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

Just stunning that Condaweezie Rice would be anywhere near this list. What a complete trainwreck she was. A total empty skirt with no talent but mouthing empty platitudes. She’s was excellent if you include kicking Jews out of Gaza, normalizing Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and running interference for the Iranians on your to-do list.

Remember the speech where she compared the status of the Palis to that of the blacks in the US under Jim Crow? Remember her asserting before an International audience that America has a severe birth defect i.e. slavery? Not to mention that, like Colon Powell, the only reason she became a Republican is that she knew she would be more conspicuous and therefore rise higher and more rapidly there than as a Demshevik. Aside from that reasoning, she’s an Obama-supporting Liberal.

What a complete disaster. She’s just wild for the Arab Spring, yet had a tough time defending that in an interview with Sean Hannity- actually getting flustered and toungue-tied when he pressed her to move beyond the brainless Neocon platitudes. How dumb do you have to be to lose an argument with Sean Hannity?

What a colossal embarrassment. Do people just not pay attention or what?

sartana on June 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Hello Marti,

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.

I get that. You’re arguing that so long as the parents have citizenship at the time of birth, even if they were only naturalized, that’s sufficient.

The question with Arthur is: Was there a common understanding, even if erroneous, at the time of the election that his father was a naturalized citizen already at the time of his birth?

Arthur seems to have given erroneous information about his parents at several points, but I have not seen any indication where he made an express claim that his father was naturalized before his birth.

In any event, on the understanding of the NBC clause in Ankeny and Lynch – which seems prevalent in most of the legal community – it wouldn’t matter, because all that’s really needed is that Arthur himself was born in the U.S.. The fact that his mother was a native-born U.S. citizen is merely icing on the cake.

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.

Yes, that’s my understanding as well. Both sets of parents were naturalized after Marco and Bobby were born.

But should that disqualify them? I mean, as a matter of principle?

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Here is a good legal opinion on the Ankeny case you refer to.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

As for the comment “prevalent in the legal community”, to me that holds as much weight as “prevalent in the political community” or “prevalent among economists”. It’s paying attention to all these prevailing words of wisdom that has led us to the brink of bankruptcy. Economists were wrong about the housing bust before it happened almost universally (except insightful analysts like Peter Schiff and some others).

Most lawyers never thought the Supreme Court might discard Obamacare, we’ll see in a week how good prevailing legal opinion is. Recent polls shows they’ve (as a prevailing wind) changed their mind though.

It will be very interesting to see how the case goes in Florida next week, it is the only case of importance where the merits are being presented and the judge is interested enough to continue the case (normally the judge hears and dismisses the case on lack of standing).

I know people who support the original intent of the constitution are blowing in the wind. I’m just stating that if Romney spits on the Constitution’s original intent and nominates Rubio or Jindal, he’s going to lose a lot of votes. Maybe he’ll pick up as many as he loses, but as a former GOP delegate, he’ll heavily disappoint me.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM

ps, you ask “why should this disqualify them as a matter of principal”. The principal is should the constitution be amended by public opinion and executive whim, or should it be subject to (a) clarification by Supreme Court rulings (not modified) and (b) modifiable only by passage of a new amendment.

Conservatives used to 100% agree with the last part of the above paragraph and now it seems there is a pick and choose philosophy about the constitution. If we give in on this, what’s to stop a political majority doing likewise with the first and second amendment, or others?

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 8:59 PM

This survey is completely invalid without including the former governor of Alaska. She’s by far the most popular republican and the most qualified in terms of setting conservative policy agenda. She even has her on military doctrine ready. Can we say the same thing about others?

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Hope Rick Santelli is press secretary after Romney election. We all need a daily economics lesson from him.

nebraski on June 23, 2012 at 9:08 PM

This survey is completely invalid without including the former governor of Alaska. She’s by far the most popular republican and the most qualified in terms of setting conservative policy agenda. She even has her on military doctrine ready. Can we say the same thing about others?

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

It’s also pointless to put her on the list. She’s clearly not interested, so why bother??

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Statistics can be described as an answer in search of a question.

The question here is not the ordering of the top 14 possibilities for VP. The question maybe is. Have the REP’S been developing younger leaders for the present and the future?

To answer the question you need to look at what the DEM’s. Have given us.

Obama—–President
Bidden—–2nd in line for the Presidency
Pelosi——-3d in line for the Presidency (until the last mid terms but maybe again in November)
Harry Reid
Franks——-recently retired
Hennry Waxman
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Maybe the question here is has the DEM’S lost the ability to lead for at least the next 20 years?

jpcpt03 on June 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Dang you! you put the survey up while I’m @ work on Friday-and then I can’t do it when I get home because I stay off the ‘net for Shabbat.
My choice would’ve been Mike Huckabee…just kidding-it would be Jindal.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Question for those that think Jindal and Rubio are eligible because they were born in country…are all children born in this country natural born Citizens?

1andyman on June 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

anotherJoe on June 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Jindal less experienced than Palin?
Are you on drugs?
Jindal FINISHED his first term, is a former congressman etc.
Palin is a good conservative-but experience way-she was a piker compared to Jindal.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

1andyman on June 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Give it up. You are convincing no one with your interpretation of the constitution. I thought conservatives valued the strict reading of the constitution and not fitting it to one’s opinion.
Since the constitution does not specify the case you make then you are barking up a tree filled with unicorns.

