Posted on 06/05/2013 1:13:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
GOP presidential contenders wave to the crowd in Manchester, N.H., in 1980, before a debate. From left" Philip Crane, John Connelly, John Anderson, Howard Baker, Robert Dole, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
It's ridiculously, absurdly early to talk about 2016 presidential politics. Only a fool would try to predict who will be the next Republican nominee just seven months after the last election for the White House.
Still, in most election cycles, the GOP would already have an obvious front-runner by now, one who would more than likely prevail as the party's pick.
Not this time.
"This will be the most open Republican nomination in 50 years," says Tom Rath, a former GOP attorney general of New Hampshire and a veteran of early state presidential politics.
Plenty of Republicans had their doubts about the early front-runners in 2008 and 2012 — John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively — but each ended up as the nominee.
This time, no one appears to be anointed. There are lots of likely candidates (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie), question marks (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, South Dakota Sen. John Thune), possibilities (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) and potential holdovers (former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry).
People in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina fully expect to see something in the neighborhood of 20 serious candidates stopping by to take soundings.
"There's no formidable candidate who's going to scare people out of the race," says Dave Carney, a GOP consultant and longtime Perry strategist. "There's no heir apparent."
Usually, there is. Republicans have given their candidates credit for time served, offering preference to the "next in line" vice president, veteran senator or candidate who paid his dues and knows the ropes from running the last time around.
For decades, the party has drawn from a small pool. There was a Bush or a Dole on every national ticket from 1976 through 2004. For 20 years before that, Richard Nixon was on the ballot in every election but one.
That type of dynamic is playing out this time around on the Democratic side. If presumptive favorite Hillary Clinton decides not to run, Vice President Joe Biden will have a leg up over lesser-known hopefuls such as Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O'Malley of Maryland.
"It's been a long time since there really hasn't been an obvious front-runner [among Republicans]," says Lewis Gould, a historian who wrote Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans. "It's hard to see somebody becoming a juggernaut in the next eight or 12 months, so that by summer of 2014 people are saying, 'It's X's to lose.' We're a long way from that."
The result is likely to be a long nominating season. In contrast to the usual fashion, in which there's a king and a group of individuals aspiring to dethrone the king, a wide-open field means more candidates can linger in hopes of getting hot later in the game.
"When you get past New Hampshire, the field is usually down to two or three candidates," Rath says. "I'm not sure that will happen this time."
The lack of a clear front-runner reflects the number of competing factions in the party just now, says Chip Felkel, a Republican consultant based in South Carolina. It also gives candidates more of a chance to test-market ideas that might appeal to a broad constituency.
"The party needs to get through a serious bit of soul-searching," he says. "If you had a front-runner, you'd have all these people out there saying why that front-runner is no good."
Consultants like Carney also think it's good news that the candidates getting the most attention early on are mostly still in their 40s — young enough to be the children of Romney or McCain (or, in the case of Paul, actually being the child of ex-perennial hopeful Ron Paul).
"It's good for the brand to have young guys who are peers of the generation that the Republican Party is supposedly not doing well with," says Matt Reisetter, a GOP consultant in Iowa.
New faces, younger and non-Anglo candidates, and a longer nominating season may reconfigure the party's ultimate chances.
But people in the party are convinced they can't be any worse than the traditional formula, which has helped Republicans lose the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
"Historically, Republican Party politics have all been about whose turn it was," Felkel says, "and that hasn't worked too well for us."
Cruz is naturalized by the very law you cite. If not for that law he would not be a US citizen.
Since it is being discussed, here is the full section:
Title 8 Section 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States
Section 1401(g) of this title shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201(g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
Romney deserved it. I will happily do my best to destroy any other conservatives-in-name-only. Better to be principled and doomed than comprimised and safe.
Ted Cruz was born “Rafael Edward Cruz” December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.
His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)
Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.
Cruz is naturalized by 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g)
On to the next thing.
Yup.
Thank heavens for small favors.
What it means is that the GOPe hasn't gotten to work anointing the Jeb Bush / Pork Porkie ticket yet.
The establishment would never pick Christie. They may agree with him on some issues, but he’s too much of a loose canon.
He’s lost about 40 (maybe more) pounds but it doesn’t really show. He needs more like 200 pounds.
Pork Porkie may as well be a clone of Charlie Crist - - a “Republican” who got a taste of the big time when he was briefly mentioned as a genuine candidate for VP, only to get let down in the end. Just like Crist, Porkie will go “independent” and then make the switch to full-blown rat bastard. Porkie will do ANYTHING to stay in the loop of elected office and all the fame and perks and personal power elected office provides.
New Jersey was history when it didn’t elect Bret Schundler.
And the same law is what makes a person born in the US a US Citizen. So by following your assertion and logic, there are no natural born citizens because the law makes everyone “naturalized”.
I am fully convinced the GOP is done.
I will happily support any conservative.
Reading NPR is like sucking down the contents of a spittoon.
It has never been doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
You will take what they give you. Shut up and eat your peas, the GOPe knows best.
“Please pardon my cynicism.”
No, your cynicism is not pardoned. Instead of waving the defeatist, French surrender monkey flag, how about you get to work to insure that the clown-maggott Hillary is NOT elected.
We need warriors in the 2016 election.
Only if they deserve it, and Rubio, Ryan and "Runt" Paul deserve it.
Many of us here tried to tell you that Rubio was an open borders pimp, and "Runt" who says we already have amnesty, Paul, is almost as bad. Ryan is just a light weight gopE.
We have Trey Gowdy, who is looking good and other up and comers that will stand out with the hearings that will only get tougher.
Yeah, that toilet is gone forever.
When the education mafia gets in bed with the regular mafia to run a place like New Jersey, you KNOW it's hopeless.
8 U.S.C. § 1401 has never used the term “natural born citizen”.
8 U.S.C. § 1401 describes a variety of scenarios whereby a child is a citizen at birth. These citizens at birth are so by naturalization statute.
The only scenario 8 U.S.C. § 1401 does not describe is birth in country to two US citizen parents. These citizens are natural born citizens.
It has never been doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These citizens are natural born citizens, as distinguished from statutory citizens.
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.