Posted on 04/08/2010 2:32:54 PM PDT by iowamark
Glenn Beck and radio pals Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere rattled down the list of potential Republican nominees for President in 2012 this morning, and they had some bad news for the Tea Party movement: Sarah Palin probably won’t run, Ron Paul is still and long shot, and Mitt Romney, as of now, is the GOP’s best bet.
While Gray and Burguiere are harsh to most of the candidates, Beck spreads the love around. He tells his co-hosts that he likes Palin but doesn’t think she will run, Bobby Jindal but doesn’t think he has the charisma, and Congressman Paul but doesn’t think America is ready for him. Then, at the bottom of the pile, he finds Mitt Romney:
"I have to tell you that Mitt Romney could be the only guy that could win, and I don’t know if he could because I think that Americans are going to be I mean, this country is going to be in deep trouble by 2012, and the next term, if it’s not decided this term, the next term will decide our fate. Then I hope that Americans are ready for an adult and are ready for hard news."
It’s a strange, possibly sad conclusion from someone who had called Romney out for “flirting with socialism,” but ultimately Beck was trying to determine who could win, not who he thought should. If Beck was playing process of elimination, which he clearly was, it’s hard to refute his conclusion that Romney is the least likely candidate to crash and burn in a general election, if only for being a conservative from the most liberal state of America and having moderate successes like universal health care under his belt. Or– and this one is for you conspiracy theorists out there– maybe Beck is intentionally downplaying the Republican candidates’ ability to success so as to clear the brush and become the reluctant right-wing candidate by default. After all, he is the second-most popular human being in America. (Link to a Harris poll: Glenn Beck is the second most popular television personality in America… second only to Oprah Winfrey.)
Listen to the segment below:
Again, you’re dealing with cases addressing simple citizenship only. Have you actually read what I sent you links to?
I posted links referencing court cases, which is more than you’ve posted.
- - - - - -
You posted links to blogs. I posted court cases.
Do you even work in a law office?
No, we don’t. Other countries do. Example: my grandfather became an American citizen in the 1950s. To America he was an American, to his country of birth he was also a dual citizen. But America didn’t recognize any other citizenship.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
- - - - - -
Specifically deals with “natural born” and parental immigration status.
You posted court cases that don’t pertain to the issue. I posted links that refer to court cases that do.
Yes, I saw your blogs. Which have nothing to do with the rule of law.
Yes I did. Re read them and you will see how they apply. One specifically covers it.
Get over it. You are the type who gives ‘birthers’ a bad name.
I know that we have Americans with dual citizenship and that it is allowed.
Ha!
I’m not a ‘birther’, though it sounds like you are.
Going for the mob banker, then?
Then do you understand that America does not recognize any other citizenship other than American?
Riiigght. So Zero is eligible but Jindal is not?
OY!
What law office do you work in again?
I don’t think either is eligible, but I think the focus on Obama’s BC is a red herring. And I’ve no idea why you think my working or not working in a law office is such a key point.
It would explain why you are sourcing blogs and are unfamiliar with the relevant common and case law on an intimate basis.
Westlaw is our friend.
I get that but we do have dual citizenship, isn’t there a better way to phrase it than as you did?
If only you had referred to cases that involve natural born citizenship rather than citizenship! Westlaw doesn’t help those who aren’t even in the ballpark!
Did you even read the cases I mentioned? Especially United States v. Kim Wong Ark. It pretty much says everything.
I did. The case law discusses what defines a ‘natural born’ citizen and what does not.
If you were familiar with the actual cases then you would know that.
I’m well into the ball park, but I guess someone who gets their legal advice from blogs wouldn’t see that.
Primary sources are important.
I know what I’ll do, get stoned for the next 35 years.
***
wow did not you did that kind of thing...
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.