A lot has changed since April, when Marco Rubio announced his presidential bid. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin was the top candidate of mainstream conservative activists and donors. Jeb Bush seemed like a fund-raising juggernaut with natural appeal to the party’s moderate voters, who play an underrated role in the Republican primary process. Mr. Rubio, a broadly appealing candidate but the top choice of few, looked boxed out.I said it back on June 10th:
Today, Mr. Rubio isn’t blocked. Instead, he has a big opening....
I originally embedded that clip in a post titled "The get-Rubio movement" — which called out the NYT:
We're seeing evidence of this movement this week with the NYT article "Marco Rubio’s Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles" and last week's "Marco Rubio and His Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions." These are ludicrously weak attacks. Rubio bought an $80,000 fishing boat (which the NYT called a "luxury speedboat") after he received an $800,000 and he chose to lease an Audi (a "luxury item") when he needed a car in 2015. And he's gotten 4 traffic tickets in 18 years. The main thing we learn from all that is that the NYT really wants to get him.So view the new article in that context.
Let me take you back to May 22, when the NYT had a piece titled: "A Hillary Clinton Match-Up With Marco Rubio Is a Scary Thought for Democrats."...
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
Rubio has a very low probability of success. As a member of the gang of twelve he is on the wrong side of the hottest issue in the campaign so far, immigration. Same problem for Bush. They are both unacceptable to a broad swathe of the base. The only mainstream candidate with even of small chance of threading this particular needle is Kasich, and he has plenty of problems of his own.
I'm torn on Rubio. He says a lot of smart things and is energetically putting out policy documents. But his new wisdom on immigration isn't very convincing: "I now know the people don't want immediate legalization" -- how quickly will he turn around, if elected, to a big "I have to do what I think is right"?
And Kasich? He's got the resume, admittedly, but he rubs me the wrong way. He just comes off as a [fill-in-the-blank].
When Bush drops out of the race (which may come soon if he sees a falloff in donations) that should provide Rubio the boost he needs to present himself as both an electable candidate and a conservative candidate, and he is both--with the nomination he would ruin Hillary's scheme of scaring Hispanics into backing her and winning over young voters.
People painting Rubio as a "moderate" are forgetting that he was elected as a Tea Party alternative to Charlie Crist, and his voting record is pretty solidly conservative. He has a better chance than any of the other candidates to unite the wings of his party, as he doesn't really scare moderates. Plus, he's a good speaker and would provide a refreshing contrast to Hillary's tired pandering and uninspiring style.
"But his new wisdom on immigration isn't very convincing: "I now know the people don't want immediate legalization" -- how quickly will he turn around, if elected, to a big "I have to do what I think is right"?"
Considering I don't trust any of the candidates to do anything unstupid on that issue, I see it as a wash. If anything, Rubio being once bitten on the issue might make him wiser than most.
I switched from Walker to Fiorina. Then when Russia made its Syrian moves I moved toward Rubio because he had Russia figured out.
I have a feeling that Russia is going to repeatedly trash the US. They attacked our allies in Syria and our White House genius doesn't seem to know it yet. Obama's "strategy" is to do everything by proxies and he wanted Russia to be his Mid-East proxy. Russia isn't inclined to be anyone's proxy and furthermore after seeing how Obama deserts his allies, no one will side with Obama or, unfortunately, us. That's the mess Obama is handing on, his legacy. So the best one on foreign policy is starting to seem like the one to win my vote.
he was elected as a Tea Party alternative to Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist was not a strong candidate in that race. If Rubio runs against Hillary!!, he can run against another weak, flawed candidate.
Rubio suffers from the inauthentic need problem. He is a boy who has been Speaker of the House in Florida and a short term Senator running for President from day one. He ain't experienced at anything except being a smooth tongued Hispanic pol.
Had Rubio not tried to sell out the country on immigration, he might be the front runner right now. He has three big problems. First, he is a Senator and associated with Washington. Second, his attempted sell out on immigration makes everything he says suspect. Third, after the disaster of Obama, I am not sure the country will go for another fast talking one term Senator.
