Posted on 04/12/2016 2:25:47 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I am a delegate to both the North Carolina State GOP convention to be held in May and my Congressional District Convention next week. My political insider connection is that I showed up at my precinct caucus/county convention last month, where I expressed the willingness to commit to the time and expense of attending these other conventions.
I have made a similar commitment every few years for the past three decades. When I lived in Chicago I was also a delegate to several Illinois State GOP conventions for the same reasons: I voted in Republican primaries, attended my ward Republican organization's meetings and made the commitment to attend the state convention. As a law professor I had who was also a veteran of the Minnesota State legislature used to tell his class, “The world belongs to those who show up to participate.”
The sad fact is that many times delegate/alternate slots to political conventions go unfilled because there are not enough people willing to participate. A county convention may take from half to a full day depending on the size of the county. A congressional district may also take up to a day. The state party convention's general assembly is also an entire day and unless the state convention is in one's hometown, attendance involves at least one night's stay in a hotel. Plus there are registration fees to pay and travel costs.
There is one big difference this year. As I listen to Trump whine about how unfair it is that he actually has to come up with hundreds of warm bodies willing to spend the time and money to go to Cleveland to cast the votes he won through his plurality finishes in various primaries, I marvel at the incredible level of organization inside Ted Cruz's campaign...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It takes work, and Trump’s organization has been solely based on him getting on a plane and going to a rally. Period. He has used his money sparingly for which I do not fault, but he should have been hiring people who know the system on the ground game. Naïveté doesn’t suit Trump well.
ahh the Red Shirt brigades have shown up. Che would be proud of you.
The immigrants (that are coming) and other important stuff.
“Earthlings went on being friendly, when they should have been thinking instead.” Kurt Vonnegut
Felito is not a nickname for Fidel. It’s a nickname for Rafael. You know, little Rafael because his fathers name was Rafael. You should probably do a little more research before you start writing that article.
No, Che would be of Felito.
Cruz is controlling the delegate selection process because his supporters are showing up, and Trump's aren't. This is hardly the only story about Trump not even having a list of delegate names for people to vote on.
Trump’s complaint about Cruz’s tactics uses exactly the same argument that Cruz has used to critique Donald’s business career: “You used the rules of a corrupt system to further your personal ambition. Therefore, you are corrupt, liberal, unprincipled, etc.” Donald contributed to politicians of all parties (more to Cruz than to Hillary) and used laws he didn’t make to win. Cruz is doing the same thing in the delegate acquisition arena. But in the eyes of Cruz and his supporters he is just being smart since he didn’t create the system.
I admit that Cruz is masterful in using a corrupt system to further his personal ambition. By the standard that Cruzers apply to Trump, does that make Ted corrupt?
Rafael Edward “Little Fidel” Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and has a Canadian birth certificate. His boyhood nickname, “Felito,” means “fidelity,” leading back to Fidel Castro; the -o suffix is diminutive, thus “Little Fidel.” His self-selected presidential code name, “Cohiba,” sounds much like “Cuba” and is the brand name of a Cuban cigar. The name “Fidel” can also mean cigar! Cohiba=cigar=Fidel... I’m liking it!
His father did not become an American citizen (2005) until Ted Cruz reached age 35, the age of eligibility to run for president. Ted did not formally renounce his own Canadian citizenship until shortly before launching his bid for the presidency.
There is humor in one seeking the presidency despite being born in Canada to a Cuban communist revolutionary. Just think, he would be the first Cuban president, the first president born on foreign soil, and the first president born to someone who fought for a Communist revolution. Lots of firsts!
Yours is the kind of post that really makes me hope Cruz wins the nomination, even though I’m not thrilled with him as a candidate.
Not according to Spanish it is not a nickname of Rafael.
Trump’s complaint about Cruz’s tactics uses exactly the same argument that Cruz has used to critique Donald’s business career: “You used the rules of a corrupt system to further your personal ambition. Therefore, you are corrupt, liberal, unprincipled, etc.” Donald contributed to politicians of all parties (more to Cruz than to Hillary) and used laws he didn’t make to win. Cruz is doing the same thing in the delegate acquisition arena. But in the eyes of Cruz and his supporters he is just being smart since he didn’t create the system.
Cruz had no choice about using the existing system, Trump could have used the same system. Nobody forced Trump to buy political favors.
Apples and Oranges.
Nobody forced Ted to use establishment rules to gather delegates. He simply chose to use them because he wants to win. Trump used rules he didn’t create because he wants to win. Different arena, same behavior.
You should be able to amass a large following here. Pro tip: The crazier, the better.
There is a long tradition of controlling the delegate selection process, primarily to make sure the delegates look after the interests of the state party. There have been specialists for several decades, probably more, in steering that selection toward particular candidates. So long as that steering also respected the state party interests, the state Republican Party organizations had no problem with it.
Trump needs to start playing the game too, since that is the game he has entered. I'm not blaming him for thinking that winning so many state primaries matters more than it does, but I will blame him if he continues to fail to learn how the system actually works.
Why are you so eager to install the first foreign born president?
What is the advantage for Americans and American sovereignty to accept foreign born citizens to lead the largest military power in the world?
Why do you want a foreign born person as the Commander in Chief of the US Military?
What is the advantage for Americans and American sovereignty to accept foreign born citizens to lead the largest military power in the world?
Why do you want a foreign born person as the Commander in Chief of the US Military?
I don't inherently prefer that a President be "foreign-born", but I don't think it should be a disqualifier. I know a lot of military people who had children born overseas -- "foreign born" -- including my own brother, and my parents (and my brother) are as patriotic as could be. Same with most military parents.
But more importantly, it's a matter of weighing various pluses and minuses. Would I prefer a patriotic American citizen at birth to a someone like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Absolutely.
TRUE, We are in agreement. I absolutely would prefer any patriot over the leftists alternatives.
It just seems that the push to lower the standards for the highest office in the land throws the door wide open to those born anywhere, including the nations of hostile enemies. It greatly increases the potential for conflicted loyalties. Our electorate has proven to be grossly naive in the selection of the current potus and his division of loyalties.
It is highly doubtful that anyone questions Cruz’s patriotism. The problem lies with those that may follow him in the future. I care about America’s future way beyond 2016.
We all know that the DNC would absolutely target this issue. Why nominate someone who is subject to be disqualified by your opponent.
So as not to get too bogged down into this discussion, I'll just say that my view of the Constitution (and I am a lawyer who has litigated in the Supreme Court of my own state, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court), is that the determination of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" was left to Congress, within I suppose some extreme parameters. I also believe that this is the view that would prevail at the Supreme Court, unanimously. Punting a controversial political issue to the lawmaking process is always appealing.
The problem lies with those that may follow him in the future. I care about America’s future way beyond 2016.
So do I. But look -- the truth is that a disloyal, anti-American scumbag could just as easily be a natural born citizen -- we all could name a few, I suspect. So ultimately, the best check on us electing someone like that is simply the voters themselves. And if we lack that ability, then the NBC clause isn't going to save us anyway
>> I’ll just say that my view of the Constitution.... is that the determination of what constitutes a “natural born citizen” was left to Congress, within I suppose some extreme parameters.<<<
Congress: There have been at least nine(9) attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution during my lifetime. All have failed. This is indicative that Congress has always recognized that the Constitution requires an amendment in order to change the requirements for POTUS.
Most of those bills have sought to drop the natural born citizen requirement for foreign born citizens and add the requirement of “twenty (20) years or fifteen (15) years a US citizen.” Again, all of these attempts to amend the Constitution and drop the NBC clause have failed to gain traction.
And now we have numerous state eligibility bills intended to keep foreign born citizens off the state ballots for the General Election that have been introduced between 2009 and 2011. Plenty of Americans do not want to change the NBC requirements for any candidate or political party.
The complete lack of vetting of a presidential candidate and the subsequent dismissal of eligibility issues in 2008 has resulted in states scrambling to prevent a redo of 2008 and 2012. The only thing that has changed in 2016 is the enablers; now its the GOP as opposed to the DNC.
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.