The bloom is off Rubio’s rose

It goes without saying that I would never vote for a Democrat. At this point I am sure of two things regarding Republicans:

1. I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

2. I will not vote for any Republican ticket that includes Marco Rubio.

My longstanding objection to Rubio is that he is not eligible. Now that I am learning more about him, I can’t say I would vote for him if he was eligible. This lengthy excerpt from a piece by Niall Stanage set off my alarm bell:

Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen last week contrasted the “depressing” performance of the Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy with that of Rubio. The Floridian recently “stepped forward to do what the other candidates should have: lay out a clear foreign policy vision,” Thiessen wrote on his Washington Post blog.

Thiessen and Thomas were reacting to two major speeches.

The first came late last month at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. There, Rubio laid out a worldview that sounded strikingly magnanimous.

“Conservatism is not about leaving people behind,” he said. “Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.”

Rubio turned his attention to foreign policy last Tuesday, with an address at the Jesse Helms Center in North Carolina. Though the speech assailed the Obama administration, it also put a wide stretch of water between Rubio and the GOP’s paleoconservative wing.

“If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible price,” he insisted.

The man who would be veep
By Niall Stanage - 09/19/11 05:00 AM ET

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/182219-marco-rubio-the-man-who-would-be-veep

In addition to my natural distrust of any politician who advocates things straight out of the Global Government Manuel, Rubio is a Senator. In case you have not noticed, America is currently being buried by a government run by Senators and the US Senate. Hussein’s administration is a US Senate Administration. So the country does not need another Senator in the #2 spot regardless of how short of a time Rubio has been roosting in that nest of traitors.

As to Rubio’s foreign policy, rah-rah BS, he sounds like Preacher Hussein moralizing about hope and change:

“If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible price,” he insisted.

Whenever any bum from the US Senate talks about saving the world they usually mean more subservience to the UNIC. Irrespective of who does the moralizing, Democrat or Republican, the American people better start looking elsewhere for leaders. Frankly, three years of Preacher Hussein saving the world is more than enough.

And if Rubio is such a foreign policy hotshot, I’d like to hear his position on the United Nations and its numerous agencies.

On top of Rubio’s apparent negatives from a conservative perspective the MSM is touting SENATOR Rubio for vice president. Remember that it was the MSM that rigged the 2008 election so that a sitting US Senator was going to the White House come hell or high water. Before conservatives line up behind Rubio they should ask themselves how the country is doing under Senate control?

 

Dont worry

Romney wont need your vote..or Rubio..

Romney /Pawlenty 21012

And in 4 years you'll be happy you were wrong.

 

Having a candidate that isn't interventionist would be nice, but Ron Paul would seem to be the only GOP candidate with a stated platform against more interventionism.

Jon Huntsman might also fit the bill on that.

 

Why do we need romney?? Obama already gave us socialized medicine.

 

Obama gave us mandatory private insurance. That's quite different from socialized medicine...

 

To MnBillyBoy: If Romney should somehow win without the conservative vote it won’t take four years:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8fwc25nKws&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=AVGxdCwVVULXcBU9vhXx1wxdnahTGmKK1a"]Conny Francis - Who's Sorry Now - YouTube[/ame]

To Serfin’ USA: I agree. But right now I’ll settle for anybody who is not stooging for the United Nations.

To P. Lotor: Precisely.

 

I get what you're saying, but the 2000 page law contains so many government interventions that we might as well have outright socialization. obama gave us almost socialized medicine. and for that matter, almost fascist medicine too.

and really all of that is an aside. my point was that anyone who criticized obamadoesn'tcare is a complete fool if they support romney.

 

A point.

Would you rather have someone like Paul..who represents a idea but is too old..too quirky and too wrong about defense..
and has never held any executive position either in business or politics..without a track record of leadership...
Or Romney who .. because he has..has the ONLY 100% health care plan in any state..passed within a opposition party's majority with a balanced budget at the same time..( 5 years of dems leadership AFTER screwed it up )
The only guy to save the Olympics from economic failure..
PAUL would have said... "let them die..it's not in the constitution "
AND YOU KNOW IT.
Paul wont unite anything but both sides hating progressive libertarians more.

He is all talk ..just as Obama was..is..

 

Because...?

 

To MnBillyBoy: You failed to mention that a substantial majority of the people of Mass. hate Romney-Kennedy-Care. Romney himself has been trying to get out from under his disaster. His standard copout is —— I did what I thought was the right thing at the time. There’s the rub for conservatives. Americans forgive honest mistakes, but they don’t forgive slick, politically-motivated, double-talk that says “I’ll do it again if I get the chance.”

Even if you believe Romney he remains a Northeast liberal RINO. Should he win the presidency the American people will get more Beltway liberalism; more compromises with Democrats, and a bigger welfare state. In short: Death by inches.

Re: The Olympics

Saving the Olympics is a negative not a plus. The Olympics is a private enterprise that uses tax dollars to turn a profit for the promoters; the very essence of Mitt Romney’s political philosophy. Most Americans resent tax dollars building the facilities that house the games while the sharpshooters walk away with the money the games generate. At least a circus comes to town with its own tents. Very few people profit from the Olympics after the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.

