Posted on 01/27/2013 2:10:47 PM PST by drewh
know it's premature. But as I watched President Barack Obama take the oath of office for a second term on Monday, I couldn't help thinking that four years from now, it'll probably be President-elect Marco Rubio's turn.
Why do I think Rubio is likely to be our next president? Because the Florida senator has the vision, charisma, brains, and communications skills to fix the problems that will no doubt linger long after Obama has returned to Chicago.
Of course, this is not an entirely original observation. Four years out, Rubio is already at the top of what many consider to be a strong 2016 Republican bench. His background and biography (he's the son of Cuban immigrants) don't hurt. But Rubio is also a natural communicator. He could be something special. He could be a pivotal leader, someone who redefines the GOP for the 21st century.
"Senator Rubio is striving to develop language to update the American story, to become a messenger from the future," author James Strock tells me. This is high praise coming from the author of such books as Reagan on Leadership and Theodore Roosevelt on Leadership.
Here's my theory: Being elected president in the modern era requires you to be a sort of rock star. A lot of conservatives don't like this — they don't like the "cult of personality." But it's just a fact of life.
The trend probably started with John F. Kennedy. And though it has certainly skipped a few modern presidents, if you look at Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, it's clear the messenger was special. These weren't merely traditional pols who simply climbed the greasy pole of politics by dispensing patronage jobs.
This is not to give the impression that leadership is superficial. Winston Churchill was an inspiring and charismatic prime minister — and he didn't exactly have Hollywood looks. Leadership is about vision and character. It's also about persuasion and communication. The best leaders challenge us to do big things.
Our society is facing a leadership crisis. If America now demands charismatic presidents, the public is also yearning for someone who can inspire and persuade. Everywhere we turn, we see a failure of leadership and character. There is no escape. Lance Armstrong admits to doping. Manti Te'o is duped by the bogus tale of a fake girlfriend. Even our sports are tainted.
James MacGregor Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership in his 1978 book Leadership. While transactional leadership focuses on quid pro quo, transformational leadership focuses on summoning us to our better angels.
When politicians promise things to special interests — or divide the electorate into coalitions they can do favors for — they are employing transactional leadership. When congressmen are cajoled or bribed via earmarks or committee assignments, they are doing the same. But when leaders summon us to discover our most noble calling — to sacrifice for something greater than our own personal interest — they are transformational leaders.
While too many liberals pander to voters — and too many conservatives believe stirring rhetoric is beneath them (preferring instead to get mired in the wonky weeds or to spout tired talking points) — Rubio's rhetoric is decidedly Reaganesque. "He is one of the best orators in the GOP," says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. "It is too early to say if he will ever rival Reagan, but he has as good a chance as anyone."
Consider this excerpt from Rubio's speech at the Republican National Convention this summer:
That journey — that journey, from behind that bar [his father was a bartender] to behind this podium, goes to the essence of the American miracle. That we're exceptional, not because we have more rich people here. We are special because dreams that are impossible anywhere else, they come true here. ...
The story of our time will be written by Americans who haven't yet even been born. Let us make sure they write that we did our part. That, in the early years of this new century, we lived in an uncertain time, but we did not allow fear to make us abandon what made us special.
Chris Christie can bully and berate, but can he make the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Paul Ryan knows budgets inside and out, but can he inspire? Bobby Jindal has the best résumé around, but can he make you want to run through a wall for him?
The verdict is still out on that. Maybe one of them, or somebody else, will rise to the occasion.
But words do matter. In this regard, President Obama was correct when, during the 2008 primaries, he said — borrowing from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick — "Don't tell me words don't matter … I have a dream' — just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words."
It's undeniable that words are important. Words can summon men to do great things or even inspire a nation.
Don't tell me words don't matter. Marco Rubio has the words. He has the charisma. He has the policy chops. And he has the personal story.
Watch out, Hillary. Come January 2017, America won't be inaugurating its first female president. We'll be inaugurating our first Latino commander-in-chief.
Nobody's buying that made-up birther crap, and you know it.
Just another idiot blogger posting crap about 2016 as though the next four years are already over. You may not have a country to vote in come 2016 and yet some twit blogger thinks what he has to say about it now matters and you post that crap? Tells us where your head is at and it isn’t in the here and now. This party-over-country rah-rah cheerleader crap has got to stop.
As Dion DiMucci once sang (or should of!), it ain’t gonna be Rubio, baby!
No, you won’t. At least, not with my help. No way.
Hillary will eat his lunch. We need someone that’s tough for a change.
“and I personnally don’t consider being the son of a bartender to be laudible”
Showing a little elitism there are you?
“BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS”
Citizen parents not needed, one just needs to be born on American soil to be a legal citizen.
We are not talking about “legal citizen”.
A native born citizen, a citizen due to parents’s U.S. citizenship, or a naturalized citizen, all three can serve in the U.S.Congress per the U.S.Constitution. All that is required to be a Congressman or a Senator is that a person be a “Citizen”.
When talking about the U.S.Presidency, the Constitution requires more, that a person be “a natural born Citizen”.
Do you want more information on this subject?
Three types of citizenship, all statutory, are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Virginia Minor, a Suffragette, sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President.
The eligibility requirement of natural born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
The following is often used to support people like Rubio who seek to be President, but it was superceded centuries ago and is a false argument.
“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
I don’t think Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, because his parents weren’t citizens when he was born. Of course not being a Natural Born Citizen hasn’t stopped the kenyan commie dictator.
Rubio has a chance in 2016 if he can up his political game, but his ethnicity will not necessarily help.
Who the hell is “we”?
May be, but I won't be voting for him. He is not a Natural Born citizen. Although who cares about the Constitution anymore? Certainly not the Republican Party.
Yeh I’m underwhelmed by Marco. Within 2 weeks of winning his senate seat due largely to the support of the Tea Party he was distancing himself. I’ll stick with Rand Paul thank you.
“Showing a little elitism there are you?”
No, I just don’t think peddling alcohol is a noble thing. One step above being a stripper to pay the bills.
Rubio looks good except for amnesty; er, “path to citizenship” in progressive-speak. Sad.
I’ll happily vote for Rubio rather than Hillary or Biden. If Rubio can appeal to Hispanics, I’m all for it. We must win, if there is another election.
There are a few people who buy it. Annoying, but true.
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.