Skip to comments.Will Rand Paul force Marco Rubio to toughen his response to Obama's address?
Posted on 02/12/2013 7:17:45 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul will be delivering the 'tea party' response to Obama's state of the union address. He could overshadow the official Republican response, given by Sen. Marco Rubio.
On ABC's "This Week," GOP strategist Nicolle Wallace revealed Sunday that Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida who will deliver the official Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address has scrapped his original draft in favor of a more aggressive approach. According to Ms. Wallace, Senator Rubio's decision to rewrite his remarks was spurred by the tone of Mr. Obama's inaugural address, which many Republicans saw as "historically combative."
But we wonder if it's really Obama that Rubio is thinking about or Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
Senator Paul, of course, will be delivering the official "tea party response" to Obama's address, a tradition started two years ago by Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (who famously failed to look into the camera throughout her remarks), and repeated last year by Herman Cain.
Even before they've been delivered, the dual responses are already being cast as yet another example of the base-versus-the-establishment schism in the Republican Party. That division has been on full display in recent weeks, with news of a new, Karl-Rove-backed political group that will aim to weed out "unelectable" far-right candidates in Republican primaries a move that many tea party conservatives saw as a declaration of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
This is why the GOP needs a credible threat of a third party hanging over their heads.
And it’s not Rubio.
How can a person be “too” principled?
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Bachman looked squarely at the camera for her constituency, the Tea Party website cam, she ignored the MSM camera on purpose.
Lets hope Rand Paul kicks ass and takes names tonight.
This is why the GOP needs a credible threat of a third party hanging over their heads.
Just heard Matt Kibbe from FreedomWorks interviewed. He’s talking 3rd party.
Why a gop at all...the reason alan stang referred to gop as...Red from The start...
Rubio has already flushed his conservative cred down the toilet. No matter what he says or does tonight, few conservatives will believe him. He can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye.
Wasn’t the camera at a bad angle or something?
Rubio is an open borders RINO! This guy is learning from the GOPe Zen Masters like: McConnell, McCain, Graham, etc. I guess Rubio will be the next “sure thing” being tossed at us by Rove and the other Establishment Pukes!
If Rubio does deliver a "more aggressive" response to 0bumb0, it is only to portray himself as more conservative and pandering to the TEA Party conservatives. In reality, Rubio is just another idiot RINO, who is more than willing to pander to illegal aliens, bring in more illegals, give them citizenship, and is stupid enough to think that the GOP will be able to out-pander the socialists demTurds who will have the illegal alien votes already locked up as a demTurd voting bloc.
The GOP-e continue to be the Stupid party by copy catting the dems in their rush to legalize & create 20 million or more illegal alien Hispanics as new Amerikan citizens. Our Republic is and will be no longer! If anything we need two separate countries.... a conservative, Christian, patriotic country, and let the libs, dems, socialists, unions, gays, illegals & muslims have the other half.
Great get on the Red Infested ‘republicans’. The article may be found: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm
I’m planning to only Watch Rand Paul.
There were multiple cameras. Bachmann was filmed speaking into the Tea Party camera, as a Tea Party supporter. CNN filmed it and played it LIVE, as the Tea Party response, but showing Michele speaking away from the CNN camera, making us look like programming hay seeds. Bad logistics.
Will anyone force Marco R. to reveal documents showing he is eligible to run for Pres? Oh, and just for laughs, the docs should include dates of parent’s citizenship.
Have I said, yet, today, that I-can-not-STAND-Nicole-Wallace?
“...a move that many tea party conservatives saw as a declaration of war...”
Ummm...yeah, It was.
And we aren’t going away.
“...How can a person be too principled?...”
When the other side has none, of course!
RE: Oh, and just for laughs, the docs should include dates of parents citizenship.
The only problem with that is this -— I don’t think MOST politicians, justices or Americans interpret the term “Natural Born” as “Both your parents must be citizens at the time of your birth”.
They interpret the term “Natural Born” as this -— What is your citizenship AT BIRTH?
Rubio’s parents were both legal immigrants at the time of his birth, and he was born on American Soil.
Unless someone can show compelling evidence that the framers had a VERY SPECIFIC criteria OUTLINED and CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER for the term “Natural Born”, the vast majority of Americans (yes, judges included) will equate Natural Born with Native Born.
I’ve had it and most, if not all, of Alan’s articles posted to my own sites and blogs for many years now.
Very Unfortunately, Alan passed on....about three years ago now...I enjoyed corresponding w/him as well as reading and posting his writings.
aka: Dick G
You are too principled when your choices are 1)get massacred or 2) pay tribute and you choose getting massacred.
When someone tries to massacre me, i massacre them right back.
More likely that they had the red light on the wrong camera. They are not beyond this kind of thing, of course I am paranoid, and believe we only truly have one party anyway.
Then who is it?
No such evidence would be sufficient for you and a host of other pretend patriots that infect this forum.
RE: No such evidence would be sufficient for you and a host of other pretend patriots that infect this forum.
And how do you even pretend to have such knowledge?
I’m not sure if it “RINO” as much as it is just plain old Republican. Look at the leadership of the party.