Bradky on June 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I like Jindal, but in the interest of fairness and electoral politics shouldn’t Kasich be on the list? and what about Scott Walker? He should at least be on the list.

txmomof6 on June 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM

The average, mode, and median EV predictions all hover right around 300. That’d be a very big win.

The wishy washy weepublicans that hate 0bama because he is 0bama are certainly overconfident today. No one that despises 0bama’s socialist agenda is at all certain that socialist Romney [aka. Sketchy, and the architect of 0bamacare] are at all sanguine about voting for him. They feel that one socialist in the White House is enough for one decade.

The TEA Party recgnizes the problem:
With in the Tea Party Nation, there is a huge divide. There are a few people who love Mitt Romney. They are very few. There are most who are willing to tolerate him and then there are those who say they will not vote for him under any circumstances.

Here in Michigan the GOP is begging for volunteers to sign up as they’ve never done before. It would appear that the Willard supporters prefer to keep their couches warm again.

IMHO, until an actual reason to vote for Mr. Healthcare Mandate appears many voters will stay at home… again.

DannoJyd on June 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Oops, just saw Scott Walker on the list, my bad. Age is hard on the eyes!

txmomof6 on June 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Some posters, including myself, have referred to the ongoing Florida case. For some good coverage, these are the two best writeups:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/recap-of-latest-obama-eligibility-hearing-part-1/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-happened-at-obamas-eligibility-hearing-part-2/

The intro to Part 1 shows a historical lineage to Bush v. Gore in 2000:

A hearing was held on June 18, 2012; it began precisely at 9 am Eastern Time in Leon County, Florida in the Court of Judge Terry Lewis to decide whether Obama would appear on the ballot in November and whether the lawsuit filed by Mr. Michael Voeltz (a lifelong Democrat) should be dismissed with prejudice. The same Judge who heard the famous Bush V. Gore (ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States), heard this matter. This famous case was started in his courtroom at the circuit court level where Judge Lewis presided in 2000 over Florida election statutes as well.

Speaking for the plaintiff was Larry Klayman; his opening statement quoted John Adams, our second President: “We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.” (framing the question for the court, the state of Florida and the Nation in his first utterance.) Mr. Klayman outlined that Florida election law does not operate in a vacuum but in concert with the Constitution of Florida, the United States, and our respective legislature(s). He showed that each party’s obligations and interests must be read in concert with one another.

This was in stark contrast to Obama’s attorneys and the attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State, who attempted to narrow the issues for the court and Judge Lewis. The basis for their argument was that since Obama was not in fact “nominated” by the Democratic Party and would not be until September, this action in this court was not ripe and should be dismissed with prejudice.

The case continues this coming week. Obama’s side had been hoping the case would have been dismissed last week. It wasn’t and the judge asked a lot of interesting questions. All of the cases todate have been very boring and quickly over with. This stands in contrast. The ending might not be any different but it is a temporary flight from judicial boredom. And then we have the Obamacare Scotus ruling this week too. An interesting week to come.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

IMHO, until an actual reason to vote for Mr. Healthcare Mandate appears many voters will stay at home… again.

DannoJyd on June 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

.
Aww – I bet you want a brokered convention too !
Don’t stay home- vote for your real favorite that all you phony pure- cons really want to see re-elected just out of spite. Don’t waste your vote – vote your boy Obama back in – that way if he happens to lose – you can really and truly join the liberal commies and complain about every gaseous bowel movement President Super Mitt is going to have.

Who was it that said – to thine ownself be a true ABR commie ?

FlaMurph on June 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

According to U.S. vs. Wonk Kim Ark

Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Acoording to Minor vs. Happerset, the same ruling that you guys refered to

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Even the ruling you refers to states clearly that it does not intent to clarify the meaning of Natural Born Citizens. It also acknowledges that children born of aliens may be natural born citizens

The botton line is that neither of these ruling actually attempt to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen. The focus of these rulings were not to clarify that and the final clarification must come from a new supreme court ruling pertaining to this subject alone.

Moreover I can think of atleast four guys who won’t be qualified for president by your standards

Chester Arthur
Spiro Agnew
Barack Obama
John McCain (Okay, this guy didn’t become president or V.P)

Since chief justice Roberts himself sworn in Obama (that too twice) I doubt he is going to disqualify him.

CoolAir on June 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Don’t stay home- vote for your real favorite that all you phony pure- cons really want to see re-elected just out of spite.

Who was it that said – to thine ownself be a true ABR commie ?

FlaMurph on June 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

IMHO, your post reflects your own short falls quite nicely.

When are you planning on signing up as a volunteer with your local GOP? Will you then be prepared to man the phone banks, assemble Romney lawn signage, tell people of how terrific Romneycare is in Mass., then sign up to work as a poll watcher all day?

My most notable activity was attending the MIGOP Conventiion in Detroit for 2 days as an ELECTED Delegate where we succeeded in kicking out 2 more RINO’s from the MIGOP leadership. What have you done lately?

Keep your opinions and spend that wasted time actually doing something worth mentioning… for a change.

DannoJyd on June 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Jindal less experienced than Palin?
Are you on drugs?
Jindal FINISHED his first term, is a former congressman etc.
Palin is a good conservative-but experience way-she was a piker compared to Jindal.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

If it’s experience you want, Jindal wins out. He was around long before McLame picked a pretty-face supermom in a desperate attempt to make up for his lack of spine and balls.

