Iowa’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is … Ted Cruz?

posted at 11:21 am on August 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

So Cruz 2016 is really a thing, huh? As a great man once said, “Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast.”

You can, if you like, dismiss the Cruz boomlet as little more than a couple of well-received speaking engagements at social-conservative forums, but that’s Santorum’s bread and butter too and he did okay in the caucuses last time.

There are no polls showing Ted Cruz leading the 2016 Republican presidential field in the Iowa. A PPP survey last month found Cruz in sixth place in the state, behind Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio. But after a particularly well-received appearance at a conservative event in Ames, Iowa over the weekend, there seems little doubt that Cruz, who has been in the U.S. Senate all of eight months, is zooming toward the front of the GOP pack in the nation’s first-voting state…

“Although they both received a warm reception from the Christian conservative audience, Cruz clearly bested Santorum in terms of enthusiasm, excitement, and anticipation of a 2016 presidential run,” said Jamie Johnson, a GOP state committeeman and a strong Santorum backer in 2012.

“While [Santorum] delivered a good speech, he was upstaged by Cruz, who from everything I’ve seen has become the great conservative hope for Iowa conservatives,” said Craig Robinson, founder and editor of the influential Iowa Republican blog. “You could sense the crowd’s anticipation before Cruz spoke. The energy in the room as he spoke was unmatched by any other speaker that day.”

The last time Cruz was there, in late July, Byron York wondered if the simmering Cruzmania he sensed was in part a function of conservative dissatisfaction with the field. Any anecdotal evidence to support that theory? Perhaps:

Bob Vander Plaats, a top evangelical leader in Iowa, says that Marco Rubio’s decision to team up with moderates and liberals on immigration reform has likely hurt him in the Hawkeye State.

Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leader, which is sponsoring a political summit in Iowa today, explains that Rubio should have stayed apart from the Gang in the Senate and simply proposed his own legislation on immigration reform. “He’s on stage with [Chuck] Schumer, [John] McCain,” he says of what he thinks conservatives who championed Rubio against Charlie Crist are thinking. “It’s kind of like you can measure somebody by who they associate themselves with.”

Some in Iowa, he adds, are saying, “’2016’s out for Rubio, there’s no way.’”

Rubio’s doing his best to pander his way back into the hearts of social cons and fiscal cons, but if Cruz stays popular in Iowa, it’ll present him with a dilemma: Should he continue to tack hard right to atone for helping to sell immigration reform or should he actually tack towards the center and try to win in 2016 that way? Iowa’s going to be crowded on the right. You’ll have Cruz as the tea-party champion, Rand Paul as the great libertarian hope with a built-in base of his father’s supporters, and Santorum winning some not insignificant chunk of social conservatives. What’s left for Rubio in that? Better that he run towards the middle, where he might have the centrist vote more or less to himself (depending upon what Christie does, of course). Romney nearly won the caucuses that way last year, and after backing two guys in Huckabee and Santorum who didn’t win a major primary after winning the caucuses, Iowans who are on the fence might vote strategically for a guy who looks like he can go all the way. If they back another loser this time, the stories about how Iowa doesn’t matter much anymore will be even worse in 2020. And maybe that’ll push the RNC (and DNC) to finally revisit Iowa’s first-in-the-nation honors.

All of that’s good news for Cruz too, though. It’s easy to see him winning South Carolina if he wins in Iowa, so conservative caucusgoers could back him in confidence that they’re not wasting their vote. Paul is iffier on that count, and Santorum is really iffy. I think he’s more likely to play spoiler next time by drawing votes from some social-con rival like Cruz than he is to win. Yet another reason for Rubio to consider a run to the middle.

Exit question: We’re not really going to have to deal with Ted Cruz Birthers in 2016, are we? C’mon.


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

I usually don’t like to comment on such things, but look at the picture included with this article on Ted Cruz:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-ted-cruz-the-2016-gop-frontrunner-in-iowa-maybe./article/2534147

Could they have found a more unflattering image of Cruz? He looks menacing here and fatter than Newt Gingrich in this pic. I will say, though, that Cruz needs a better tailor.

Also, look how the word “patriot” is cropped to show only “RIOT VOTES.”
bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM

I want to add that I’m ready to make a prediction about the 2016 Republican national ticket. I correctly called the 2012 ticket far in advance as well. I also correctly predicted early in summer ’08 that McCain would pick Palin. Might just be luck, but I’m going to try it again:

The 2016 Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates will be…..

TED CRUZ
-and-
SUSANA MARTINEZ

Yep, CRUZ – MARTINEZ 2016

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 12:40 AM

bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM

I want to add that I’m ready to make a prediction about the 2016 Republican national ticket. I correctly called the 2012 ticket far in advance as well. I also correctly predicted early in summer ’08 that McCain would pick Palin. Might just be luck, but I’m going to try it again:

The 2016 Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates will be…..

TED CRUZ
-and-
SUSANA MARTINEZ

Yep, CRUZ – MARTINEZ 2016

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 12:40 AM

…rogerb!

KOOLAID2 on August 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM

KOOLAID2 on August 13, 2013 at 12:31 AM

Glad to see that the ‘gill finally came to her senses/

bluefox on August 13, 2013 at 12:55 AM

The energy in the room as he spoke was unmatched by any other speaker that day.”

So reminiscent of that glorious day for feminists when newly selected VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro observed that “there is electricity in the air.”
Let’s hope this man goes much further than she, even if it’s just to “fundamentally transform” the GOP, which badly needs such an overhaul at the top.

Geraldine once stated the few honest words ever spoken by a progressive; in the Hillary/Obama scrap when the Obama crowd was regularly practicing their race card game, she dared to utter the well understood fact that Obama wouldn’t be where he is if it wasn’t for the color of his skin.

Don L on August 13, 2013 at 2:21 AM

“Might have the centrist vote.” Baahaahaaa! Breath! Baahaahaaa!

Yes please!

conservativeBC on August 13, 2013 at 2:45 AM

There is not “centrist vote” you dipwadd!

There is the left, the right and the uninterested – when they become interested, they are either left or right…

That is what McCain and Romney did – reached out to the middle and found thin air.

I don’t know why that is so hard for you RINOs to grasp?

conservativeBC on August 13, 2013 at 2:50 AM

One little problemo with TC. He is not a natural born citizen, so he is ineligible to become POTUS.

soghornetgunner on August 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM

I like Demint on most policy, except he does come across as a bit of a get-along, squishy demur kind of guy.

He’s not running for elected office again anyway. He’s got his pre-retirement gig going now at Heritage.

PappyD61 on August 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM

One little problemo with TC. He is not a natural born citizen, so he is ineligible to become POTUS.
soghornetgunner on August 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM

Quit with the stupid birtherism. Ted Cruz is 100% eligible to be president.

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 8:38 AM

From the wiki

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

Some additional reading and insight.

Additionally.

gilled one read these and you will understand exactly what the rub is for those that are curious as to whether Cruz is eligible.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

One little problemo with TC. He is not a natural born citizen, so he is ineligible to become POTUS.

soghornetgunner on August 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM

Just curious as to the reason for your comment and assertion.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Yep, your source confirms that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth and didn’t need to go through the naturalization process.

JUST SAY NO TO THE BIRTHERS!

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Did you actually read it? Did you read closely? If you did, tell me what the one word is that is problematic.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Its one simple word.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I don’t see anything problematic.

Ted Cruz is what America needs! And no stupid birtherism is going to stop us.

Cruz patrol all the way!

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Bmore, why are you humoring the birthers? I don’t get it.

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 10:13 AM

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I am not humoring anyone. I am simply presenting that which will ultimately come up. My own personal take is of no importance in the matter. I support Cruz. Do yourself a favor. Quit calling folks on the right who have Constitutional concerns bithers. It is largely a term of the left. Read. Tell me what the word is that presents a legitimate problem. The question is unresolved as it has never been completely flesh out and tried. Good thoughtful people can entertain these points without resulting in labeling and name calling. See this thread.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

flesh=fleshed

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Additionally read this take.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM

One little problemo with TC. He is not a natural born citizen, so he is ineligible to become POTUS.

soghornetgunner on August 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I am not humoring anyone. I am simply presenting that which will ultimately come up. My own personal take is of no importance in the matter. I support Cruz. Do yourself a favor. Quit calling folks on the right who have Constitutional concerns bithers. It is largely a term of the left. Read. Tell me what the word is that presents a legitimate problem. The question is unresolved as it has never been completely flesh out and tried. Good thoughtful people can entertain these points without resulting in labeling and name calling. See this thread.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Posted this last night:

I would love Ted Cruz to run for President.

(I like Jindal, Palin, Perry, any real conservative. I don’t include Rubio any more as a real conservative. I liked him, but for some reason never trusted him enough to get on his bandwagon. Maybe its my 53 year old conservative instincts. I know a conservative when I see one. And being from NJ, don’t get me started on Christie. No way!)

It is my understanding that the reason for the whole Obama birther issue is that if he was not born in the USA and his father was an alien, then his mother (according to the law) would have to be 19 years of age or older to transfer natural born citizenship to her son. Obama’s mother was 18 years and 8 months at the time of his birth. She was not 19. So that is why Obama could not have been a natural born citizen if he was born in Kenya.

Cruz’s mother was well over the age of 19 at the time of his birth. She was in her 30′s. So Cruz would not have to have been born in the USA in order for her to transfer natural born citizenship to her son.

So Ted Cruz would be eligible to run for President.

Elisa on August 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Nice point. Nice to see some serious thoughtful analysis of that which will certainly come up. ; )

From my first link in the 9:51 comment.

UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM

PS.

Assuming Obama was born in Kenya, I am not totally convinced that he was eligible to run for President, since all his records, including college records were sealed. (Very unusual and unprecedented.)

His step-father changed Obama’s citizenship to Indonesian. But Obama was under 18 and it wouldn’t count as renouncing his citizenship.

However, if Obama went to college here as a foreign student, maybe to get scholarship money, then he would have been renouncing his US citizenship after the age of 18.

Who knows! Since no one has seen the records, no one can be 100% sure. But that ship has sailed.

Ted Cruz, however, is eligible to run for President.

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Very interesting link.

I would think that whatever the Natural Law is or what the English Law or early American law was would not take precedence over what current law at the time of Cruz’s birth would be. No?

The law at that time said “parent” and did not distinguish between mother or father, or be mother only under certain circumstances.

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html

VISA law at the time of Cruz’s birth:

Excerpt:

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM

parents, plural is the rub.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

At some point I hope to see Cruz weigh in on this very question. He is after all considered an expert.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM

At some point I hope to see Cruz weigh in on this very question. He is after all considered an expert.
Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I believe he already has answered briefly. Jonathan Karl interview, if I’m not mistaken. Was an edited thing. He was in Iowa in a hotel lobby or airport when asked.

I see what you’re saying, and I’ve read similar things. However, it seems that consensus is that natural born citizen just means someone who became a citizen at the time of their birth, as Cruz did, and it’s really not more complicated than that. Case closed.

The only people gleefully bringing this up in great numbers are Obama and Hillary fans.

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Might have been an interview with someone else, though. Can’t remember.

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 11:58 AM

bluegill on August 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Would be helpful if you could locate that interview. Contrary to what you say “Case closed” it is still wide open. No decision has ever been taken pertaining to President or VP directly by the Supreme Court.

Hilliary is whom you quote when using the term birther. It was the Clinton machine that popularized its use against 0 during the primaries.

Additionally there is no consensus.

The word parents is present in most all of the arguments I have ever read. subsequent reviews as well. Why does it not read parent?

I simply would like to have a decision on this at some point. The founders it is said left it vague. I am not sure that they in fact did.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,”


The article.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM

parents, plural is the rub.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

No, the law at the time that I quoted in my last post says “parent” – singular.

The constitution says “natural born citizen” and like bluegill has said, meaning a US citizen at the time of their birth, no naturalization process needed.

Whether someone needed to be naturalized or not in orderto be considered a natural born citizen may have changed since the constitution, but the fact that someone has to be a natural born citizen has not changed and can’t without and Act.

The laws at the time of Cruz’s birth make him a natural born citizen.

Also, while not binding legally, we should also look at the intent of the constitution that the framers had. Parental allegiance to a foreign (and perhaps enemy) country. There too Cruz would be eligible to run for president. Without question.

The framers would say he is elibible both by the law at the time of his birth making him a natural born citizen and by both his parents allegiance to the USA in their hearts and in their actions.

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Elisa, two questions if I may. Is Constitutional law your area of expertise? Second, your thoughts on the conversation from this thread. Specifically the exchanges between RWM, ITGuy and Basilsbest.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Correction:

I meant to say without an Ammendment, not Act

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM

No, I am in no way an expert on this. And if anyone who is an expert can show where I am wrong in my thinking, I am certainly open to it.

But from what I’ve read over the last year and a half on this, this is the conclusion I’ve come to.

I won’t be able to read that thread until late tonight and comment here further till then.

But I will. Nice talking to you. Have a good day. God bless.

Elisa on August 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM

You as well Elisa. ; )

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Elisa. If you have the chance this thread ended up being quite informative as well.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Second, your thoughts on the conversation from this thread. Specifically the exchanges between RWM, ITGuy and Basilsbest.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Elisa. If you have the chance this thread ended up being quite informative as well.

Bmore on August 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM

2 very interesting threads. Thank you. I haven’t had much of a chance to read the comments on Hot Air the last few months because my daughter, then nephew, next son all are getting married within 9 months this summer. Very busy.

So thanks for the links.

I didn’t read anything to change my mind.

In fact, I learned some more from Resist We Much (and agree with him) and feel even more strongly that Cruz was a natural born citizen and he is eligible to run for President.

Elisa on August 14, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Elisa on August 14, 2013 at 1:27 AM

RWM is a female. ; ) Yes I learned quite a bit. Seems the plural or singular of the word parent is not important. Two types of citizen only. Still don’t know why this issue is so murky. I found this very helpful and have copied it off to use as a reference in the future.

In easy flow chart form:
STEP 1: Were you born in the territory of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 2
STEP 2: Were both your parents citizens of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You ARE a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 3
STEP 3: Was one of your parents a citizen of the US?
–if YES, go to STEP 4
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.
STEP 4: At the time of your birth, did this parent reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 16?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.
DaveO on August 13, 2013 at 9:09 PM

It was still very informative to see these topics discussed and sorted out. Apparently Lawyers still consider unsettled law, so I feel a little less ignorant anyway. ; )

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM

I agree with you.

And I love that flow chart.

Thanks for letting me know she is a woman. lol Sorry, RWM.

Nice talking with you. Have a good day. Thanks for the info.

Elisa on August 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4