But Trump forced Rush into an identity crisis. Rush might love Trump's style and method and the self-loving high he gets from witnessing the political success of that style and method. But the substance must be rock-hard conservatism. And Trump lost Rush by attacking Cruz the way he attacked Cruz. Trump said:
I don't think he has the right temperament. I don't think he's got the right judgment. You look at the way he's dealt with the Senate where he goes in there like a... You know, frankly, like a little bit of a maniac. You're never gonna get things done that way. You can't walk into the Senate and scream and call people liars and not be able to cajole and get along with people. He'll never get anything done, and that's the problem with Ted.Rush's response yesterday was, first, "Whoa... Doesn't that kind of describe the way Trump has been dealing with people he disagrees with?" But worse...
[T]his is no different than what the media would say about Ted Cruz. This is no different than what the Democrat Party would say. I mean, this is what the Republican establishment would say, for crying out loud. I mean, this is akin to saying, "I'm the guy who can cross the aisle and work with the other side."... He's essentially put on his John McCain hat here and is saying, "I'm Donald McCain, and I'm the guy that can cross the aisle and work with the other side. Ted Cruz can't."...Rush proceeds to observe that Trump's supporters really are not all that conservative and Trump's positions aren't that conservative. Trump attacked Cruz for opposing ethanol, and he took a shot at Antonin Scalia for bringing up the mismatch argument in the affirmative action case. These are "red flags" for conservatives.
Later, Rush said he knew that Trump had to fight Cruz for the nomination and that Trump was hitting back after Cruz had questioned his judgment — "Trump responded in kind, which is his MO." Rush denied that he was "in anybody's camp." He's "just telling you what's what, what I see, what I think" as "things happen day to day." But — sighing — he comes back to:
Folks, it's disappointing to hear Trump hit Cruz the same way that the Republican establishment hits Cruz and with the same things that the media hits Cruz and the Democrats do. You know, this is a big deal to me, this Republican belief that somehow the voters want a candidate who can compromise, who can make Washington work. I mean, I just get revolted at that.... Screw that....
Posts
65 comments:
Not working well with Senate colleagues us a huge plus for me.
Trump is a George Wallace Democrat, however, we have had eight years to see where a complete refusal to compromise leads. In the case of the Democrat's and Obama, it has led to the almost complete destruction of his party.
It is a mistake to think about Trump as a conservative. What he is, if anything, is a nationalist. He's not hiding this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. One of the most refreshing things about him is that he actually likes America and wants us to be great. He won't be bowing to any Kings in the Middle East or Socialist Presidente's in Europe. If he's elected, he's going to make conservatives and liberals alike tear their hair out.
He is right on immigration which, unexpectedly, seems to resonate.
"But Trump forced Rush into an identity crisis. Rush might love Trump's style and method and the self-loving high he gets from witnessing the political success of that style and method. But the substance must be rock-hard conservatism."
A substance-free populist will do that to a man. Trump will do and say anything. He has that in common with another candidate, what's her name. Of course, righties will like much of what he says. But any thinking person is bound to have an "identity crisis" if s/he identifies with Trump. Only Trump can identify with Trump and keep his sanity. I invite Rush to think deeply about what "the political success of that style and method" really means to him.
If the Republican nominee is a hard core conservative to Rush's liking they will lose the general election. If conservatives stay home on election day because the nominee is not conservative enough on their core issue Shrillary will win. Thus far in this election season it looks like the nomination is not under the control of the GOPe, so let's not mess up by repeating past mistakes.
The word Rush is looking for is "pragmatic" and how to beat Hillary Clinton. Commonality brings in conservative democrats and republicans.
The Trump attack on Scalia ought to have been the last straw for any real conservative. (Forget the "Republican" part, if you are one of those determined independents who hate all the parties all the time.) My last straw with Trump was about a dozen straws ago.
I gather that Trump has been retreating from his attack on Scalia. I saw somewhere where he was blathering on about which Justices he "liked," and Trump went on to say some nice things about Justice Thomas, and included Scalia, without once eveer dealing with the substance of the issue, which Trump simply booted.
Breitbart -- Breitbart! -- knew it was a Trump "gaffe" but tried to get around it by suggesting that Jake Tapper should have set it up as an easier question for Trump. The bottom line is that Trump wasn't intellectually prepared for the issue. He was just regurgitating whatever he had heard from the liberal media.
Here's Breitbart (and this is the BEST spin that Trump could hope for!):
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/13/how-jake-tapper-tricked-donald-trump-on-scalia/
Arghh! The dread grocer's apostrophe!
This is an absolute watershed event and it favors Cruz. Big time.
Holding My Nose said...
If the Republican nominee is a hard core conservative to Rush's liking they will lose the general election. If conservatives stay home on election day because the nominee is not conservative enough on their core issue Shrillary will win.
I don't know about that. Reagan was a hard core conservative and he won big twice. A big part of his tally came from "Reagan Democrats" who crossed over to vote for him. A lot of these were blue collar working people who saw how the Democrats no longer represented them. That can happen again.
More recently, we've had Bush '41 lose in reelection, Bob Dole lost in '96, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. We've tried squish several times. Perhaps it's time to try conservative again. You know the cliché about doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.
This is what has bothered me about Trump. He is always talking about his ability to make deals, he's a deal maker, he's going to make such great deals you won't believe it.
I have to ask myself, Deals? What deals? With who?
If you're a conservative, who in Washington do you want to make a deal with right now?
You know who else is a great deal maker? The devil.
Rush proceeds to observe that Trump's supporters really are not all that conservative and Trump's positions aren't that conservative.
What a keen observation. Too bad it only took Rush 6 months to realize it. What would President Trump's first policy initiative be? Single payer health care?
Trump was attacking on the basis of political correctness, which is what Trump ought to be against. That's a mistake by Trump.
Rush just called him on it.
Rush (and those who follow Rush's lead like Mark Levin) have made a million excuses for Trump. Rush brushed aside all signs Trump was not close to a conservative because he enjoyed the way Trump tweaked the establishment and tore down establishment candidates. The fact that Trump acts a lot like a vain talk show host couldn't have hurt either. But now that Trump turns his patented character destroying techniques on Ted Cruz, Rush discovers that Trump is (*gasp*) not very conservative.
The media has later destroyed many Republican candidates it previously built up. I'm looking at you, John McCain. Can Rush do the same now, or is the Franken-Rush monster going to destroy everything Rush loved as Trump rampages across the countryside?
A few observations:
1) Is Rush just now starting to notice that Trump's positions aren't all that conservative? Has he been paying any attention, or just seeing it as "the Left hates this guy, so I must love him"?
2) Forget this "I can be loved by my opponents" crap. The real question is "can I get anything done that I say I want to get done". Maybe that means getting a deal with your opponents, maybe that means changing public perception so that public pressure will get your opponents to your side. And maybe--shudder--I can get things done with some quasi-legal executive overreach (the same thing most of us didn't like when Obama did it, and Hillary promises to do it).
3) What is it about the GOP that everything turns into a circular firing squad? The Dems will have to do no oppo research, they can just repeat attacks made by other Republicans. The nominee next summer will be so bruised with negatives it could be a hole no one can crawl out of. I can't remember the Dems ever getting so nasty with each other (even with Hillary's birther stuff, or Gore starting the Willie Horton attacks). Maybe this "toughens" the nominee, but also maybe it hobbles him.
"Trump is a George Wallace Democrat..." Hahaha. I like that. Although George Wallace actually won the 1972 Michigan primary (with divided opposition; Humphrey was still in it then, with McGovern dividing the antiwar/left wing vote). Wallace won a plurality. And of course as a national candidate, he might have lost the electoral vote exactly the way McGovern did.