MelonCollie on June 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Coolair, good for you to read the case. I mentioned it elsewhere that the ruling did not state conclusively that other situations of birth do not qualify. You merely provided the words that made me state such. We really do need this issue to get a SCOTUS hearing (then a ruling). Our only hope is if the Florida case rules against Obama then it gets appealed up the chain, but do not hold your breath. The courts do not want to take on such a stench of a rotten potato as this! They need to, but will they. I hope they do in our lifetime. In the meantime, one must presume the court would never rule that all born citizens equal all natural born citizens, for that would go against all SCOTUS readings of the constitution that a qualification in the constitution is a limitation. I can’t imagine the court ever ruling that the word “natural” is frivolous. One could imagine the court ruling that at least one of the parents must have been a citizen at birth and have that count but I doubt they’ll ever okay the situation where both parents who weren’t US citizens at the child’s birth qualifies as a NBC. And if that is the case, then Rubio and Jindal have a higher mountain to climb than Obama.

Still, I’d like to see the election conceded in a week, which it could be, if Rubio and Jindal held a press conference explaining why neither qualifies to be VP. But I think these two politicians are too self-centered and do not care about the party nor the country at large.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

LevinFan on June 23, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Did you have divine intimation that she is not interested?

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Lawdawg86 on June 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

…woah! I had same order…same reason for Ryan…but Rice at 5!

KOOLAID2 on June 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

PS, Coolair, we covered Chester Arthur earlier in this thread but not Spiro Agnew. I haven’t researched his story. In any event, I consider Nixon one of the worst presidents we ever had: (a) he took us off the Gold Standard (before him, international transactions were backed by Gold); and (b) he was the first President to initiate the numerical use of racial quotas (being a parent of two minority children, I resent others thinking my sons ever had a government-imposed advantage of others; I intensely dislike affirmative action); and last, (c) if one is going to surrender in a war, one should do it immediately and not have thousands killed and wounded doing it slowly. I also dislike the fact he betrayed Free China (Taiwan). So if he betrayed the Constitution by having a VP who is not eligible under constitutional requirements, it’s just one more notch against him.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Lol. You former flame Perry has even more “experience” than Jindal and we all saw how it turned out. Jindal had a very friendly forum in which to shine and he failed miserably. He also is boring and lacks charisma and unlikely to motivate the base. Romney needs somebody who is his complete opposite, not some pale carbon copy.

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM

PS, regarding Agnew. It appears it was a mistaken entry about Agnew’s father as to when he was naturalized. Further research, documented by Leo Donofrio, who gives no politician mercy on this issue, confirmed that Agnew met the criteria for NBC. See here for the whole story.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/spiro-agnew-qualified-for-president-obama-not-eligible-2-us-citizen-parents-mandatory-for-natural-born-citizen-status-john-mccain-eligible/

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Too late to nominate Trey Gowdy?

bigjack on June 23, 2012 at 11:42 PM

I like Jindal, but in the interest of fairness and electoral politics shouldn’t Kasich be on the list? and what about Scott Walker? He should at least be on the list.

txmomof6 on June 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM

It’s quite unlikely that they’ll want to leave their posts before finishing their first terms in office. Which means it’s unlikely that Romney would really consider them. Unfortunate, since otherwise Kasich could be helpful.

The_Jacobite on June 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Lol. You former flame Perry has even more “experience” than Jindal and we all saw how it turned out.

Annoyinglittletwerp never said that experience was the only thing that mattered. Someone, earlier, made the assertion that Jindal was inexperienced or a rookie compared to Palin, which of course is preposterous. Jindal is much more experienced than Palin.

Jindal had a very friendly forum in which to shine and he failed miserably.

Friendly forum? The SOTU rebuttal speech is an unenviable task. He had a lackluster performance, but that isn’t the real Jindal. Watch/listen to any of his other speeches (plenty from which to choose) and he actually is a pretty good speaker.

He also is boring and lacks charisma and unlikely to motivate the base.

He indeed is boring, which was actually his goal when he was sworn in as governor. He’s said, “My goal is to be known as the most boring Governor in Louisiana’s history.” Mission accomplished. =) It’s a good thing most Republicans prefer substance over style. Style over substance is more for the other party.

Lacks charisma? He’s actually pretty charismatic. Anyone that’s ever spoken to him or heard a speech of his comes away incredibly impressed. Unlikely to motivate the base? I would say Hot Air is a pretty conservative blog and he received the most votes. Not too shabby. The most popular Governor in America wouldn’t motivate the base? Somehow, I doubt that.

Romney needs somebody who is his complete opposite, not some pale carbon copy.

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Yeah…with the exception of high IQs and very impressive resumes, I’m not sure you’ll find too many people confusing Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal lol.

GOPRanknFile on June 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Condoleeza Rice??? Paul ” I begged for TARP” Ryan????? What are the people smoking in here?????? Does anyone look into the governing philosophies of the individuals they selected????

Pitchforker on June 24, 2012 at 12:06 AM

As for the comment “prevalent in the legal community”, to me that holds as much weight as “prevalent in the political community” or “prevalent among economists”. It’s paying attention to all these prevailing words of wisdom that has led us to the brink of bankruptcy. Economists were wrong about the housing bust before it happened almost universally (except insightful analysts like Peter Schiff and some others).

Most lawyers never thought the Supreme Court might discard Obamacare, we’ll see in a week how good prevailing legal opinion is. Recent polls shows they’ve (as a prevailing wind) changed their mind though.

marti124 on June 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I don’t think you can push the Obamacare analogy very far. It’s a review of a controversial statute expanding the commerce power in a case of first impression. And as Randy Barnett has pointed out, that means it was always a closer case than legal commentators wanted to admit. And there was always a sizable contingent in the legal community which questioned the mandate’s constitutionality. I’m just not aware of anything like that with regards to the natural born citizen question.

Which is why I wouldn’t be upset if the Court did rule that NBC includes those provably born on U.S. soil of alien parents. The case law and common law just isn’t definitive on this point, and therefore I wouldn’t see it as a trashing of original understanding in the way that Obamacare clearly is. Especially not when the costs of taking a strict definition would be so appallingly high.

The_Jacobite on June 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Lol. You former flame Perry has even more “experience” than Jindal and we all saw how it turned out. Jindal had a very friendly forum in which to shine and he failed miserably. He also is boring and lacks charisma and unlikely to motivate the base. Romney needs somebody who is his complete opposite, not some pale carbon copy.

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM

It’s amazing to me that people are willing to write off a guy for one speech given several years ago – a speech he didn’t even write.

I’ve seen enough public appearances over the last two years that have impressed me. And unlike Romney, I don’t have questions about his conservative bearings.

The_Jacobite on June 24, 2012 at 12:12 AM

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

I understand. It’s a loophole. The birth certificates make them “de facto” US citizens, if the parents don’t state that they are diplomats. But the moment the children leave the US with their parents, they lose these privileges.

Gelsomina on June 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Why is allen west on the list? I don’t want to offend anyone, but he’s not being considered at all. Neither is condi.

rubberneck on June 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Do people just not pay attention or what?

sartana on June 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Lots of people at Hotair admire the results of the race/gender Lotto game. Have a uterus? Great! Your potential value as a (fill in the blank…CEO…Governor…Senator…VP…President!) just went up 40%.

What’s that … family legend has it that you’re 1/64th Cherokee?! Awesome! Let’s make you the Dean of Harvard Law School! It’s pathetic. See Allen West, Herman Cain, Susana Martinez, and Condoleeza Rice for reference. Rubio gets tarred by Democratitis too, but I think he’s a solid politician.

Jaibones on June 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

The_Jacobite, let me explain how intellectually far apart the prevailing legal scholars are and the issue of Article 2, Section 1. Prior to Obama, nobody knew for sure that Chester Arthur’s dad was not a US citizen prior to Arthur’s birth; nobody was writing about Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and its relationship to the NBC issue. It took the research of Leo Donofrio (a retired lawyer who was licensed to argue before the US Supreme Court and did such, albeit he was a very eccentric lawyer) to uncover these historical nuggets.

What is super interesting is that the one legal scholar, Lawrence Solum, changed his definition of what NBC meant 180% prior versus after the public became aware of Obama’s father’s citizenship. So when you talk about prevailing legal consensus, you need to state the year. Prior to 2008, it was a conservative, constitutionally-traditional definition. After Obama, it became the modern anything-goes interpretation. See this link for how disgraceful the legal scholarship community has been over this issue.

marti124 on June 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I still scratch my head at the 70/30% breakdown. I guess the whole Internet is like that?!

Bob's Kid on June 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM

My most notable activity was attending the MIGOP Conventiion in Detroit for 2 days as an ELECTED Delegate where we succeeded in kicking out 2 more RINO’s from the MIGOP leadership. What have you done lately?

Keep your opinions and spend that wasted time actually doing something worth mentioning… for a change.

DannoJyd on June 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I have a Romney sign in the yard, does that count ? Probably not.
Take a break for the next 4 months from your rino hunting and hone your ideology. For now it is either Ocommie or Romney. GWB had it right.

If your not with us, your against us. More than shame on you- you do not despise the WH Occupier enough. So don’t think your making any difference with that “Obama can stay” crap. That’s even a notch below ” Rino~Dom”
The real fight is battling the liberal Marxists. Stop wasting your time avoiding the most important fight.

FlaMurph on June 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Can’t believe John Kasich, Gov. of Ohio not considered a good choice! Man’s been doing a great job ever since entering congress, I’ll bet still understands the budget better then anyone in Washington.

olddog3006 on June 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

If your not with us, your against us.

FlaMurph on June 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Well now, considering that I’ve spent a large chunk of my time over the past ten years fighting liberals I guess it would be silly for me to change lanes when I’ve managed to succeed in accomplishing so much to date. Besides, I would be perpetuating a lie if I were to support Mr. ‘I don’t have any republican friends’ as his political history proves he is against everything we TEA Party Americans are solidly against, not to mention how supporting Abortions R Us goes against my christian beliefs.

Feel free to keep staying home while people like I work to effect the decisions you’re too busy to be involved with. Feel free to give your vote to the guy whose accomplishmentss while Governor effected so many of 0bama’s ‘accomplishments’, and I hope you find true happiness in your newfound liberal idealism that your candidate overwhelmingly supports. Just don’t rush to judgement when dealig with 0bama supporters since you share their ideology even though it is branded differently. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be proven to be a mere liberal hypocrite. Those are a dime a dozen.

DannoJyd on June 24, 2012 at 1:31 AM

I would be perpetuating a lie if I were to support Mr. ‘I don’t have any republican friends’ as his political history proves he is against FOR everything we TEA Party Americans are solidly against, not to mention how supporting Abortions R Us goes against my christian beliefs.

Fixed it for me.

DannoJyd on June 24, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Did you have divine intimation that she is not interested?

promachus on June 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

No, but unlike you I have common sense!

