RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Rush, You're great, and I have enormous respect and admiration for you.
BUT ... you said:

" Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on. "

Rush ... I'm one of those people. There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.
Rush, I can't support Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, or Jon Huntsman. They're just too liberal or "Establishment Republican" types for me to support.
As long as the "Establishment Republicans" keep telling us to vote for the lesser of two evils and vote RINO, they'll lose, because the base won't buy that crap amy more.
The "Establishment Republicans" taught us well ... that

It may be worth it, for the GOP to lose some elections IF
it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

Rush, you said:

" The Republican establishment has no desire for mainstream conservatism running the party or getting the nomination.
And that's why they're hot to trot for Christie.
"But Rush, but Rush, are you saying that Christie is not a mainstream --"
I'm not saying he's not conservative by any stretch.

But he's acceptable to the Republican establishment. "

You said in an earlier article titled On Texas and Presidential Politics about "illegal immigration" and "Perry's in-state tuition business" :

Now, most people look at that
and they just can't abide it
and some people are willing to throw Perry overboard and off the bus because of it.

Well ... that's me. There's no way in hell that I can support that Anti-American crap.
I just can't, and I won't!
I won't even think about it.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

Well Rush, in closing, I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Jonty30]

I know that the establishment doesn’t care for the constitution one twit, but I thought Rubio wasn’t eligible in terms of having both parents being Americans at the time he was born?

[byteback]

Rush also said that he understands why Christie doesn't want to run and that the anal exam that any R will get is only worth it if the person is completely committed to the job.

If Rubio says he's not ready then by Rush's own statements and logic he should wait 'till he is. I think Rubio is a smart cookie and knows that he could win this so why not get in? It's not because he doesn't think he can win.

[Yosemitest]

I know.
The Democrats think you must be born in the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, to be a Natural Born Citizen.

[Yosemitest]

This isn't about Rubio running,
but it clearly shows why we MUST flush out the "Establishment Republicans" (read RINOs) into the open and defeat them.

[Yosemitest]

Reference Rubio's eligibility, read The Good News: Rubio's Eligible By Chet Arthur July 9, 2011

[Jonty30]

The Democrats have a better sense of geography than most Americans.

The Mombasa General Hospital is in a suburb of Connecticut.

[RobbyS]

Rush is right about the Establishment. It didn’t disappear in 1964. It had to remain back stage while Nixon was in office, but then when he
appointed Jerry Ford and the Ford appointed Rockefeller. It was right there again. Reagan then won despite them.although he had to take George H.W. Bush as a kind of Jerry Ford substitute. Good ole JERRY never forgave Reagan for displacing him, although we didn’t know that until Ford died that he was so bitter. Reagan of course drove Carter insane. But the surest sign of the continuing power of the Establishment is that Kissinger is still taken seriously. Which is why George Bush’s foreign policy was so odd. The mess ins Iraq put the “Realists” back in charge, so that when he said things such as “Islamic Fascism, he was forced to get back in line. Apart from his occasional rebellion, Bush was an Establishmentarian, with his domestic policies.

[Yosemitest]

That's in the Fifty Seventh State?

[Jonty30]

That definition of natural citizen seems to stretch the Founders’ intentions. Their intent was to minimize the ability to defeat the United States from the inside and considering kids who are the product of one parent being American or allowing them to be born outside the US seems to work against the intent.

[Yosemitest]

I've got over 26 years in the military.
That definition is accurate.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution resolves this question for us.

Clearly, says this respected source, what the Founders sought to avoid was foreign intrigue, or intriguers, becoming president.  Wise Founders.  (Too bad they didn't also say "Marxists need not apply.")

The Guide cites the estimable John Jay, our first Chief Justice, who during the Constitutional Convention wrote to George Washington in 1787 to urge that "a strong check [be included] to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."  (Don't you love how Jay capitalizes Citizen?)

Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen?  No, said the Founders.  The Heritage Foundation's Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born."  This was our first naturalization statute (1 Stat. 104).  This Congress contained many Members, notably James Madison himself, who had just framed the Constitution in Philadelphia.

To provide a further check on foreign intrigue, the Founders specified that a person must have been "fourteen years a Resident within the United States."  Why was that necessary?

Author David McCullough provides the answer -- although that was not his purpose-in his latest smash bestseller, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris.  McCullough describes John Singer Sargent, the famous American painter.  Sargent had been born in Rome to American expatriate parents.  Young Sargent lived in Europe and never visited the U.S. until 1876.  His wealthy mother brought him to the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia when he was 19 years old.

Could such an expatriate "natural born Citizen" become president?  Not unless he returned to the U.S. and lived here 14 years, the Founders wisely provided.  John Singer Sargent painted the powerful portrait of Theodore Roosevelt that today hangs in the White House, but he could not have run for the office himself.

The Founders were serious about American identity and the integrity of republican principles.  It was an incredible blessing to us that George and Martha Washington had no children of their marriage.  Washington had referred to this fact in the first draft of his Inaugural Address.  There would be no danger of monarchy here, he said, because he had "no child for whom I could wish to make provision -- no family to build in greatness upon my country's ruin."

Now, consider Marco Rubio.  His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside."  This "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause shows why Rubio is -- and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not -- a "natural born citizen of the United States."

We should be very careful in discussions of the Constitution to avoid the impression that we are an anti-immigrant party.  To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution's eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future.  Surely, that is not what we want.

Let's remember Ronald Reagan's beautiful Farewell Address.  He spoke of Vietnamese Boat People in the South China Sea.

... the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, "Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man."

Today, Marco Rubio is a freedom man.  So are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley a freedom man and woman.  We should be proud to have any of these children of exiles as our president. 

[1010RD]

The Constitution. If you capitalize anything capitalize the Constitution. It’s the one the world copies and the one that will keep America free.

[Jonty30]

I will do that.

[Jonty30]

If that’s how the Founders defined it, I respect it.

It’s just there are so many trying tear apart at the Constitution that you’re probably better off tightening the eligibility a bit.

[Yosemitest]

This is for you. Just click on "Find Out".

[Yosemitest]

" ... you’re probably better off tightening the eligibility a bit"

I disagree.
We can't do any better than following the Constitution.

[Nextrush]

Rush: Why aren’t they begging Rubio?

Nextrush: When Sarah Palin enters the race and rises up in the polls they will be begging Rubio to get in to stop her....

My take is that Perry came in when Bachmann was rising and won the Ames, Iowa straw poll.

My take is that all the Chris Christie talk is designed to take attention off the rise of Herman Cain.

The establishment floats candidates to preempt the rise of conservative ones in the race.

[Yosemitest]

I couldn’t agree with you, more.

[Donnafrflorida]

By some standards mentioned, if Rubio is ineliglble then so is JFK and MCCAIN.

[Yosemitest]

To all those "Establishment Republicans" who would raise such a straw man, we're taking names and writing 'em down.
We WILL remember.