We have had eight years of a narcissistic, feckless moron as President. The country and the world desperately needs a US President who stands for something and inspires respect and a little fear in our adversaries and trust in our allies. Does Rubio really have the kind of credibility and strength of personality to do that? I am not really sure. Frankly, Fiorina strikes me as more likely to have it than Rubio.
"He is a boy who has been Speaker of the House in Florida and a short term Senator running for President from day one. He ain't experienced at anything except being a smooth tongued Hispanic pol."
Clearly political experience isn't in much demand in the GOP race, or Kasich and Perry would be running away with it. Besides, speaker of the state house in the third largest state in the country is pretty relevant experience.
Against Hillary, he can make the same point Obama made when he beat her--experience helps only if it is good experience, and ideas are what the voters really care about.
For my part, I prefer at least some relevant experience, as a total novice won't be able to accomplish anything in Washington and would have to rely too much on other experienced people who may be bad news. But Rubio is a good bet against Hillary, perhaps the one most likely to beat her.
@John: Don't forget he would be running against Hillary!!! the very best definition of Washington DC insider. Association with DC cannot hurt a Republican in that context.
I admit though that the Republican Party will miss an opportunity if they nominate a DC'er.
@MadisonMan,
Other than Trump, I don' think Hillary could beat any of the GOP candidates. She is just a disaster. At this point, Biden is really the Democrats only and best hope for 2016. And when you remember how stupid Biden actually is and how horrible of a candidate he was the last time he ran for President, that is not good news. I think of Biden as the political equivalent of an NFl backup quarterback and Hillary as the incompetent starter. No one is more popular in a city whose NFL team has a terrible quarterback than the backup. Since he doesn't play, people forget how bad he is and that the starter, as bad as he is, is starting for a reason. Same dynamic is going on here; in their revulsion for Hillary, Democrats have forgotten how bad of a candidate Biden actually is.
"I admit though that the Republican Party will miss an opportunity if they nominate a DC'er."
Why is "Washington experience" such a bad thing? Shouldn't it matter more what exactly their Washington experience was? After all, in electing a president the whole point is to send them to Washington to do something.
If anything, Rubio's small amount of Washington experience--notably, not having any legislative victories under his belt, though in fairness no Senator has any to speak of for the past five years--should be a negative for him to overcome.
But it's true that in a head to head with Hillary he has a better chance to run as an outsider.
I wouldn't overestimate Hillary's weakness though--Dems will eventually rally around her, if only to stop the GOP, and they start the race with a number of electoral votes already in their column. The GOP cannot afford to take the race lightly.
Looks as though it's going to be Fiorina or Rubio. The fat cats who thought they'd buy this election by pumping up Jeb (and Hillary, over on the other side) have hopefully learned that in the end it's about votes.
"Today, Mr. Rubio isn’t blocked. Instead, he has a big opening...."
Colonic.
I am Laslo.
I'll happily take either Rubio for Fiorina. Better yest would be a combination of the two on the same ticket.
Jeb is the preferred Republican for the NYT. He cancels out many of Hillary's negatives. If Jeb (or Trump) is the choice, I will sit out a Presidential election for the first time in my life.
I really don't think any of the other candidates have a realistic chance. Carson is an interesting guy but I just don't see him as presidential material. Jindal is smart but his window of opportunity seems to be past. I liked Kasich years ago but my opinion of him hasn't aged well.
I too would be happy with either Rubio or Fiorina. My understanding is that a lot of the Florida money is sitting on the sidelines, or has been pledged to Bush, but would likely swing back in his direction. But, interestingly, I read an article this morning that suggested that Fiorina was the insider's outsider candidate, and that she shouldn't have problems raising insider money while maintaining her outsider status. At this point, probably my favorite two candidates on the Republican side, though I would be happy with a number of them (and, no, that doesn't include big govt. fundamentalist Gov. Huckleberry).
Why does no one on this board acknowledge Cruz as running? He is by far my favorite candidate, he's Rubio without the immigration mess, plus a few other good indicators.
Cruz or Rubio? What is a poor Cuban like me to do?
I don't know why Cruz is discounted. Love the guy, but Rubio and Fiorina just seem more Presidential. Cruz is probably the smartest one out on the stages when they debate, and that is a pretty high wattage crowd (esp. as contrasted to the Dems running). Maybe it is that Cruz doesn't have any softer edges, and both Rubio and Fiorina do, and that is probably important after the election, when the winner is supposed to represent all of us, and not just some of his own party.
Rubio is NOT eligible. He is not a natural born Citizen, since he was born to non citizen legal resident parents. NO president (other than those grandfathered in by "or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution".) has ever been born of 2 non US Citizen parents.
Rubio was NATURALIZED by 8 US Code 1401 (1), because of his parents' legal resident alien status. Their legal habitation made them "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, according to the holding of Wong Kim Ark, 1898 (@ pg. 693).
Even the state dept. doubts that those considered "statutory natural born Citizens" (naturalized by 8 US Code 1401) are natural born Citizens for "Constitutional purposes" (the only "constitutional purpose is eligibility for POTUS). See 7 FAM 1131.6-2 (d).
Of course this is what the "law prof" should be discussing, but she will avoid it it because it would put her out of favor with the intelligista that occupies the Ivory Tower of Academia. She might be called a (gasp) "birther"!
Here is the definition of natural born Citizen, taken directly from the Original Common Law of the US--- law of nations (see The Nereid), and held in Minor v. Happersett:
"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." 88 US 162, 167 (1875)
Cruz quite simply appeals only to a small fraction of the GOP electorate and thus could never win the general election. There's no secret population of extreme conservatives who will come out of the hills to vote if only the GOP nominated a "true conservative"--certainly not in numbers to make up for the moderates that would not only not vote for Cruz but might actually vote for the Democrat (thus costing the GOP two votes each, not one). He simply cannot win any voters that Mitt Romney didn't win.
Besides that, Cruz isn't really offering conservatives anything they don't already have in several other candidates. It's not as though we're looking at fifteen Rockefeller Republicans and one Goldwater here.
You're slipping there, "Mick", (see what I did there, Laslo - Slipping a Mick), but anyway, you're slipping,,, it took you almost 5 hours to respond to the email alert that someone somewhere was mentioning either Cruz or Rubio. The big "NC" batsignal went out that a latino was being "uppity" and reaching for the presidency.
So you grabbed your toolbox filled with the cut and paste clippings and your handy electrical "QUOTE" maker and you set off on your lonely journey to protect the American "citizens" from wayward "law profs" and other "non birthers".
As a Robert Plant fan, I am so glad you picked the wrong rock star for your silly rantings.
Yo Mick, between my Cubans or Hillary! who do you go with?
I think Mick will point out that Hillary was born in Illinois, and since Illinois was not one of the original states to ratify the Constitution she is not a natural born citizen and therefore reasons.
Brando said...
"I think Mick will point out that Hillary was born in Illinois, and since Illinois was not one of the original states to ratify the Constitution she is not a natural born citizen and therefore reasons".
cubanbob said...
"Yo Mick, between my Cubans or Hillary! who do you go with?"
OpenID republicanyankee said...
"You're slipping there, "Mick", (see what I did there, Laslo - Slipping a Mick), but anyway, you're slipping,,, it took you almost 5 hours to respond to the email alert that someone somewhere was mentioning either Cruz or Rubio. The big "NC" batsignal went out that a latino was being "uppity" and reaching for the presidency.
So you grabbed your toolbox filled with the cut and paste clippings and your handy electrical "QUOTE" maker and you set off on your lonely journey to protect the American "citizens" from wayward "law profs" and other "non birthers".
As a Robert Plant fan, I am so glad you picked the wrong rock star for your silly rantings".
There are only naturalized or natural born Citizens. Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal were NATURALIZED "after birth by any means whatsoever" (by 8 US Code 1401 itself--- after they were born-- not in the womb). They are not eligible
It's amazing how the "R Team " is the same as the "D Team" in the protection of their "players", even when their players are not constitutionally eligible.
I notice that none of you can disagree using a legal argument, only ad hominem. That's because you can't, and neither can the "law prof" (which is surely a misnomer).
I am right until you can prove me wrong.
Prove that Rubio and Cruz are not NATURALIZED, and are natural born Citizens.
Adherence to any political party is a mental disorder.
Brando said...
I think Mick will point out that Hillary was born in Illinois, and since Illinois was not one of the original states to ratify the Constitution she is not a natural born citizen and therefore reasons.
10/6/15, 3:16 PM :
Now that there is some fine analytical piece of thinking. You are probably right, that would be his response. Now put your Mick hat on and and divine for me if choosing between my Cubans or Bernard "The Communist" Sanders who would he choose?
Here is the definition of natural born Citizen, taken directly from the Original Common Law of the US--- law of nations (see The Nereid), and held in Minor v. Happersett:
"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." 88 US 162, 167 (1875)
You left out the part of the quote where "natural born citizen" is defined. I do not see where it says that in words. You mentioned some people who are in. Where is the part that describes who's out? Or who is on the bubble if any?
Frankly ISTR growing up that in Social Studies, they taught that you have to be born here, or possibly in certain specific extraterritorial situations, of two citizen parents. I was with you.
But what you're incessantly quoting isn't familiar from those lessons (could be me), and you're not offering anything else that helps (could be you). Would you have any more arrows in your quiver, Mick?
I do admit, it seems to me, Rubio's status is confusing and Cruz appears to be hardly a citizen let alone a NBC.
You know what, we seem to be losing the whole notion that there are in fact two kinds of citizens, NBC and (not). Perhaps next will be citizens and non-citizens. That's probably going to be helpful when it comes time to Let Everybody Vote!!!
You know, Mick, I do not hold with the mockery that some here offer you, but you really make no effort to reason, persuade or convince us. I don't think you're stupid or a nativist bigot - you gave McCain the same hell and for even less reason - but this issue overpowers your reason.
" As a member of the gang of twelve he is on the wrong side of the hottest issue in the campaign so far, immigration."
I am agreeing with ARM for the second time today. No first term Senators for me.
I like Carson although I have my doubts he can go all the way. Carly has better management of large organizations experience. The Dems will go after her on layoffs, like they did with Romney, but she has a good comeback. First, she is a chick, and second she can ask, "Who better to downsize government ?"
Nichevo said...
"You left out the part of the quote where "natural born citizen" is defined. I do not see where it says that in words. You mentioned some people who are in. Where is the part that describes who's out? Or who is on the bubble if any?"
HERE:
"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."
The "Common Law" is law of nations--- the ORIGINAL Common Law of the US. It specifically defines nbC the same exact way as the SCOTUS did in the only instance where defined nbC with precedence (it was a judicial determination essential to the determination of the case).
There are many other instances where the SCOTUS used the same definition in dicta (See The Venus and Wong Kim Ark). It has NEVER said by SCOTUS that simple birth in the country made one a natural born Citizen (your teacher was wrong).
I could go on with other proof, but NO ONE here can even disprove this one (including the "law prof").
Alexander P. Morse defined it exactly the same in "a Treatise on Citizenship" (See pg. vii and xi--- look it up-- the book is readable online)
Simple logic says that if the purpose of the requirement was to diminish the chance of foreign influence into the oval office, then it is impossible that the definition includes a child of foreign parentage. If simple birth in the US is all that is necessary then illegal aliens could have a baby in the US and that child is eligible to be POTUS--- could that be possible if the purpose of the requirement was to exclude foreign influence?
Read Federalist 68. What is a "creature of our own"? Is it one born of a foreigner?
What is an "improper ascendant" (Federalist 68)--- a foreign direct ancestor.
exclusion of foreign allegiance is as old as the bible. Why do you think the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years? To wash out all allegiance to Egypt of course! 40 years= 2 generations-- natural born Citizen-- 2 generations.
"thou shalt not have a king over thee who is not thy brother"-- Deuteronomy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा