve read, Obama is the 2nd President to not meet this eligibility requirement, but the first for which the public let get away with it (mostly because the MSM and the lame-stream wimpish right-of-center media let him have a free ride).

The courts have not yet accepted any different definition of NBC, they have avoided the issue today because of the “lack of standing” issue. The only court case that has promise (and only a tiny amount of promise) is what is happening in Florida right now. We’ll learn more in the next week. I am not holding my breath though.

Personally in the long run, I think the right is doomed unless we get a generation of voters on the right who are not wimps. Look at we’ve been given for nominees: Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, Romney. None of them are strongly principled men deeply respectful of history nor the Constitution. All wimps when it comes to confronting the beltway mentality.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:42 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who seem to believe West is anything close to a viable VP nominee. A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I’m with you on that one. I don’t see much that he has to offer and see plenty that could make him a huge liability. I also don’t see the credentials that would make him in any way credible to succeed as POTUS.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Jindal could not have been a LA governor or a US House member unless he met citizenship requirements at the time he ran for each position.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The United States bestows unconditional birthright citizenship to any child born here

Philly, a government does not bestow birthright citizenship to a Natural Born Citizen. It is recognized by common law including US Law (not bestowed). Only a NBC can become a President. If the citizenship is bestowed upon the individual, it is not a NBC but rather a legislative-recognized citizenship and they do not have a right to become President unless of course they deceive and are aided in that deception by the MSM and the lame-stream wimpish right-of-center media.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

And Rubio had to comply with those citizenship rules as well. I don’t see any gray areas. Both men were born here and resided here their entire lives.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Marti, the 14th Amendment is clear. If you were born here and your parents were not subject to diplomatic restrictions, you are a citizen. Canada provides birthright citizenship as well.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Jindal and Rubio have lived here for more than 14 years as well, so that’s off the table.

Anchor babies for everyone!

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM

MJBrutus, sorry, I had thought you saw my original posting on Minor vs Happersatt (the definition was included there). It’s there but there’s been a lot of postings so I can understand you missing it.

We’re cool but SCOTUS is never going to feel it is important to rule if both media, left-and-right, think it is a 100% forever-dead-issue. For the right to put up either Rubio or Jindal as a viable candidate, then it’s a dead issue.

Imagine Jindal or Rubio appearing on stage (or better both of them on stage together) with Romney and all 3 explaining about the NBC issue and history and why they won’t let Romney consider themselves as viable VP candidates. In that one press conference, Obama could be totally blown out of the water. Yes, I know we’d have to worry about Hillary being put on the ticket afterwards. But wow, would it be a press conference.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who seem to believe West is anything close to a viable VP nominee. A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I’m with you on that one. I don’t see much that he has to offer and see plenty that could make him a huge liability. I also don’t see the credentials that would make him in any way credible to succeed as POTUS.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Loose cannon comes to mind…

jimver on June 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Philly, one is not required to be a NBC except for President and VP of the USA. One does not need to be such for Governor, Senator nor Congressman.

Apparently, I take it, you must believe the Constitution is a living breathing document that is to mean whatever popular opinion wants it to mean. For many of us, it is supposed to be a historical bedrock of our government, something not made of sand but of granite. Something that is protective of the whims of time.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Philly, the amendment says citizen, not natural born citizen. Jindal is not a natural born citizen. est is a joke, voting for Pigford and raising the debt ceiling.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I did miss the earlier post. My mistake then. Sorry.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Personally in the long run, I think the right is doomed unless we get a generation of voters on the right who are not wimps. Look at we’ve been given for nominees: Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, Romney. None of them are strongly principled men deeply respectful of history nor the Constitution. All wimps when it comes to confronting the beltway mentality.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Or maybe rhey are just people who adapted to the requirements and challenges of their time and generation, while you live in an ahistorical time….

jimver on June 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Marti, to be a US rep, a candidate must have been a US citizen for 7 years prior to running and a legal resident of the state from which you are running. To be LA governor, a candidate must have been a US citizen for at least 5 years prior to running (and, a LA resident for the same amount of time).

Jindal first ran for governor in 2003.

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM

What was exactly the ad hominem shot?

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

“Blowhard.”

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

jimver, I don’t know if you have been following the news lately. The country is on the verge of bankruptcy if not past a turn-around-time. It’s because both parties have betrayed historical principals and responsibilities. Really tough decisions are going to have to be made and the only solutions one reads that come close to getting us straight are those based upon strong historical principals. Maybe this won’t awaken your consciousness until something as bad as the Great Depression occurs. Personally, I don’t want to wait that long.

I recommend you start reading The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy—How to Save Yourself and Your Country – by Peter Schiff.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Philly on June 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Yes, but the question is whether he is the right kind of citizen. A “natural born citizen.” It seems that any old citizen (even a naturalized) can be a governor or Congress critter.

Not even being a birthright citizen is good enough to be POTUS, however. Nope, one must be a “natural born citizen” which is a whole different animal.

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The_Jacobite, the truth about Chester Arthur didn’t come out until the last 5 years and even still most historians won’t admit it because then it implies Obama cheated too. Arthur went to great lengths to hide the facts. Read up a little, ok?

Well, tell it to Arthur Hinman.

The courts have not yet accepted any different definition of NBC, they have avoided the issue today because of the “lack of standing” issue.

And that’s a common posture for the courts, who will happily dismiss a case if they can do so plausibly on standing grounds. The dockets are packed as it is.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I’m with you there. Rice was terrible. The Fwench ran rings around her during the period leading up to the Iraq War. She screwed up things with Turkey at that time as well, losing us access to their air space.

As if that isn’t bad enough, she would neither confirm nor deny that she voted for Obama! Seriously?

MJBrutus on June 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Condi screwed things with Turkey?…But then are you seriously saying that Turkey would have otherwise given fhe US access to their air space? .Turkey played their typical game trying to gain billions of dollars in aid or otherwise with delaying tactics…funny thing is their strategy backfired….especially that the situation was easily remedied for the US Air Force with Bulgaria and Romania making their bases available for stops and for re-fueling..I think the main problem there was not Comdi’s negotiation team, I think was purely internal, domestic politics that is..Turkey’s majority political party (that was in total disarray at the time) voted down a deal that had been agreed between Condi’s people and its own leadership…that was unexpected to say the least…don’t know what Condi’s negotiators could have done better…

jimver on June 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

It’s amazing the number of people who seem to believe West is anything close to a viable VP nominee. A blowhard one-term congressman and Lt. Colonel in the army.

joana on June 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Yeah well it amazes me the number of people who actually think Romney will govern like a conservative, but here we are… And what the heck is wrong with being a Lt. Col. in the army? And did you forget Romney is nothing but a one term governor?

melle1228 on June 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Wow. Its like an army of mobys in here…

tom daschle concerned on June 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

The_Jacobite, I did read up on Arthur Hinman. Read the whole story, ok?

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

However, due to the focus on Hinman’s unfounded allegations regarding Chester Arthur’s foreign place of birth,[3] it remained unknown during the Garfield campaign that Arthur was nevertheless a natural-born subject of the British crown,[4] because his British-Irish father William Arthur had not naturalized as a U.S. citizen until August 1843, fourteen years after Chester Arthur’s birth,[5] and was at best a denizen of the State of Vermont.[6]

Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a natural born citizen of the United States,[7] which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President.[8]

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Notice the two words “remained unknown”. If you looked at the literature on Chester Arthur 10 years ago, it was unknown then. It was the attorney Leo Donofrio who brought this to the awareness of Internet readers (I think he gives credit to his sister or wife, I forget). Arthur went to great lengths to keep absolute proof buried. Allegations were made but NOT PROVEN. With Obama, Jindal and Rubio, they all admit not having both parents as US citizens at the time of their birth. There is no hiding of the facts today. (Yes, there is hiding of Obama’s birth certificate details, but not of the citizenship of his father.)

