Skip to comments.Scarborough asks Kamala Harris question that ‘doomed’ Ted Kennedy’s presidential run:
Posted on 01/11/2019 8:19:21 PM PST by Impala64ssa
Why would you want to be president?
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has not yet announced a bid for the White House, but on Friday the California senator faced a line of inquiry from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that he credits with dooming the presidential campaign of former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Speaking on "Morning Joe," Harris was asked by the co-host why she wants to be president the same question that some historians point to as the end of Kennedy's ill-fated 1980 campaign for the White House.
"I want to ask you the Roger Mudd question that he asked to Ted Kennedy, that Ted Kennedy couldn't answer and really doomed his presidency from day one," Scarborough began. "And that is: Why would you want to be president?"
Harris responded by saying the country is looking for vision and leadership.
"Because I believe our country wants and needs leadership that provides a vision of the future of our country in which everyone can see themselves," Harris told Scarborough.
"So let's start from that, and then think about what we need to do to speak to all of the people of our country, to ensure that we see them, to understand we don't need to accept false choices in terms of how we approach public policy," she added. "I'm a career prosecutor. I've spent my entire life, almost, focused on public safety."
"We can do that and also focus on issues like what we need to do to build a healthy economy," Harris said.
A local California radio station reported this week that the senator is planning to announce whether she will enter the presidential primary race on or around Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and Harris told CNN's Jake Tapper this week that a decision on a run was coming "soon."
"We have to give the American people more credit, and we have to understand that the American public and the people of our country are smart people who will make decisions about who will be their leader based on who they believe is capable, who they believe has an honest desire to lead, to represent, to see them, to be a voice for them even if they have no power," Harris told CNN this week.
If she declares, Harris would emerge as a possible front-runner in the Democratic primary alongside Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D), who announced her own exploratory committee for president earlier in January.
The Democratic primary field is expected to be the most crowded in the party's history, with a few dozen hopefuls rumored to be considering a run.
Well Joe, because every American deserves their own Willie Brown to get them a no show State Job that pays $70,000 a year and helps them launch a Political Career living off the Taxpayers.
She is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president or vice president. She is not a natural citizen of the United States
Im still wandering around in her meaningless answer.
“Why would you want to be president?”
“Why, that’s easy Joe... to stick it to Whitey, of course! You included, since you’re simply a Useful Idiot for the time being...”
Because I believe our country wants and needs leadership that provides a vision of the future of our country in which everyone can see themselves,” Harris told Scarborough.
She thinks having a black woman President is more important than a great leader, because looks are the most important thing.
You missed this latest Schmoe confabulation?
This is what passes for writing these days?
Tulsi Gabbard said she was going to run too.
I’m pretty sure Ted Kennedy doomed Ted Kennedy and that Roger Mudd could have asked how he parted his hair and made no difference. Likewise Joe S and Kamala H. Not seeing any connection or relevance to anything anywhere.
Did Roger Mudd ask her how she parted her hair, too?
Re: What to Expect from a Kamala Harris Presidency(pronounced comma-lah)
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST replied
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents dont have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattels Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchills birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winstons father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchills birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 natural born citizen in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say lets eliminate all those who dont even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is evading the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Courts budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise its Article III oversight on this matter.
Knee Pad Harris provided great video of her actions during the Kavanaugh hearing just like her twins, “Spartacus” Booker and Chifi? All three provided great campaign ad fodder.
Yeah, that's what kept Obama from running . . . oh, wait, . . . . He DID run even though he was born in Kenya, even though his grandmother witnessed his birth in Kenya, even though he bragged about being the first Kenyan to be put in the Senate, even though he stole a Soc Security number and Selective Service Number, even though he hid all of his academic records, even though he married a cross dresser, even though no one was ever found who could remember him being in college nor anyone having taken his classes, even though . . . (I'm running out of room).
Not being a natural born citizen is NOT a problem for the Democrats, not even if they need illegal aliens to vote.
Her not being a natural born citizen alone, shouldn't be a problem.
I’m getting the impression bigtime that Americans have moved beyond, and moved fast beyond, the Obama era. Empty-headed libs like Beto and Kamala aren’t on the national radar. Nuts-and-bolts common-sense Americans are getting more love by the day.
Hey, the ‘60s and ‘70s can’t last forever, though the Democrats obviously want them to. Americans seem to be finally moving into a new century. About time.
didn't Pelosi say that last year? it sure sounds like her speechwriter. Same old empty sentences when we clearly have a leader and a good one, who is thinking about everyone when he works trade deals and border security, not just 'the community'.
Response sounds like a typical political gobbledygook non-answer.
“...world’s longest short bus...”
She’s a career opportunist, is what she is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.