Republican in Name Only ....implies the majority of the party and its elected leadership doesn’t share their liberal, socialistic, amnesty loving views. I’m no longer sure that’s the case. I’m proposing the term RINO is no different than Republican. The distinction no longer exists.
Rand Paul is too libertarian for me but he is vastly better than Marco Rubio and I would support Rand Paul for president over many others ...including Rubio
I read your posts and come to my conclusions. Yu want to tell me now that my conclusion is wrong?
You ask as if those in D.C. give a shit what’s explicitly written in the Constitution as IS.
Simple, easy English that anyone could understand. Not the DEMS, not the RINOs; nope not a damn one of those ‘lawyers’, purveyors of laws upon laws who cannot read nor comprehend a simple contract like the Constitution.
‘Cuz that’s which it is to me, a simple contract. Spells out what powers We the People give to the gov’t for governance. Nothing more. Even gives a way out and change things. But nope, D.C. (and a lot of States) just can’t see to grasp it after ALL these years.
But, shit. Let’s dig into the minutia of what they were feeling, ‘cuz there wasn’t enough in the (Anti)Federalist papers, all the pamphlets, all the XYZ to figure out what they REALLY, and I mean really, meant.
Frustrated? No, I’m pissed. It’s a shame that crack-f*ck in CA didn’t go after those Capital pigs instead; I would have been one rooting for him then too.
Re: Yu want to tell me now that my conclusion is wrong?
Absolutely. I asked for evidence of where the framers explained the term : NATURAL BORN. That’s all.
Why not give it to me and a reliable source?
Instead, you ascribe to yourself the ability to read my mind.
Your opinion is evident, and it is just that an opinion, it has no force of law and for you to pretend otherwise is childish.
The fact that the Constitution does not actually offer detailed definition of NBC does not give you license to interpret it to suit you view.
Thee is no legal opinion on the NBC status of Rubio other than personal opinions like your own.
I have no way of predicting what a corrupt court will decide, if they ever decide to take up the issue, but common sense tells me that there is a definition of NBC that was well understood by the Founders else they would not of had to include themselves in the exceptions to the rule.
There exists a significant kabal of NBC advocates here on FR, so go commiserate with them and leave us simple minded Patriots to our own devices.
Face it, while conservatives twiddle their thumbs, the elites/media have already chosen our candidates for maximum failure.
I'm looking for a solid Jacksonian Tea Partier candidate....and that person just hasn't materialized yet, IMHO.
RE: You think the Dems will sit idle and let Rubio get past his eligibility flaw? Yeah, right.
Well, I am all for such a debate. Bring it on.
Say finally, they found Rubio to be ineligible because his parents were not citizens at his birth ( although they were LEGAL migrants and Rubio was born on American soil), what about Obama?
It is a fact that even if he were born in Hawaii, HIS FATHER WAS NOT AN AMERICAN.
Which means Obama was ineligible, which also means the laws he signed were signed by someone who was ineligible, which means they are null and void. Which means Obamacare should be null and void.
I’d like to see that made public.
RE: Your opinion is evident, and it is just that an opinion, it has no force of law and for you to pretend otherwise is childish.
I asked you a question, I did not form an opinion. NOTHING IS EVIDENT UNLESS I FORM AN OPINION. You are ascribing omniscience to yourself.
RE: The fact that the Constitution does not actually offer detailed definition of NBC does not give you license to interpret it to suit you view
Again, I ask you a question and I REALLY want to know -— When the framers used the term — NATURAL BORN -— did they explain what they meant and how they Understood that term?
If so, I would like you to show me a CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, WRITTEN PIECE from Madison, or anyone who signed the constitution.
That’s ALL I WANT FROM YOU. I withhold my personal opinion until I get one. And I reserve the right to ask more questions should they arise.
That there exists a significant kabal of NBC advocates on FR does not give you license to read my motives.
This is the nth iteration of my question, I am still waiting for an answer.
Are you now claiming that you made no such assertion?
Show me in the Constitution where it states taht anyone born on US soil as a Natural Born Citizen.
RE: You have asserted that Rubio is NBC and quote Mark Levin’s agreement with you.
This thread has 38 posts (mine is the 39th). Where in this thread with my screen name on it did I make this assertion? Give me the post number.
RE: You further claim that the Constitution is silent on the issue.
Where did I say the constitution is silent on this issue?
In fact I assert that the constitution states that a person must be of age AND must be a natural born citizen to be qualified for the presidency.
In post number 21, I said this :
They (most politicians, judges, justices and Americans) interpret the term Natural Born as this - What is your citizenship AT BIRTH?
Rubios parents were both legal immigrants at the time of his birth, and he was born on American Soil.
Unless someone can show compelling evidence that the framers had a VERY SPECIFIC criteria OUTLINED and CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER for the term Natural Born, the vast majority of Americans (yes, judges included) will equate Natural Born with Native Born.
So, I am sincerely asking you to show me how the framers defined the term NATURAL BORN.
I do know that the Constitution states thusly:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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.
If these people born in the USA are not natural born, then please show me what the framers meant by that term. As I said before, all I want is a clear, un-ambigous written explanation from any one of the framers.
That’s all I want. And oh yeah, please stop going into my motives. Just Stick to my question.