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Maybe someone can educate the rest of us by showing where in the Constitution it indicates that Jindal and Rubio are not eligible because this constant birther crap is making us look batshit crazy.

LawnGnomeFanFirst on June 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Agreed…

jimver on June 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The_Jacobite, I did read up on Arthur Hinman. Read the whole story, ok?

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Well, my understanding is that, even by Arthur’s (erroneous) account given at the time, he still admitted that his father was born abroad as a British subject, and only came to the U.S. as an adult. If that’s correct, that information was in the public realm at the time of the campaign.

But this merely illustrates the difficulties here. If, in fact, we concede for the sake of argument that the definition of “natural born citizen” is still not adequately defined by Lynch or Ankeny v. Governor, the courts – certainly SCOTUS – is not likely to rule against the broad legal and academic consensus on this question, such as it exists, especially if the consequences would be legally and political calamitous – that all the laws of two presidential administrations would suddenly be voided, and the sitting president removed from office.

And if such a thing *were* possible, and the Republican Party were seen to be pushing for it, it would be electoral suicide for it – for now, and for many years to come.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

You know, I voted for Paul Ryan in the poll, but after thinking about it, I would prefer Bobby Jindal. Paul Ryan is too valuable where he is, and Jindal has continually impressed me.

Othniel on June 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I voted for Ryan.

I realize that he’s had some RINO votes for Medicare Part D, TARP, NCLB, and the auto bailouts. Ryan is far from perfect and Jindal is the better conservatie.

The reason I voted for Ryan is that we need to make Americans aware about just how dire our fiscal situation is. That by the year 2025 I believe, that every tax – dollar will be spent on the either medicare, medicaid, social security, or the interest on the debt. We need to fix these entitlements. Ryan is one of the few to creat a plan to even begin to address them. Picking Ryan has the VP would give the theme of Romney’s campaign of focusing on the economy much more firepower. Ryan would be able to rip Obama and Biden to shreds on this. He could present the Roadmap and ask Obama what his plan is and why he’s done nothing about it the last 4 years. The facts are on our side on this, it’s just a matter of bringing it to the forefront.

Also, having Ryan as VP would help push ROmney to make some serious reforms on entitlements. If Ryan is still in the House he won’t have as much access and influence on Romney by not being in his administration.

Finally I’d be happy with Ryan, Jindal, or West. I want a conservative who can motive the base and be a positive influence on Romney. Please no RINO pick of Pawlenty, Christie, or the hispanderer in Rubio.

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

The_Jacobite writes:

Well, my understanding is that, even by Arthur’s (erroneous) account given at the time, he still admitted that his father was born abroad as a British subject, and only came to the U.S. as an adult. If that’s correct, that information was in the public realm at the time of the campaign.

So? The Constitution does not require the parents to be NBC. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the parents can arrive from Mars, become naturalized as US Citizens, just so they’re US Citizens (regardless how) before their child is born. So many Presidents have parents who were born abroad. I would bet a large percentage of them are this situation. Only Arthur’s Dad was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth, nor Obama’s Dad.

With Jindal and Rubio, the situation is even worse, for I believe it is the case with both parents of both, that they were not US Citizens (regardless of how) at the time of their child being born.

I see there is a new poster now very intimidated by political correctness as defined by the left, “because this constant birther crap is making us look batshit crazy”. Please read the prior posts. It is very much in the US Constitution and cited many times in Supreme Court legal history about such.

Yes, I agree the courts want to avoid taking this on, because the implications do imply striking down the legality of the laws past during someone’s administration. Those laws could be repast almost immediately, but I don’t know about retro-active sanctions being legit then. It does raise a very nasty situation that no court would like to handle, and because they rely upon “no standing” and those with standing being so wimpish they don’t want to bring up the issue, they’re getting away with high crime.

What’s outrageous is proposing we do likewise. Once we (the GOP) do likewise with a candidate, we’ll never be able to raise this issue again, for we would then risk all the laws passed by Romney being put in doubt too. Why should we do something so risky? There are plenty of good VP Candidates. If we nominate someone clearly not eligible, to me that is making us look insane.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5