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."
President Trey Gowdy. A true conservative who wouldn't be supported by a GOP establishment which is still entrenched. Enough said? Their argument? Too conservative to win. But Gowdy would have my enthusiastic support.
Cruz is a naturalized citizen.
The statute you cite naturalized Cruz, not his mother.
Alas, I agree. Maybe she will be a marginal improvement over the bogus POTUS. Or she can mop up after his destruction.
There we will have to disagree. At birth, Cruz received his citizenship from his mother and no other action was required to naturalize him. Therefor, he is a natural born citizen.
Please indulge my personal question for Freepers. My mother came to the US from Canada and married my father, a naturalized American citizen. I was born in the US before my mother became a citizen, which she did after complying with the Alien Registration Act during WWII. My question: Am I a natural born citizen?
I like Cruz too but he was born in Canada and his father was not a US citizen.
So technically he is not eligible just like my daughter that was born in China and who has non-US citizen mother
That said, I do not see how the demonrats could complain about it without invalidating the Obamanation of Desolation
Fair comments. I really do care about Character. I think that in general this is one of the areas where Republicans tend to look a lot better than Democrats.
But I see our laudable concern for Character being turned into a weapon used against us by the media. “What hypocrites! They claim to be Christian, and moral, but look what they do!” and it really annoys me.
I would choose a solid, stand-up guy. But I’d be willing to accept some degree of imperfection if his politics were good.
The governing statue is Title 8 section 1401 subsection G(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...
The only way the GOP will ever get another vote for me is if they go in the direction of Palin/Cruz. Someone clearly in that tea-party/reformer vein. Otherwise, I’m through. I’m at least 7/8’s out-the-door already, after exclusively supporting and voting GOP my whole adult life. The Republican Party really lost me these past four years.
Governing law is title 8 section 1401 subsection G of USC. (see post #44 for the text.)
I don't blame you. But the alternative? Not a third party to split the vote?
Note the title, “Immigration and Naturalization Act”
Hint ... all persons are born.
They are either born a citizen or the must be naturalized.
According to US law, a person born who by qualification of their parent(s) does not need to be naturalized, is defacto a natural born citizen.
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, but that is how it stands.
Why does a U.S. citizen, who has never been a citizen of another country, have to reside in the country for a certain time for their child to be a citizen? According to this, children could be born who are not citizens of any country? They could be born in the U.S. but not citizens here or anywhere else. This seems truly bizarre.
There is no 7-year residency requirement. The two years may be part of the five years.
You were born in the US. End of discussion. You are a natural born US citizen.
Title 8 section 1401 subsection A
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;
The law you cited is very plain.
The citizenship and residency requirements of the parents are specified in order for the person born to be a citizen. The person born is naturalized. The citizenship of the parents is not modified.
Cruz is a naturalized citizen, by the naturalization law you cite. Take away the statute, POOF, no more citizenship.
The 7 years that I identified was to show that there was 7 years where in his mother could have (and most likely did) meet the requirement.
Read Title 8 in full. The phrase “natural born” NEVER OCCURS.
Thank you very much for your answer in post #76.
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.