If Palin wanted to be in DC away from her family for the next 4 years she would’ve run for the big prize, not accept the VP nod for Romney of all people!

Plus Sarah’s been making appearances on Bristol’s new show. Does anyone with a brain think that would work out well if Sarah became the VP?? The media was all over before, just imagine the extra ammo this would give them.

I will always admire Sarah, but if you’re going to blindly worship her, take it back to C4P and stop shoveling it over here!

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 AM

but if you’re going to blindly worship her, take it back to C4P and stop shoveling it over here!

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 AM

+ 100..Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on June 24, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Moving the comments back to the topic:

Larry Sabato predicts a “vanilla” choice for VP.

A Portman or a Pawlenty, he says.

Sabato says Romney will stay away from “exciting” types like Rubio.

Anyway, isn’t “vanilla” a bad choice of terms?

Racist even?

Or Sabato is vanilla so it’s okay?

Or is it okay to be racist when discussing the color of the majority: white?

Or if one is a member of a certain racial group does that give one license to use otherwise “racist” language when referring to one or other members of said group?

Since I am “white” (depending on my blood pressure) can I justify calling myself a “white cracker”?

You see, our transparent black non-divisive uniter president got me thinking again about issues I thought I had put to rest.

I am so confused!

Sherman1864 on June 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Then again there are some folks with high cheekbones in my family so I may have rethink all of this…

Hmm….better give EW up in Mass. a call….

Sorry for moving off topic!

Sherman1864 on June 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM

Over 2300 votes were cast:

HMM! Could it be that less people care about the election since liberal Mass. Governor Romney won?

I seem to recall more people participating in these polls.

From everything I see I guess there is an enthusiasm gap that keeps on growing. Maybe we can have a do over. /s

DannoJyd on June 24, 2012 at 3:17 AM

Hello Marti,

Why isn’t Lynch v. Clarke (1844) on point here?

The_Jacobite on June 24, 2012 at 3:24 AM

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Is that why she accepted to be the ticket last time round? Wouldn’t that have kept her from her family? Her last son was just a months baby then. Maybe with your lame excuses you would fit into Huff Po better.

promachus on June 24, 2012 at 3:48 AM

How dumb do you have to be to lose an argument with Sean Hannity?

Answer: She would have to be you.

What a colossal embarrassment. Do people just not pay attention or what?

Answer: I could opt for a different answer but “what” seems appropriate given the base level of your intellectual bowel movement here.

sartana on June 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Do people just not pay attention or what?

sartana on June 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Lots of people at Hotair admire the results of the race/gender Lotto game. Have a uterus? Great! Your potential value as a (fill in the blank…CEO…Governor…Senator…VP…President!) just went up 40%.

What’s that … family legend has it that you’re 1/64th Cherokee?! Awesome! Let’s make you the Dean of Harvard Law School! It’s pathetic. See Allen West, Herman Cain, Susana Martinez, and Condoleeza Rice for reference. Rubio gets tarred by Democratitis too, but I think he’s a solid politician.

Jaibones on June 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Unless of course your uterus has an “R” stamped on it, in which case it should be ignored, excoriated,criticized, mocked, Alinskyed or otherwise emotionally rent asunder particularly if your a left~leaning uterus lover.

Funny bit though, JB. : – >

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 7:46 AM

If Barry0 is ineligible due to one non-citizen parent (and I believe he is not), then Bobby Jindal (to my great dismay) is certainly not eligible with two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth.

The Founders had an understanding of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on common usage at the time, and it did not and does not equate to simple birth location.

As to Rubio, if his parents were not citizens prior to his birth, then he is also not Constitutionally qualified for President or Vice President.

Siddhartha Vicious on June 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Is that why she accepted to be the ticket last time round? Wouldn’t that have kept her from her family? Her last son was just a months baby then. Maybe with your lame excuses you would fit into Huff Po better.

promachus on June 24, 2012 at 3:48 AM

So you see no difference in her motivations then from now? Again she was willing to do it in 2008 but she said NO last October remember?

No means no.

Plus Sarah hasn’t exactly been the biggest Romney fan in case you haven’t noticed.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Unless of course your uterus has an “R” stamped on it, in which case it should be ignored, excoriated,criticized, mocked, Alinskyed or otherwise emotionally rent asunder particularly if your a left~leaning uterus lover with high cheek bones.

Funny bit though, JB. : – >

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 7:46 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 24, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Moving the comments back to the topic:

Larry Sabato predicts a “vanilla” choice for VP.

A Portman or a Pawlenty, he says.

Sabato says Romney will stay away from “exciting” types like Rubio.

Anyway, isn’t “vanilla” a bad choice of terms?

Racist even?

Or Sabato is vanilla so it’s okay?

Or is it okay to be racist when discussing the color of the majority: white?

Or if one is a member of a certain racial group does that give one license to use otherwise “racist” language when referring to one or other members of said group?

Since I am “white” (depending on my blood pressure) can I justify calling myself a “white cracker”?

You see, our transparent black non-divisive uniter president got me thinking again about issues I thought I had put to rest.

I am so confused!

Sherman1864 on June 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM

“Vanilla” isn’t related to race. It’s related to style.

Chris Christie, Rand Paul or Scott Walker wouldn’t be “vanilla choices”.

Bobby Jindal qualifies as a “vanilla choice”.

joana on June 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Chris Christie, Rand Paul or Scott Walker wouldn’t be “vanilla choices”.

Bobby Jindal qualifies as a “vanilla choice”.

joana on June 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Well, there’s a spectrum here.

Daniels, Pawlenty, Portman – these are about as “vanilla” as you can get. Competent, experienced, solid men, no question. But very vanilla.

Jindal’s a little more than that. He can and does throw down red meat. His social conservative credentials are unimpeachable. And he’s conducted a more radical reform program than just about any other governor – of course, Louisiana was in more desperate need of one than any other state.

No, he’s not Chris Christie. But then Chris Christie would split the base pretty deeply.

The_Jacobite on June 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

the Huckster Huckabee is not even there. I voted for Gov Jindal. Jindal is so quick and smart, just watching him clean the floor up with Biden is worth it. Rubio is just not as “experienced” to not get sucked into Biden’s spew. Now is not the time with the economy the way it is… to try a “rising star” like Rubio. If there were not so many “Bible thumpers” out there & “conspiracy wackos” I would like to see a Romney – Hunstman team. BUT too many people would be worried about a “Mormon Takeover”. Both have the business experience but Jon has the foreign policy background

charmingtail on June 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Rob Portman & Condi Rice are completely unacceptable.

Pawlenty & Daniels are jokes.

Really not that many good choices on this list, which is why people like Jindal & Rubio easily tops it.

Norwegian on June 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

If your not with us, your against us. More than shame on you- you do not despise the WH Occupier enough. So don’t think your making any difference with that “Obama can stay” crap. That’s even a notch below ” Rino~Dom”

FlaMurph on June 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM

These are pretty much the same people who drone on endlessly about “TruCons” and “purity tests”. Those with us or agin’ us purity tests come in handy when browbeating people into supporting the latest squishy GOP candidate.

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Well, there’s a spectrum here.

Daniels, Pawlenty, Portman – these are about as “vanilla” as you can get. Competent, experienced, solid men, no question. But very vanilla.

Jindal’s a little more than that. He can and does throw down red meat. His social conservative credentials are unimpeachable. And he’s conducted a more radical reform program than just about any other governor – of course, Louisiana was in more desperate need of one than any other state.

No, he’s not Chris Christie. But then Chris Christie would split the base pretty deeply.

The_Jacobite on June 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

He’s still a fairly vanilla wonky conservative governor. Don’t underestimate those others guys ability to throw red meat – and Jindal only started doing it more recently. And I don’t see any difference in terms of social conservative credentials.

Why would Christie split the base? People really overrate the possibility of the base being split. The last candidate to split the base was Wendell Willkie – and he was at the top of the ticket. Romney could pick Sandoval or Giuliani and that wouldn’t split the base.

joana on June 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Wrong and dumb as usual. Being for Romney and against Obama is not a purity test. Call it a litmus test, if you will, but that is an entirely different animal. Because as we’ve seen, a great many at H/A would have very much preferred a different nominee. Unlike you, most have recognized that just because a candidate doesn’t meet all of their expectations, he may still be and indeed is far, far preferable to one who is forcefully against everything that decent Americans could stand for. It is only the “purity” patrol who are so uncompromising, dogmatic and self-destructive as to root for America’s continued downward spiral because they didn’t get everything they wanted for Christmas.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

If it’s experience you want, Jindal wins out. He was around long before McLame picked a pretty-face supermom in a desperate attempt to make up for his lack of spine and balls.

MelonCollie on June 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Except Jindal isn’t Constitutionally eligible for VP per the 12th Amendment.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Except that he is, per the 14th Amendment.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Being for Romney and against Obama is not a purity test. Call it a litmus test, if you will, but that is an entirely different animal. Because as we’ve seen, a great many at H/A would have very much preferred a different nominee.

Litmus test, purity test. Still the same buillshit that your little Mittbot claque is always b1tching about. By the way, wrong and stupid as usual. If someone declines to “support” either Obama or Romney, they are declining to support either Obama or Romney. Period.

Unlike you, most have recognized that just because a candidate doesn’t meet all of their expectations, he may still be and indeed is far, far preferable to one who is forcefully against everything that decent Americans could stand for.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Which is why he’s still consistently trailing Obama overall. Right.

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

It is only the “purity” patrol who are so uncompromising, dogmatic and self-destructive as to root for America’s continued downward spiral because they didn’t get everything they wanted for Christmas.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Wrong, Kos Kiddie. It’s the “purity patrol” that recognizes that even with your Squish Messiah in place we’re still going to be in a downward spiral. Only difference being in relative speed and the fact that conservatives will be blamed in a guilt-by-association manner for the crash when it happens.

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 1:22 PM

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Let’s count the fallacies in just that 1 little sentence.

1. Complete nonsequitor as we were discussing who are the “purers” and not the horse race.

2. Factually wrong as the polls show Mitt within the MoE and in many polls leading. That includes the latest Rasmussen (historically the most reliable and also usually polls 1500 LVs nor RVs or adults) showing Mitt ahead by 5% and Obama’s approval behind by 10%.

3. Failure to justify how it is that those who are willing enough to compromise some of their leanings and support Mitt while it’s only the small number of dead-enders on the right who can’t bring themselves to it.

Keep your posts pithy, it would take a book to cover all the fallacies in a paragraph of yours.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Except that he is, per the 14th Amendment.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

You are completely wrong. I suggest you read the 14th Amendment again.

The 12th Amendment states, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” One of the eligibility requirements for President is that he be a natural born citizen. Therefore, the VP must also be a natural born citizen.

Not only does the 14th Amendment NOT say anything about natural born citizenship, it does not say that everyone born on US soil is a citizen. It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Your anger should be directed at your girl. She didn’t run. It is a fact. Any issue with the exercise of her free will regarding making a run should be addressed to her specifically.
Hating Romney because an idol let you down seems so childish.

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Not only does the 14th Amendment NOT say anything about natural born citizenship, it does not say that everyone born on US soil is a citizen. It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM

The one thing birthers have in common is their love of judicial activism. “Make it say what I want it to say”

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Was Jindal born in the USA? Was he subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of his birth? Gee, sounds like he is a natural born citizen, doesn’t it?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The one thing birthers have in common is their love of judicial activism. “Make it say what I want it to say”

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Judicial activism is clearly a term of which you don’t know its meaning.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM

It is a term that applies to you and the birther moron crowd. The constitution does not explicitly state what you claim it means. You attempt to persuade others that it means what you think it implies.
That’s activism on your part – actively trying to force a flawed opinion on others who don’t agree.

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Was Jindal born in the USA? Was he subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of his birth? Gee, sounds like he is a natural born citizen, doesn’t it?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Since his parents were American citizens, then neither they nor their offspring would be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Regardless, the 14th says citizen, not natural born citizen. Have you never read the Amendment?

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Nonsense. All people residing in the US, unless they have diplomatic immunity or are part of some invading force are subject to US jurisdiction. If they break a Federal law they could be prosecuted.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Additionally, Alexander Hamilton drafted a version of the Constitution that contained this:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

John Jay wrote Washington, “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.”

Washington replied, “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter.” And on September 4, the “natural born citizen” clause for Presidential eligibility appeared in a draft of the Constitution reported from the Committee of Eleven, and was obviously approved as it appears in our Constitution.

So even you should be able to see that the framers recognized the difference between a mere citizen and one who is a natural born citizen.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Nonsense. All people residing in the US, unless they have diplomatic immunity or are part of some invading force are subject to US jurisdiction. If they break a Federal law they could be prosecuted.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

That’s beyond preposterous. Regardless, nowhere in the 14th Amendment does “natural born citizen” appear. Have you read the amendment?

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM

You are doing a lousy job of being a walking advertisement for Liberty classroom. “For 8 bucks a month take courses designed to make you a laughingstock on the internet”

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Nonsense. All people residing in the US, unless they have diplomatic immunity or are part of some invading force are subject to US jurisdiction. If they break a Federal law they could be prosecuted.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

If this were the case, then why would it be necessary to include the phrase in the amendment? Do you know the meaning of the word “and”? It means in addition to. So the first part is one condition: All persons born or naturalized in the United States” then we have the word “AND“. So obviously there is a difference between those born in the United States from those born in the United States AND “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM

It is a term that applies to you and the birther moron crowd. The constitution does not explicitly state what you claim it means. You attempt to persuade others that it means what you think it implies.
That’s activism on your part – actively trying to force a flawed opinion on others who don’t agree.

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

So then I was correct: you don’t know what the meaning of “judicial activism” is. Your disdain for the Constitution and for those who wish to see it upheld is noted.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Because there was long period in our history when it was legal for one person to own another and when those who were owned were not considered citizens. The 14th guarantees that all who are born here are citizens, provided they are born under our jurisdiction.

Your argument over the word “and” is simply mind-numbing! Of course, there are 2 parts to being a natural born citizen. One must be born here AND one must be subject to our jurisdiction. What is so freaking hard to understand?

The only other way to obtain citizenship is via naturalization and such people are not eligible to be POTUS. Jindal was born a citizen. End of story.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Because there was long period in our history when it was legal for one person to own another and when those who were owned were not considered citizens. The 14th guarantees that all who are born here are citizens, provided they are born under our jurisdiction.

Your argument over the word “and” is simply mind-numbing! Of course, there are 2 parts to being a natural born citizen. One must be born here AND one must be subject to our jurisdiction. What is so freaking hard to understand?

The only other way to obtain citizenship is via naturalization and such people are not eligible to be POTUS. Jindal was born a citizen. End of story.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

For what is at least the third time now: the 14th amendment does not say anything about natural born citizen. Jindal is not a natural born citizen. Why do you keep trying to insert language into the amendment that isn’t there? What is so “freaking hard to understand” that citizen and natural born citizen are not the same thing? I just demonstrated it in a post above regarding Hamilton, Jay, and Washington.

You really should read the amendment for yourself, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you a hand. Here is Section 1.:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now show me where it says natural born citizen.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Litmus test, purity test. Still the same buillshit that your little Mittbot claque is always b1tching about. By the way, wrong and stupid as usual. If someone declines to “support” either Obama or Romney, they are declining to support either Obama or Romney. Period.

Which is why he’s still consistently trailing Obama overall. Right.

ddrintn on June 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Since you claim to be a so called conservative and I use that term loosely, you staying at home is really helping Obama. It’s a vote that otherwise would’ve gone to Romney that now didn’t happen? Get it??

And Romney’s leading by 4 in Rasmussen and 3 in Gallup. He’s been winning for awhile now.

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM

For what is at least the third time now:

Right. Repetition makes you no more cogent. Trust me.

Now show me where it says natural born citizen.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Show me where “natural born citizen” means anything but a citizen at birth. Show me where it means that a citizen must be the offspring of other citizens to be considered a NBC. And explain to me how the 14th, which clarifies the vague and undefined term, “natural born citizen” does not supersede the original language.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Since you claim to be a so called conservative and I use that term loosely, you staying at home is really helping Obama. It’s a vote that otherwise would’ve gone to Romney that now didn’t happen? Get it??

And Romney’s leading by 4 in Rasmussen and 3 in Gallup. He’s been winning for awhile now.

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Why do you assume his vote would go to Romney? Do you think there will only be two candidates on the ballot? You’re part of the problem, and you certainly aren’t going to be part of the solution as long as you listen to Levin.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Show me where “natural born citizen” means anything but a citizen at birth. Show me where it means that a citizen must be the offspring of other citizens to be considered a NBC. And explain to me how the 14th, which clarifies the vague and undefined term, “natural born citizen” does not supersede the original language.

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I just demonstrated it above with Hamilton, Jay, and Washington. After reading it, do you really deny that there isn’t a difference between what Hamilton wrote and what Jay suggested, which became part of the Constitution?

The 14th amendment does not clarify “natural born citizen”. It isn’t speaking at all of natural born citizens. The term doesn’t appear at all in the amendment. You really should occupy reality.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Who are you going to vote for?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Who are you going to vote for?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

What does that have to do with anything?

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Nevermind, I misread the timestamp.

I’m probably going to vote for Gary Johnson.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Why am I not surprised that you would not do everything possible to end Obama’s disastrous rule?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Why do you assume his vote would go to Romney? Do you think there will only be two candidates on the ballot? You’re part of the problem, and you certainly aren’t going to be part of the solution as long as you listen to Levin.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Yeah, maybe he’d waste his vote on some third party crackpot.

Conservatism is the right answer and is what our Founding Fathers based our Constitution on.

You should try listening to the Great One you may actually learn something but I doubt it!

Now thank me for your reply!!

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Nevermind, I misread the timestamp.

I’m probably going to vote for Gary Johnson.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Same as voting for Maobama genius, good job.

LevinFan on June 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

C’mon, you people never read that part of the Constitution where it’s stated that natural-born citizens are those whose parents were both American citizens at the time of their birth?

It’s right next to the one stating abortion is a right.

joana on June 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Why am I not surprised that you would not do everything possible to end Obama’s disastrous rule?

MJBrutus on June 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Why am I not surprised you lack critical reading/thinking skills?

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Tim Paw has pulled himself from VP consideration…

PA Guy on June 24, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Very interesting. I almost went with Jindal. He’s an impressive guy. I like his demonstrated principles. I went with Paul Ryan, because I would like to see him groomed for the 2020 presidency (inasmuch as Romney will clearly serve for two terms, barring some sort of medical tragedy). Paul Ryan has the Right (conservative) Stuff, and he has a spine. It was a tough pick, though. I really admire Allen West, too.

Also interesting is the fact that Chris Christy fared so poorly. Somebody needs to break the news gently to Ann Coulter. (What the hell happened to that woman — too much Redeye? — all the coolness of sharing the set with so many cool dudes went to her head? I don’t know. But I haven’t read her weekly column in months.)

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I went with Paul Ryan, because I would like to see him groomed for the 2020 presidency (inasmuch as Romney will clearly serve for two terms, barring some sort of medical tragedy). Paul Ryan has the Right (conservative) Stuff, and he has a spine.

Really??? So you’re cool with Ryan’s voting for TARP, the auto/union bailouts, confiscating CEO bonuses, Medicare Part D, and increased spending? None of those are conservative.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Condoleeza Rice? Really? Seriously people. What does she bring to the table that is so far over and above the other choices? Being black and a woman? I don’t think those are the utmost qualifications for VP but hey, that’s only my opinion. I have to be honest, I’ve never been all that impressed with her.

kg598301 on June 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Really??? So you’re cool with Ryan’s voting for TARP, the auto/union bailouts, confiscating CEO bonuses, Medicare Part D, and increased spending? None of those are conservative.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I think that Ryan explains himself well enough re “your” criticisms (which seem rather pre-packaged, to me).

What I like about Ryan, in regard to your critique, is that he admits to his mistakes. There are complexities to these issues, you know. There are damned-if-you-do/damed-if-you-don’t decisions that come up.

Paul Ryan is not perfect. But analysts that I look up to, like Mark Levin, give the man very high marks.

But I guess you know better, eh?

That said, would you like to touch on any of Ryan’s positive accomplishments? Or would that detract too much from your particular agenda?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-ryan-explains-his-votes-for-tarp-auto-bailouts-and-tax-on-aig-bonuses/

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Really??? So you’re cool with Ryan’s voting for TARP, the auto/union bailouts, confiscating CEO bonuses, Medicare Part D, and increased spending? None of those are conservative.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 7:58 PM

And while I’m thinking of it, what’s your rap on Jindal? Or is he adequately conservative for you?

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:30 PM

What I like about Ryan, in regard to your critique, is that he admits to his mistakes. There are complexities to these issues, you know. There are damned-if-you-do/damed-if-you-don’t decisions that come up.

Paul Ryan is not perfect. But analysts that I look up to, like Mark Levin, give the man very high marks.

minnesoter on June 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I’m familiar with Ryan’s Damascus conversion when the political winds shifted. It stinks just as much as his votes did.

That you look up to Levin says plenty, though.

As for Jindal, he isn’t Constitutionally eligible according to the 12th Amendment.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 9:21 PM

he isn’t Constitutionally eligible according to the 12th Amendment.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Man oh man you are wasting your money at Liberty Classroom -even if it is only 8 bucks a month.

Bradky on June 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5