Pass the popcorn, this schizophrenic Republican race just gets more entertaining by the day. Republicans are in a circular firing squad and it's anyone's guess who will remain standing. Rush Limbaugh tells conservatives what to think, now we shall see if he has sway over Trump supporters. Without Rush telling them daily how great Trump is, it will get very interesting. I'd love to see If Trump has the balls to attack Limbaugh. What a drama!
"Not working well with Senate colleagues us a huge plus for me."
To me it all depends on "how". If you don't work well with them because you stand on principle or think they're making a big mistake, that's one thing. If you don't work well with them because you care more about personal fundraising than getting anything done, that's another. I don't know which category Cruz fits into but his detractors say the latter and his supporters say the former.
What's more important though is a president is going to have to have some working relationship with Congress if they're going to get anything done. Otherwise, you're better off explaining why gridlock is a feature and not a bug, or explaining how you'll get them to work with you.
For as far back as I can remember (which is pretty far) the Washington game has been simple: liberal Democrats demand the sun, the moon, and the stars. Republicans compromise, and when they go home they tell the voters that only their hard-nosed bargaining stopped the Democrats from getting everything and, besides, you don't really need sunlight or moonlight do you? Can't you read by starlight just as well?
We need someone who can say "No" when it's right to say no.
In the end, I think Cruz is the more electable anti-establishment candidate. I'm hoping he will get the nomination and that it will be acceptable to The Donald.
But I don't want the Trump phenomenon to end too soon. He is damaging many who need to be damaged...media, PC Police, Clinton, Obama...
Yes, because we have so many recent examples of a hard core conservative making it past the primaries. So we know how they'll fare in the general.
Oh, wait. The last time that happened was in 1980/1984 and it led to a 49 state landslide. Never mind.
Napoleonic tactics blast away with the Cannon at hand. Cruz had baiting The Donald at his secret meeting of rich supporters when Cruz deliberately slandered Trump saying Trump could not be trusted with nuclear forces. That was pure LBJ v. Goldwater BS. Rush chooses to ignore that and pander to a big segment of his audience who think of themselves as Teetotal Pure Conservatives.
But if Cruz is so principled a Texas Conservative that he is The Saint in Rush's purity test, then Cruz had better get a divorce.
Rush to judgement
OK, so Rush discovers Trump isn't conservative. But everyone still seems to assume that Trump's supporters, at least as measured by polls so far, are too ignorant to realize he isn't "conservative." It seems more plausible to assume they realize he isn't conservative and still support him, because, gasp, they themselves are not "conservative." How long before Rush discovers that Trump supporters, maybe even many of his listeners, maybe even he himself, are not "conservative"? Trump is tapping into a portion of the electorate that wants security, in the form of a strong leader who will defend the country, limit immigration, and "tell it like it is," but will not upset the security of the welfare state safety net.
Althouse: "But Trump forced Rush into an identity crisis. Rush might love Trump's style and method and the self-loving high he gets from witnessing the political success of that style and method. But the substance must be rock-hard conservatism."
Sounds self-refuting.
Rush understands precisely who he is.
Rush understands and appreciates "The Donald" using similar tactical methods in staking out positions and engaging larger media.
Rush doesn't approve of those candidates who deviate from his strategic (Rush) principles.
How is that an "identify crisis" again?
RadioE (the talk radio establishment) is not about what is best for the nation. Given its explicit support for Trump since he announced his candidacy, RadioE obviously not constrained by conservative principles either.
RadioE is about the entertainment business. Clicks and ratings are its measure of success. Clicks and ratings are fueled by spectacle, not ideological consistency. Limbaugh and his ilk endlessly talked down Mitt Romney (a man whose conservative bona fides eclipse Trump in every way) . RadioE's low information 'conservatives' responded by electing Barack Obama by omission. You reap what you sow.
I don't listen to RadioE anymore. They bring no value.
Blogger Chuck said...
"Trump is a George Wallace Democrat..." Hahaha. I like that. Although George Wallace actually won the 1972 Michigan primary (with divided opposition; Humphrey was still in it then, with McGovern dividing the antiwar/left wing vote). Wallace won a plurality. And of course as a national candidate, he might have lost the electoral vote exactly the way McGovern did.
Wallace was also one of the more successful national 3rd party candidates in our history. Perot beat him on popular vote (19% to 13%) but Wallces did carry 5 states and 46 electoral votes where Perot got none.
John Henry
Republicans are in a circular firing squad and it's anyone's guess who will remain standing
Meanwhile Democrats line up like good soldiers behind Hillary the war mongerer, the face that launched a thousand refugee ships out of Libya and Syria. I will take entertaining over a joyless march to personal power by an elderly, clueless, and confused harridan any day of the week.
Gasp! You mean Trump is a RINO?
If by RINO you mean, someone who favors crony capitalism, is completely self-serving and whose politics are liberal.
(I still like how he freaks our democrats, but seriously, this guy isn't conservative or libertarian.)
I was disappointed not to see an Althousplaining of Scalia's oral sniped.
"How is that an "identify crisis" again?"
Rush was having a grand time, riding high on the feeling that he IS Trump. He was enjoying the psychological state we call identification.
But when Trump was too obvious about his lack of conservative substance, Rush had to confront the problem with the identification. I am -- for humorous effect -- using the phrase "identity crisis" to refer to that.
Sorry to use the sledgehammer, but you asked for it.
Qwinn said...
Yes, because we have so many recent examples of a hard core conservative making it past the primaries. So we know how they'll fare in the general.
Oh, wait. The last time that happened was in 1980/1984 and it led to a 49 state landslide. Never mind.
Yes, because to the GOPe, nothing succeeds like failure. They keep losing elections - with no consequences to themselves, of course - and insist they know how to win. Meanwhile, they ignore the biggest successes they've had in 40 years. Perhaps that's understandable - they hated Reagan, too.
It has to be a rush for Rush to see the ideas that he and Trump no doubt discussed as golfing buddies in Palm Beach playing out so well.
Mongerer? Is that like irregardless?
There is more to this move than people are seeing here.
Trump is making his move back to the middle. So far I have liked all of Trumps actual written policy positions. This is an entirely substance free attack.
Most of Trumps supporters have likely never voted in a republican primary. There could possibly be 51 decent human beings in the senate. I don't think there are but trump is signaling to the electorate that he isthe adult in the room with this one.
From my point of view I hate this move. But i can see where he is going.
Without a secure border and respect for rule of law, absolutely no other issue matters. Without that solved, no other issue is solvable.
Get your priorities right, "conservatives".
Bandage the wound before you worry about what pants to wear over it. Trump is right on the most vital issues, and he was brave enough to push hard for it.
Wait until Trump attacks Cruz for being a Canadian.
Althouse: "Rush was having a grand time, riding high on the feeling that he IS Trump. He was enjoying the psychological state we call identification."
I simply do not accept this premise.
Therefore your "sledgehammer" remark strikes me as a bit overwrought.
Sorry to use a skewer, but you were sort of asking for it.
In a good way.....
Rush got the message from the Establishment that he better promote the ineligible Cruz, and herd the cattle, as they are getting unruly.
The US State Dept. has doubts that Cruz s eligible (7 FAM 1131.6-2).
Wong Kim Ark explicitly says Cruz is NATURALIZED.
Afroyim v. Rusk says Cruz is NATURALIZED.
But the supposed Constitutional "law prof"? Crickets...
Afraid of the "birther" label "law prof"?
Cruz has a slightly better chance than Trump of winning the general election because he at least shows some discipline and will likely stay on message. It's hard to imagine Cruz winning over (or even trying to win over) anyone who isn't already very conservative. Barring some crazy implosion for Hillary, I don't see Cruz winning swing states.
One way Trump's run could help Cruz get the nomination is Cruz is no longer seen as "fringe". So long as there's a guy out there willing to insult everyone, trollbait people all over the political spectrum, and just be weird, Cruz will look positively mainstream.
That'll break once the general election gets under way. While the GOP is having this melee the Dems are collecting their money and lining things up. Six months from now will be ugliness not seen in a long time.
I have been listening to Rush, off and on, in snatches, for about 25 years. When I'm in the car he is the most interesting show on the radio at that time.
Yes, he is a showman. He has said that himself many, many times. But for all of his bombast he doesn't engage in personal, ad hominem attacks. In fact he quickly dismisses callers who go in that direction. I believe it was Trump's personal attacks rather than ideology that caused Rush to withdraw his support. The Cruz thing was just the last straw.
Word of caution. If Teetotal Pure Conservatives dismiss Trump, then how will
they handle Trump winning...and he is winning.
Do they form a Self Pity Party and agree with Pope Rush for eight years
that they wiz cheated by a conspiracy?
Tim in Vermont: Rush plays rather seriously at Pine Tree, in Boynton Beach. I think he sometimes plays at Seminole, in Juno Beach. (I'm pretty sure he is not a member at Seminole but if I am wrong, I'd be very interested to know about it.) Trump plays at Trump International, Mar A Largo and less frequently Trump National Doral. I honestly don't think they've ever played much golf together.
...belief that somehow the voters want a candidate who can compromise
That's what I don't like about the Tea Party Republicans. They are anarchists. Cruz is one of them.
Bzzzt... Next slide...
John; about the George Wallace/Donald Trump comparison...
Yeah, I think it is apt. I expect that Trump as the Republican nominee could win maybe five states too. Like Wallace.
I'm curious about Trumpster complaints that Republicans have turned into a circular firing squad.
Who else but Trump has done more to attack his fellow candidates personally; to utilize the ad hominem attack, and to call into question (on a national basis) the general competence of Republicans?
Trump is doing great work by making it safe to trash the PC world and expose the media as DNC house organs. He won't be the nominee but even if he is and even if he wins he will still probably have to deal with a Republican Congress that won't be inclined to raise taxes or undertake any new social spending initiatives while he gets a free hand to deal with illegal aliens and the spending on them. Trump doesn't need to be conservative, all he has to be is a centrist and the country will still be infinitely better off with him in the White House as opposed to Hillary Clinton. 2016: Trump for the White House and Hillary for the Big House.
The Democrats hate Cruz. The GOP Establishment hates Cruz. The media hates Cruz. Smug leftists hate Cruz. Academia hates Cruz. Hollywood hates Cruz.
What's not to like? Sign me up!
I would much rather have a "do nothing" Congress than the activist Congress we had in 2009-2010.
Shut 'er down, I say; shut it all down except for Constitutionally-required--required--functions. And none of this "general welfare" crap, neither.
This is just Trump's pivot to elevate Cruz. Then he runs as a turd (in the punch bowl) party candidate to grease the Hitlary victory. By having Cruz as the repug face during the general, it will turn the millennials into democrats for life.
Mission (almost) Accomplished!
I agree with David Begley. I also predicted this, but only in my head (didn't say it out loud or record it anywhere,)
I have listened to Rush a couple of times in recent weeks and noted his approving comments about Trump, but also noticed an undercurrent of positivity toward Cruz. I guessed that:
1. Cruz is Rush's candidate
2. Rush has been playing along with the strategy that Cruz's campaign has been using, to play nice with Trump and be positioned to pick up Trump's supporters at the end of the day
3. Rush approves of Trump's style but not substance, and at some point Rush would start commenting on this (perhaps with negativ consequences for Trump.)
I think Tank nails it above:
It is a mistake to think about Trump as a conservative. What he is, if anything, is a nationalist.
Has Trump ever self-identified as a Conservative? I doubt it. Why would he -- he's a rapacious businessman who made millions in NYC, dealing, probably, with a Democrat power structure at every political level.
No, Trump is not a Conservative. However, he has seized on two issues: (1) illegal immigration and (2) Radical Islam, where it appears, both policy-wise and political, that the Conservative position is the better one. So, he is running with the ball downfield on these two issues, and it remains to be seen if anyone on the GOP side can stop him.
The thought now is that Trump can't win the General, and can only screw up the GOP primary.
If Trump ever starts topping Hillary in the face to face General election polling, though, you will see a sea-change on how the media and the Left covers him.
As for me, if Trump wins the primary, I will definitely vote for him in the General. However, I'm leaning Rubio or Cruz in the primary -- for mostly tactical reasons.
"Rush proceeds to observe that Trump's supporters really are not all that conservative and Trump's positions aren't that conservative."
Trump's remarkable discovery is that there are a lot of Americans who would like to excise Washington DC from the North American continent and isolate it under a dome down in Antarctica, where scientists could thaw it out bit by bit and figure out what went wrong. It is not all that surprising that a lot of those people are not particularly conservative. The treacherous, lying vermin in Washington hate Americans' guts. A lot of us hate theirs right back.
Mick - I'd like to think that Professor Althouse would have zero tolerance for Birtherism on her blog.
I don't care if it is Obama-birtherism or McCain-birtherism, or George Romney-birtherism, or even Barry Goldwater-birtherism. It is all garbage. Obama-birtherism is almost certainly the worst of it.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to a natural/native-born American mother. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone to American parents. His father being U.S. Navy Captain at the time.
Brando said...
Cruz has a slightly better chance than Trump of winning the general election because he at least shows some discipline and will likely stay on message. It's hard to imagine Cruz winning over (or even trying to win over) anyone who isn't already very conservative. Barring some crazy implosion for Hillary, I don't see Cruz winning swing states.
It's a fair point. And we should absolutely be concerned about winning swing states. I think Marco Rubio could win one critical swing state (Florida) and John Kasich could win another critical swing state (Ohio). And how much better would that be, than four years of the Hillary Clinton/Cory Booker administration?
Would conservative/Republican/Tea Party voters stay home, because they were dissatisfied with details on immigration policy? Because apart from immigration, I am unconvinced that Donald Trump is more reliably "small government" on any other issues.
Rush also said, in response to a caller who said that he wouldn't vote for Trump, that there was a problem with the mindset in the GOP for slamming the frontrunner at any given time (currently Trump). I'm not a Trump supporter, btw. But Rush reports & explains acceptable GOP candidates & regularly honorable people because he's an entertainer (admittedly) & that's the top news of the day. He's also gone out of his way to indicate that he's not been a supporter of Trump & has actually hinted at being a supporter of Cruz. So, while I agree with most of the blogger's analysis, It's not that "Rush pulls support from Trump" (paraphrased, of course). It's that he's simply expressing outrage at Trump's mistakes. I was indeed expecting a reaction from Rush with Trump's massive miscalculations.
"It's a fair point. And we should absolutely be concerned about winning swing states. I think Marco Rubio could win one critical swing state (Florida) and John Kasich could win another critical swing state (Ohio). And how much better would that be, than four years of the Hillary Clinton/Cory Booker administration?"
It would almost have to be better. Obama has appointed a lot of judges, two justices, and a lot of commissioners of various agencies (EEOC, etc.). Even four years of Hillary would mean a lot more appointments of similar political bent--and Scalia and Kennedy are getting on in years. Not to mention Hillary is the rare case of an incredibly corrupt and incredibly incompetent person who has no problem abusing power. Even if Rubio or Kasich accomplished nothing, it would be better than that.
"Would conservative/Republican/Tea Party voters stay home, because they were dissatisfied with details on immigration policy? Because apart from immigration, I am unconvinced that Donald Trump is more reliably "small government" on any other issues."
For all their threats, I have a hard time believing any conservative would stay home rather than vote for a slightly right-of-center Republican over a far more liberal Democrat. Even the most "squishy" GOP candidate on immigration is far less likely to do damage than Hillary, who has actually promised to use her executive powers far more than Obama has in this area.
Everyone wants their preferred candidate, I understand that--but when all the nominating is over, I think most people are going to gravitate towards their party's choice. The one caveat is if moderate Republicans see the GOP nominee as so far to the right as to identify more with the Democrats, some of them might cross over. But I think even those numbers wouldn't be great.
Blogger Chuck said...
"Mick - I'd like to think that Professor Althouse would have zero tolerance for Birtherism on her blog.
... It is all garbage. Obama-birtherism is almost certainly the worst of it."
The Hell it is. I don't doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but it's fairly unlikely that his father was some Kenyan named Obama. Look up Frank Marshall Davis.
Blogger Chuck said..
"Would conservative/Republican/Tea Party voters stay home, because they were dissatisfied with details on immigration policy? Because apart from immigration, I am unconvinced that Donald Trump is more reliably "small government" on any other issues."
As Ann Coulter never tires of pointing out, if you get immigration wrong, it doesn't matter what you get right. Because immigrants vote Democrat. So, it really doesn't matter how "reliable" the Republican candidate may be, unless you're planning on making a signature loan.
Rush uses Trump (like all media types) for Rating$$$$. He's now hoping Trump will mention his name in a speech to help sell more Snapple.
For all their threats, I have a hard time believing any conservative would stay home rather than vote for a slightly right-of-center Republican over a far more liberal Democrat. Even the most "squishy" GOP candidate on immigration is far less likely to do damage than Hillary, who has actually promised to use her executive powers far more than Obama has in this area.
True.
But I DO believe the Establishment would do so.
Another reason I loathe them.
By having Cruz as the repug face during the general, it will turn the millennials into democrats for life.
Because "easily confused grandma with a significant ethics problem" is what the millenials want.
Hell, if they want that, fuck em. Let Hillary ruin the country.
The fat King of the pubes spoke-the lemmings should follow but will they-tough choice-go with someone, who is so fat he can't see his dick standing up and they have been in love with for years or their new boyfriend.
Want a dilemma for the old fat white male in flyover country.
Apparently, he didn't.
Blogger Chuck said...
Mick - I'd like to think that Professor Althouse would have zero tolerance for Birtherism on her blog.
Come off your high horse, Chuck. What mick and I have been discussing re Cruz is hardly "birtherism" There is no question about cruz' birth.
Here are some facts:
1) Cruz was born outside of the US
2) since he was born outside of the US, any citizenship he has is statutory rather than Constitutional.
3) his mother was a US citizen and met residency requirements etc. Thus Cruz is a US Citizen at birth. Because of the law in effect at the time, not because of the Constitution.
I am pretty sure that Mick agrees with the above but can take exception if he likes.
What about you? Anything you disagree with above?
the question that Mick, and I and lots of others raise is not about Cruz'' birth. It is about the meaning of the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". Does that mean citizen at birth, like Cruz or born in the USA like Paul?
Lots of discussion about this over the centuries and no clear resolution. For every citation you come up with saying that Cruz is Natural Born, I can probably come up with 2 that he is not. And vice versa.
You don't know and neither do I. Nor will anyone until the Supreme Court rules on this, which I do not see happening. I wish they would.
Another fact that I think you will agree with is that we have never has a president born outside of the US or what became the US. Until McCain, we had never even had a candidate born outside of the US. (Notwithstanding vague rumors about Arthur.)
A couple hundred years of precedent and tradition seems like it should disqualify Cruz on moral grounds, if not on legal/constitutional grounds.
John Henry
One more thing since you mentioned Goldwater:
The 14th Amendment begins
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.
Note that it says in the United States, not in one of the states. Birth in a territory constitutes birth in the United States. Thus Goldwater had Constitutional, not statutory citizenship. Goldwater was a natural born citizen the same as someone born in Wisconsin or Puerto Rico.
John Henry
Post a Comment