Parenthetically, Hussein’s failure to get the Olympic Games for Chicago proves that Americans would just as soon do without the Olympics. Most Americans were relieved when the 1916 Olympics went to Rio de Janeiro.

Re: Ron Paul:

HR 1146 forgives a lot of sin irrespective of Paul’s other positions. No other Republican wannabe has such an overpowering saving grace in his résumé. That said, I never thought Ron Paul stood a chance of getting the nomination.

To yguy: His parents are not native-born Americans. They are naturalized American citizens. Should Rubio get away with it the inevitable next step is declaring naturalized citizens like George Soros eligible. If nothing else, look at the motives of those “Americans” who would abandon the Eligibility Clause altogether.

 

If they were naturalized citizens at the time of his birth, that would seem to clear the bars set in both the Naturalization Act of 1790 and Minor v Happersett. If not, and his parents were legal aliens, his birth in the US would make him a native born citizen under 14A, and I haven't yet seen a cogent rationale for differentiating between native born citizens and natural born citizens in the context of the eligibility clause.

 

I bet a cheese burger that Rubio would present his birth certificate and his educational records...for inspection.
That would put the President in a pickle ..as in on a cheese burger.


The Chicago union mob style politician is about done.

 

To yguy: Try the Eligibility Clause's original intent.

To MnBillyBoy: You’re missing the point. Nobody doubts Rubio’s citizenship. It is his presidential eligibility that is at issue.

 

And why exactly is it on me to show such a transfer is legitimate rather than on you to show it is not?

Of course there isn't, any more than there is anything in the Constitution which nullifies such a transfer, because the Constitution doesn't address the issue.

Irrelevant, because the point at issue is the definition of "natural born citizen". With that in mind, if it was a requirement that the parents are native born, how is it that the Naturalization Act of 1790 contains no language to that effect?

 

If you are born in America you are eligible to be president... assuming you live here for a certain amount of time. Where do you guys get this stuff? Debate on the issues. Don't make up stuff about the guy. John McCain wasn't born in the Unite States and he is eligible to be president.

 

To yguy: Irrespective of legislation, you’re reading things into the Constitution that are not there, then insisting you be proved wrong. It ain’t there and all of the linguistic contortions cannot put it there.

In any event, only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. If a parent’s naturalization nullifies a clause in the Constitution it would have been done long before now.

To imphormer:

Article II

5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Go to this link and you’ll see that the phrase natural born has never been defined.

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=definition+of+natural+born&s_it=keyword_rollover

 

Obviously this criticism is far more accurately directed at its author.

If that's true (and it isn't) what SC ruling supports your contention? Minor doesn't, and Wonk Kim Ark doesn't either, so what do you have in mind?

And if interpretation of the Constitution is the sole province of SCOTUS, why the hell should anyone care what YOU think about the eligibility clause?

Whtat in Hell are you talking about?

 

Rubio himself isn't the issue. He could be a pedophile and still eligible by the letter of the Constitution; and if he is, he should be rejected for that rather than because he fails to meet an extra-constitutional eligibility requirement.

So if the law says Rubio is eligible we should lie about the law if that gets Obama out of office. Have I got that about right?

Excuse me. I have several thousand posts here, and I defy you to link to ONE where I have defended Obama, in your threads or any others.

An obvious falsehood.

Bullpuckey. While Minor does affirm that all children born in the US to parents who are both citizens, it does not presume to exclude from natural born citizenship even those born in the US to non-citizen parents, any more than the citizenship clause of 14A presumes to limit citizenship by birth to those born in the US.

 

This one sentence: “If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible price,”

turns you off Rubio?

I don't get it. He's advocating strong American leadership in the world, not the "lead from behind" that seems to be the current fashion.

 

To Lil Mike: No. He’s advocating more of the same foreign policy that brought the country to where it is at now.

 

Unless Rubio offered specifics that you didn't mention, you are going to have t do better than that.

 

I don't get it. Do Republicans hate magnanimity and people catching up? (Sorry if that sounds rhetorical.)

 

To Lil Mike: Rubio is invoking the same old “leadership role” then-Senator Biden and top Democrats advocated during the Iraq as a way of denigrating Bush for invading Iraq without the UN’s final approval. It was their way of saying America must play a leadership role in the United Nations. Had Rubio said “After we get out of the United Nations America must lead the world.” I would have given his intentions the benefit of the doubt. His statement was so vague, I concluded he was picking up where Biden et al. left off.

The flaw in the UN leadership theory is that no single country can lead that organization. The UN is not designed that way. If you doubt it tell me which one of our states the other 49 states willing follow?

Incidentally, there is no hope that Muslim countries will accept America’s leadership in or out of the United Nations not to mention Communist China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, and left-leaning countries in Latin America.

Ultimately, the entire leadership thing is a dangerous concept when it is not explained in full detail. SENATOR Rubio’s platitudes failed to do that.

 

Unless there's more to what he said then you've posted, it sounds like he is talking about America's role in the world. That's pretty standard Republican fare. So I'm not getting your outrage.