Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Incredible Vanishing GOP Presidential Front-Runner
NPR ^ | June 05, 2013 | Alan Greenblatt

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."


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last
To: chesty_puller
Free Republic did it's best to destroy Rick Perry.

Rick Perry has a record and there is very little of it that can be called conservative. Trans-Texas-Corridor, should be all you need to know about Rick. That and Instate Tuition for illegals, plus you can't build a fence. Texas is too big, but the Corridor project would have been much bigger with a lot more fences.

121 posted on 06/05/2013 4:50:18 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Your reply was condescending and rude. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.


122 posted on 06/05/2013 4:54:03 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
That means, at the time of their birth from the moment they were born, they were a US citizen.

You may not like the law judgein by your posts, but the Framers had no illusion about what being born in the US of Naturalized or Citizens by Birth meant. But smarmy lawyer types like to cloud the issue.

I was not aware that statutes could contradict the Constitution, apparently you are OK with that.

Fact is we will someday let a bunch of socialist progressives on the supreme court tell us the Founders were stupid, then you can have chairman Mao run if you like.

123 posted on 06/05/2013 5:04:48 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
does not describe is birth in country to two US citizen parents. These citizens are natural born citizens.

If it doesn't say that, how do you know?

124 posted on 06/05/2013 5:08:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

SCOTUS said so.


125 posted on 06/05/2013 5:11:24 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"This will be the most open Republican nomination in 50 years"

They said that about the last one. Now they say, Romney got the nomination for being the next in line.

I wonder if this whole "it's his turn" thing isn't something people decide on afterwards. Was it really Ronald Reagan's "turn" in 1980. Maybe for conservatives. But for the GOP-e that is supposed to decide these things? I don't think so. The degree of animosity gets exaggerated, but if you polled establishment Republicans in 1979, many might say that it was George H.W. Bush's turn (except they wouldn't say "H.W" -- that's also something people came up with after the fact).

And was it really George W. Bush's nomination for the asking in 2000. Wasn't it a serious fight between Bush and McCain? It's probably true that Republicans do go with the person who made the second best showing in an earlier election. At least they don't let Time magazine choose their nominees as the Democrats do. But there's a lot of exaggeration.

126 posted on 06/05/2013 5:13:17 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Peas are good for you. It’s more like shut up and eat this crap sandwich.


127 posted on 06/05/2013 5:14:53 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
8 U.S.C. § 1401 has never used the term “natural born citizen”.

It also does not use the term "naturalized"

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.

You are incorrect. Subsection A covers that very scenario.

What it does say is who is considered a citizen at and from birth. Such individuals to not need to be naturalized. In the context if immigration, someone who is naturalized is a person who has had the rights of citizenship conferred upon them. A person who is born a citizen and has that citizenship by birthright does not and is not naturalized.

128 posted on 06/05/2013 5:17:26 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

It also does not use the term “naturalized”

Don’t be ridiculous. The name is “Immigration and Naturalization Act”


129 posted on 06/05/2013 5:20:24 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

By no means does the statue contradict the Constitution. In fact, it is the exercise of the specific enumerated power given to Congress in Article I section 8 where Congress has the power to make the rules for naturalization. That includes who does and does not need naturalization.

Perhaps you were not aware of this but in the very first Congress, there was an act to establish the rules of naturalization. When they did that, they were carrying out their Constitutional duty. It is also a little known fact that it was this VERY CONGRESS that passed the Bill of Rights. Further, the Bill of rights was passed AFTER the Naturalization Act of 1790.


130 posted on 06/05/2013 5:24:23 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

Thank you for giving us 4 more years of obama and all the grief that goes with it. sarc/off


131 posted on 06/05/2013 5:28:40 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
You:
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.

You are incorrect. Subsection A covers that very scenario.

You are incorrect. 8 USC § 1401, in relevant part:

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;
You omit "two citizen parents". 8 U.S.C. § 1401 does not describe birth in country to two US citizen parents.
132 posted on 06/05/2013 5:29:00 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

lol


133 posted on 06/05/2013 5:29:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The only people responsible for Obama’s victory are those who actually cast a vote for him. The only people responsible for Romney’s loss are those who actually cast a vote for him. I am responsible only for the loss of Herman Cain.


134 posted on 06/05/2013 5:45:44 PM PDT by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Actually the name is NOT “Immigration and Naturalization Act”

The title for title 8 is “Aliens and Nationality”
And the title for section 1401 is “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”.

So I reassert my point that while it does use the term “natural born citizen” it also does not use the term “naturalization”.

I will further direct you to the first Congress who passed the first Naturalization Act of 1970 that in part states “...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis mine) ref: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

This is the ONLY reference to “natural born citizens” expressed as the will of Congress. And it clearly shows and establishes the precedence that Congress can describe who is a natural born citizen and FURTHER, that a birth outside the limits of the United States does not preclude the status of natural born citizen.

It should also be noted that this was the very same congress that passed our bill of rights. The members of this very first congress were in fact, our founding fathers.


135 posted on 06/05/2013 5:47:16 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

No sir, you are incorrect. The scenario described in subsection A is of greater inclusion than your limited case. As such it includes and encompasses your “two parent” scenario.


136 posted on 06/05/2013 5:49:19 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Alright, arguendo, all current naturalization law creates “citizen”. No law current law creates “natural born citizen”.

Cruz is naturalized. Get over it.


137 posted on 06/05/2013 5:59:36 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

It is a codification of various immigration and naturalization Acts.


138 posted on 06/05/2013 6:01:26 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

19 candidates plus Jeb Bush, then Jebbie wins it.


139 posted on 06/05/2013 6:05:23 PM PDT by Theodore R. ("Hey, the American people must all be crazy out there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. He is a natural born citizen of Canada (Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, s. 5(1,3))

Cruz is a naturalized US citizen (8 U.S.C. § 1401(g))


140 posted on 06/05/2013 6:07:57 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson