Posted on 02/04/2015 10:08:25 AM PST by GulliverSwift
Is a conservative schism forming over support for Scott Walker’s probable presidential candidacy?
Thanks to outspoken recent support from Rush Limbaugh, the Wisconsin governor has seen his potential nomination prospects soar as conservatives look for a strong alternative to the more moderate Jeb Bush.
That led to Beltway chatter about Walker’s new ascendancy and a Drudge Report poll showing him trouncing all others. Forty-four percent of Drudge readers who participated backed him, followed by 13% for Senator Ted Cruz, 12% for Senator Rand Paul and just four percent for Bush. Nearly 450,000 voted.
Politico has continued to track Rush’s sustained praise for Walker, which seems slightly more overt than the talk titan normally offers a GOP contender this early in the nomination process. During Tuesday’s show, Limbaugh doubled-down, calling him “gutsy” and thanking him “for standing up to these people [the left].”
But fellow conservative talker Mark Levin seems not to be on board the bandwagon and has become increasingly outspoken on the matter. Though the syndicated host is adamant that he’s supported the governor through many past battles, he’s unsure that Walker’s stance on illegal immigration is sufficiently conservative. “What’s all of this Scott Walker stuff all of the sudden?” he asked listeners during a recent monologue.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaequalizer.com ...
If I remember correctly, there was considerable discussion about the eligibility of Obama being a natural-born citizen at one time on Free Republic. The feeling at the time was that he was not a
natural-born citizen because his father wasn’t a citizen and he probably wasn’t born in the United States; an opinion with which I agreed at the time. If Cruz is nominated I will almost certainly vote for him. Nevertheless, I will feel myself to be a hypocrite. End of story.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is an American citizen.
If he was born in any other country, he would not be a citizen -- because, under the citizenship laws then prevailing, his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on a child. Cruz's was.
If Obama was born in the USA and then gained foreign student status with an Indonesian passport, it does not negate his citizenship. But it does make him liable to fraud charges.
There is no need to bear any burden of hypocrisy. The law is on your side.
Your "naturalization papers" aren't "naturalization papers". I suspect they were issued by the State Department, upon the request of your parents, as confirmation that you were a citizen-at-birth.
I've had this same discussion with another party on Free Republic. They reviewed their "naturalization papers" and found them to be official confirmation of their status as a citizen-at-birth.
If you were born under the circumstances you describe, there is no question about your citizenship status. You were a citizen-at-birth.
Limbaugh praises what Walker did in Wisconsin and Levin worries about what his stances will be on national issues. I worry like Levin, but Like him like Limbaugh. Cruz needs to get going to take over should Walker falter and start supporting the wrong things. But if Walker is doing well and wins, he should choose Cruz as V.P.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s not like Walker’s response to a loaded question was terrible. He isn’t Jeb Bush who has argument for amnesty on Hispanic news networks and made policy speeches arguing the same.
Hmm- I’ll have to dig that out sometime and look it over.
Oops. “Granny” quoted you but apparently the “italians” didn’t take, and I didn’t realize it was a quote. See what trouble you’ve gotten me into with txhurl, magglepuss?. . . and I should have stated ‘of turnout’. Sorry.
I guess I think the question really boils down to whether the “independents” who turn out lean more Republican or more Democrat. If you call yourself “independent” and don’t always vote, does that mean you’re a marxist who thinks Barak Obama is too conservative to be bothered voting for, a libertarian who thinks that Ted Cruz is a big government busybody, or - as is generally assumed by consultants - someone who “always votes for the winner.”I remember meeting someone who did indeed claim that every candidate he voted for won. I personally can’t relate to that, but . . .
I guess I am of the Thomas Sowell school. He says that rarely, but every once in a while, you encounter a Republican politician who can actually talk. If you nominate a candidate who can’t explain conservatism and can’t sell - especially if he is a Mitt Romney who doesn’t feel conservatism in his bones and claims to be conservative by saying he is “severely” conservative - you shouldn’t be surprised if the “independents" who turn out don’t break your way. Whether those independents were gonna vote anyway, and you failed to persuade them, or whether more “liberal” independents rather than more conservative ones turn out, it doesn’t really matter, I suppose.
. . . but if you persuade them and keep on persuading them, they won’t remain independents, will they?
Not fans of either - but voted for both to try to keep Obama out. If Obama had been defeated, we wouldn't be in the same mess we are in now (deny it all you want, but some truths are too big to get away from) so it is actually your strategy that has put us in this place.
Do you really think the gope is fighting the left? I used to think they were too stupid/nice, etc. to take them on. You know the drill, it’s not our message it’s the press, bla, bla, bla. Excuse after excuse.
What I have witnessed over the last few years has me coming to the realization that they are working with the left. I think the gope purpose now is to keep tamped down the grass roots movements like the tea party.
Heck, just look at what happened less than a month ago. The Republican speaker is punishing Representatives for voting in a manner that represents their district!!!!!!
How can one explain this?
Not many of the GOPe are actively fighting the Left. Many, while not necessarily rabidly committing the same treason, are at least complicit in that they do not fight.
The real question is, do we keep allowing an Obama or clone of him, in to accelerate our demise via all the EOs and ignoring of the laws and constitution, or, do we try to stem the tide a bit as we try to claw back an inch at a time until we can replace some of the worst with something not quite as bad?
One way is putting your finger in the duke to avert disaster as long as possible, in the hopes of effecting some serious repairs. The other way is to simply insert a stick of dynamite to blow the dike. Many seem to think that is the way to go as the People will then take matters into their own hands and wrest Freedom back - I don't call this a good strategy but a last ditch and iffy peg to hang one's hat on.
I will spend money and time and effort to try to help the most conservative candidates onto the slates. Once the slate has been defined, I will vote for the most conservative (or even least rabidly liberal) player left. Getting more conservatives to replace the Libs and RINOs in the House and Senate would be one of the main goals. keeping the rabid liberal out of the WH is an imperative and the only place I would fully compromise my "principles" by voting for the lesser evil, because until we get a conservative House/Senate, there is no apparent brakes to be applied to one who would utterly destroy us - Obama has demonstrated what the Left can and will get away with with a rogue America-hating criminal in the "bully pulpit".
If we refuse to vote for someone because we disagree with some of their opinions, ignoring whether they would follow the Constitution vs. forcing their opinions on us by breaking all the laws, we aid and abet the hard Left every bit as much as those who voted for Obama twice - we can say they deserve what they got, but if we did nothing to resist, we also deserve what we all got and cannot blame it on other factors because the choice was ours and we made it ourselves.
There is no quick fix - we need to be as relentless as the Left and take every inch we can get, anywhere we can get it. Else, the demise can be a relatively quick event and I doubt there will be a robust and effective reprisal by the People because even "conservatives" have been beaten down to the point where many consider un-constitutional laws to be fine with them if they fit their particular opinions and mind-sets:: if you doubt it, try thinking about it when you read some of the posts that show up here when the topic arises. Other than some raucous voices, the will of the People is being drained to the point where it is more likely that the bitching increases while the actions stay stagnant.
Honestly, I am so sick of the same song, different verse.
“If you don’t vote for this worthless R candidate, then your voting for the D”
Pointing out someones legitimate flaws is “a circular firing squad”
If you should mention that someone doesn’t even come close to representing your values. “purity test” or even worse “Jesus isn’t running”
Oh yeah, “stomp your foot and take your ball and go home”
All of the above mean nothing anymore. We’ve heard them too many times, and somehow the tea party keeps getting stabbed in the back.
It’s Cruz or Palin for me. I know I am not alone in that view. Do with that info what you want. Don’t come complaining after the fact when the gope steals this thing again that it is our fault. If you want Walker, fine. But many, many, many have told you no, they will not support him.
The ball is in your court.
Interestingly, I have both. "Report of birth abroad of a citizen of the United States of America", State Department form FS-240, issued 27 days after my birth, listing all of the particulars.
The document I was referring to is Department of Justice form N-560, Certificate of Citizenship, (stamp)signed by Raymond F. Farrell, commissioner of immigration and naturalization. It was issued on my fourth birthday. One of my brothers was born in Okinowa ten years before me- he got the same certificate, at the same time.
Since you had already been certified as a citizen-at-birth, I wonder what the purpose of the second document was...
I’ve always wondered that myself. My mother tells me that there was some question about kids like us at the time, so the post commander (not sure what post) just decreed that we be naturalized, and every similar kid on the post was naturalized at the same time.
This is the story as she remembers it, and I’m certainly not going to argue about it with her, but it’s never quite jibed for me- after all, naturalization is done by the state department, and an Army post commander is a 2 star (possibly 3) general, who would not have the pull to cause such a thing do be done. Nonetheless, it was done- I’m just not sure about the causation trail leading up to it.
Just speculating...
But there was a period when kids born overseas under your situation were subject to the draft in the country where you were born. And, upon visiting that country as an adult, you may have been yanked into their armed services.
The general may have been reacting to that situation by demanding a belt and suspenders approach to your US citizenship. Not that it made any difference whatsoever in your legal status -- either in the USA or your country of birth.
Actually, Cruz/Palin are my first choices too. Unlike you and many others, I'd not hesitate to vote for a number of others despite their flaws. Wen only two folks in the whole country are deemed "pure enough", no matter how bad the opponent, we are already lost.
You can take your ball home now - it's obvious there won't be a team you will be willing to play with and there's no sense waiting around toeing lines in the dirt of the field.
If you believe and make that argument then the truth has already lost.
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.