(05-23-2011 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. That makes him a natural-born citizen.

No, it does not... It makes him a citizen but not a natural born citizen..

Quote:Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. -- Congressman John Bingham

Quote:Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" -- CRS 2009

Now with Obama there is legit dispute because his Mother was a citizen and no definition strictly says "both parents". But Rubio is not.

(05-23-2011 10:52 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Only dumbasses questioned Obama, who was born in the state of Hawaii to a natural born American mother.

At least Obama was born in one of the 50 states. McCain got in on a technicality.

I would say only dumbasses are automatically convinced one way or the other. Frankly its so close to me that it's practically "close enough"

McCain's technicality is that he was born to a military family... Why you hate our military families?

(05-23-2011 10:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" -- CRS 2009

Which makes Rubio a natural born citizen.

You're making this way, way harder than it is.

I'm guessing I've studied more con law than you have, and you've just got this one wrong.

(05-23-2011 10:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" -- CRS 2009

Which makes Rubio a natural born citizen.

You're making this way, way harder than it is.

I'm guessing I've studied more con law than you have, and you've just got this one wrong.

Fair enough, I'll take you up on that..

(05-23-2011 10:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:52 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Only dumbasses questioned Obama, who was born in the state of Hawaii to a natural born American mother.

At least Obama was born in one of the 50 states. McCain got in on a technicality.

I would say only dumbasses are automatically convinced one way or the other. Frankly its so close to me that it's practically "close enough"

McCain's technicality is that he was born to a military family... Why you hate our military families?

There is no dispute that Obama, McCain, or Rubio are natural born citizens. The only criteria are that they are born on US soil (Obama, Rubio.....you could say the base McCain was born on was US soil) or that at least one parent was a US citizen (Obama, McCain).

You're just making yourself look like a dumb*** arguing the point.

(05-23-2011 10:40 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:03 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  He ought to have a head start. He's been campaigning for 2012 since before he was inducted for the current term in '09.

Also, you should post a link when you cite a poll.

Sentence #1 is your opinion and it is not backed by fact.

As for sentence #2, is your Google broken?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FoxNewsPoll.pdf

Really? You're going to say something like that two posts down from "Nope, it's proof that Obama has such a big head start that even a right-wing outfit like Fox can't see him losing. If I had posted other mainstream sources, they would've immediately been attacked as "liberal media."

Sure, I guess I could just Google "Fox News Poll' and instantly be taken directly to the one you were talking about, considering it is probably the only poll they've ever conducted.

"It appears" means absolutely 100% fact, really. Show me where it says that the class of Natural Born Citizenship requires only 1 parent. What I have read is that there is no question that 2 parents and on soil is a NBC.

Quote:Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" -- CRS 2009

Why does he have a Connecticut SSN?

(05-22-2011 10:19 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Chances on the nomination, 5/22/11:

Pawlenty - 30%
Romney - 30%
Huntsman - 20%
Rest of the Field - 20%

Updated for 6/23/11, I'd put the current odds at:

Romney - 35%. Hasn't looked great, but no major gaffes or stumbles. All the "bad" news about him is stuff that we knew about already.
Pawlenty - 25%. He's given some strong, in-depth speeches on domestic issues (foreign policy speech coming up) and has some great web-ads. But comes across as weak on the trail and in the debates. When it's all said and done, he just seems to lack gravitas, and that counts for a lot with GOP primary voters.
Huntsman - 10%. For Republicans who think Obama has basically been a solid president, and just want a slight readjustment.
Bachmann - 10%. The unexpected star of the last 2-3 months. Republicans are simply not going to nominate a member of the House for the Presidency, but she is setting herself up nicely as the Huckabee of the '12 cycle: the candidate who appeals to social conservatives and survives to the last couple of rounds without raising much money.
Rest of Field - 20%. Herman Cain keeps threatening to break out of the second tier, but his cringe-inducing comments about foreign policy are a big obstacle. Gingrich was never going to be the nominee, but I never thought he'd crash-and-burn that fast, either. Santorum and Paul just keep doing their thing. Their fans will follow them through hell and high water, but there just aren't enough of them to win the nomination.

As for Sarah Palin, she still has the ability to get in the race in September/October and be a major force. I just don't think she'll do it, though.

(05-23-2011 09:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  According to a Fox News poll taken this week: Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be reelected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?
50% Deserves to be reelected
43% Better off with someone else

Just your best guess: As of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?
57% Will
36% Will Not

That poll was taken May 15th-16th-17th.
I'd be interested to see the results of the same poll-questions asked of likely voters on (say) June 21st-22nd-23rd.

(06-23-2011 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Republicans are simply not going to nominate a member of the House for the Presidency

Top-line resume qualifications for the GOP nominee in the last 70 years:
1944 - Governor of New York (then-largest population in US)
1948 - Governor of New York (then-largest population in US)
1952 - Five-star general who organized D-Day invasion; supreme commander of NATO (when NATO was a very big deal)
1956 - incumbent President
1960 - incumbent Vice-President; former Senator
1964 - US Senator (12 years)
1968 - former Vice President; former Senator
1972 - incumbent President
1976 - incumbent President
1980 - former Governor of California (8 years; then-largest population in US)
1984 - incumbent President
1988 - incumbent Vice-President
1992 - incumbent President
1996 - US Senator (28 years)
2000 - Governor of Texas (6 years); son of former President. Not saying that is a "qualification" but it was definitely a part of the background to Bush's campaign.
2004 - incumbent President'
2008 - US Senator (22 years) and POW for 6 years

Obviously, to have been a member of Congress for 4+ years, as Bachmann has done, is just not in the same league with the kind of background and experience the other recent GOP nominees have had.

A sitting member of the House of Representatives hasnt been elected President or even been the nominee of a major political party since 1881. History should tell us something of Bachmann's chances.

I made the following comment back in May 2011 when Gov. Daniels of Indiana announced that he was not running for President.

(05-22-2011 10:18 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I consider Mitch Daniels to be more conservative than the average Republican -- significantly more conservative on fiscal/spending issues, especially - and his non-candidacy is a blow to GOP hopes for winning back the White House next year.

Romney and Pawlenty are now in the driver's seat, so far as the nomination is concerned, with Huntsman waiting in the wings. Very simply, that is a weak batting order, and Republicans need to be honest with themselves about that weakness.

Sadly (from a GOP standpoint), the misgivings I felt towards Romney's candidacy proved well-founded.

Interesting thread to look back at

(05-23-2011 07:08 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.

Beating Obama won't be a cakewalk, even if the economy's still in the tank. If the Republicans run a stiff (say, Romney) out there, he'll lose. I can't shake the feeling that the Republicans are going to sacrifice someone, (see: Dole, Bob; Kerry, John;, Mondale, Fritz) and concentrate on shoring up the House and making a run at taking the Senate.

Not too far off. Good job, me.

(11-08-2012 04:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 07:08 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.
Beating Obama won't be a cakewalk, even if the economy's still in the tank. If the Republicans run a stiff (say, Romney) out there, he'll lose. I can't shake the feeling that the Republicans are going to sacrifice someone, (see: Dole, Bob; Kerry, John;, Mondale, Fritz) and concentrate on shoring up the House and making a run at taking the Senate.

Not too far off. Good job, me.

If only republicans had been smart enough to figure that out, they might be in far better shape today. Run someone for president because it would look kinda stupid not to, but put the real effort into the senate races--and don't allow any idiots to run.

(05-22-2011 02:51 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Huntsman can win the General. but can he and Romney both find enough moderate support in the GOP to make it to the convention?

That Mr. Peanut is not only brilliant he is consistant