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."
You're right. Then why this emphasis on natural born citizen?
Rubio is a useful idiot of the left. His ego is bigger than his brain.
The law as constructed applies to not only natural born citizens but also to naturalized citizens.
In theory, it is possible for someone to become a US citizen (naturalized) but because of their work reside outside of the US. Perhaps never even setting foot on US soil. Rare but can happen.
For the sake of this argument, assume that person is British and has never left British soil. Later, they then marry a local and have a kid. This statue would prevent citizenship from passing to the kid by birth.
Now for case #2. Same person but they spend 5 years in the US, then return to their country of birth. Later, they have a kid. I that case, citizenship would pass by birth.
Bizarre and immigration laws are almost synonyms of each other.
Perhaps. A new third-party. Or leaving the presidential ballot blank. It’s a bridge I’ve already crossed. When the GOP convention snubbed Palin and outlawed the very words “tea party” from being spoken, that was the final nail for me. It became clear and apparent the Party no longer represented my views or my values.
If the GOP serves up a Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, etc., it will be an easy “adios.” No consternation whatsoever.
Careful, if you take away the statue, then NO ONE is a natural born citizen. Subsection A is what determines that US Citizenship is automatically granted to someone born on US soil.
Naturalized require an act of naturalization. Cruz does not require naturalization as at the time of his birth, he was a citizen and no naturalization is required.
Again, can't blame you. Then prepare to settle in for a a long siege of Hildebeast. I'd take a flawed Rubio over the beastly one.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.Obviously there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen or Article II would not be written as it is.No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
It has never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
No natural born citizen is ever a statutory citizen, and vice versa.
typo:
It has never been doubted...
The Const. also does not provide a definition of “NBC” and leaves it to Congress to set laws regarding citizenship. There are ZERO laws in the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations that differentiate between a “NBC” and a person who acquires citizenship by birth.
Although there is no SCOTUS case directly on point, the likelihood that the court would draw such a distinction after 200+ years is about zero as well.
Krispy Kreme hasn’t been sucking zero’s a$$ for nothing.... he needs his endorsement to win in 16. Just watch, he’ll lose 100 lbs winning the Oprah vote, Independents and 40% of lite Rs.
I believe he and POSHITUS are conspiring to keep Thighness out of ‘16.
Acquiring citizenship by birth is not the same as acquiring citizenship at birth by statute.
In regard to citizenship Congress can only pass naturalization acts. If you are contending that a naturalized person is a natural born citizen then there is no purpose whatsoever for the grandfather clause of Article II. Such a construction is not only nonsensical it violates the rules of construction.
No Chit, Cherlock.
Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You sound like someone who's missed the proverbial train at the station. Marco Rubio has proven himself to be a pathetic RINO, if not a stealth Democrat, i.e., an utter fraud.
Whatever good will and conservative credentials he may have once possessed, have now gone up in smoke, because of his recent push to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
If you run really fast, you might still catch that train.
Ted Cruz’ circumstance of birth only qualifies him as a Citizen - not a Natural Born Citizen (born on U.S. soil to two American citizens).
I strongly disagree that the only requirement for NBC is birth to one American born citizen of the proper age and length of residency.
Under title 8 section 1401 subsection G the circumstances of Cruz’s birth do in fact, qualify him as a natural born citizen.
Natural born does not mean born on US soil to two US citizens. Natural born means that there is not a need for naturalization to be a citizen.
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress and in that section, specifically states that Congress shall establish the rules for naturalization. This include both those that need naturalization and those that are nationals and citizens from birth. Title 8 section 1401 is the enactment of that Constitutional authority.
Free Republic also did its best to destroy Mitt Romney.
If Jeb Bush chooses to run, he’ll be the nominee.
1. Palin - has the background to instantly be in the front of the race if she decides to run.
2. Cruz - coming up fast with the base, hated by left-media, would be fun to watch.
3. Rubio - probably hurt himself fatally with his embrace of immigration reform
4. Paul Ryan - lost as VP w/ McCain, so not much to run on.
5. Rand Paul - strangely, almost the front runner at this point, due to name recognition and getting into the race so early.
6. Allan West - lost his House seat. So probably not really positioned to win POTUS.
7. Bachmann - could try again but wasn’t that impressive the first time through (and she is the only candidate I gave money to, so it’s not like I’m Bachmann bashing)
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.