RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

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

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
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.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[Yosemitest]

That was 6 minutes and 49 seconds of my time well spent. Thank you.
But you might enjoy this with video.
Just click on it. It's called Rush Limbaugh - "Rollback Pelosi" 2/12/2010

[Yosemitest]

"Until they BECOME citizens, they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'."

WRONG.
As soon as they apply for Citizenship, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

[iontheball]

How do you get around the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that trumps all legislative acts? Therefore, Congress can not devine who is or is not a citizen if what they are are doing is unconstitutional? They do not have the authority to amend the Constitution. It would not be the first Congressional misadventure that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional.

[Yosemitest]

I refer you to post #11 and post #30.
Rubio IS ELIGIBLE!!!

[livius]

Rubio is perfectly eligible, he’s a natural born citizen, and there has never ever been a case where someone was declared not a natural born US citizen on the basis of his parents’ citizenship. Place of birth is what does it; that’s why the Chinese can pay to come in and have babies here, who automatically are considered natural born US citzens, even though their parents live in China and take them back to China immediately and raise them there. Like it or not, the place is what matters.

In fact, if Rubio’s parents had been US citizens but if he himself had been born elsewhere, he would not be considered natural born. This was the whole argument over McCain, if you will recall, who was born to a military family in a hospital in Panama that was used by the military but was not actually on the base (not on US soil, in other words).

So Rubio is fully eligible. Whether he’d want to run, of course, is another matter, and I don’t think he would. He has a very nice young family to look after, and I think he’s happy with what he’s achieving in the Senate.

[Yosemitest]

What part of An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790) don't you understand?

It's their job. It established the RULE of Naturalization.
How dense can you get?!?!?!

[Condor51]

I saw them - FAIL.

The author is a Rubiobot, I checked all his past articles.

[iontheball]

No, you fail to understand how the Supreme Court works. Just because Congress has the authority to make laws does not mean that all such laws are Constitutional. If the Act you refer to is challenged in the Supreme Court, the Court will judge the law against Article II. It may or may not pass the test.

[Drew68]

I thought Rubio wasn’t eligible in terms of having both parents being Americans at the time he was born?

Made-up birther nonsense.

Rubio is eligible.

[Campion]

This would make Rubio a native born citizen, not a natural born one.

That's a distinction that doesn't exist in the law. Whether it existed in the framer's minds, or in their intentions, or whether it ought to exist, etc., is fine to argue about, but Rubio's eligibility or lack thereof is determined by the law.

The law says that a person born in U.S. territory of parents who are not "under foreign jurisdiction" (not diplomats, foreign military at war with the U.S., etc.) are citizens by birth, and the law does not distinguish between "citizen by birth" and "natural-born".

[Yosemitest]

It doesn't change the LAW.
The LAW is clear and I've referenced it enough.
You refuse to recognize the LAW, that's YOUR problem.
Rubio is eligible, plain and simple, and your rants against an author doesn't change the LAW.
Personally, my favorite is Palin, THEN Bachmann, THEN Cain, and THEN Newt.
I would vote for Rubio BEFORE I would even think about Christie, but it would come AFTER Newt.

[Campion]

Until they BECOME citizens, they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

Untrue. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" has a specific meaning under the law. Resident aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" legally. Diplomats aren't. That's the difference.

[MomofMarine]

Thanks for this post. I’m enjoying your replies as much as the original post. Lately, I’ve been thinking that, if Rubio were to run, it might bring the whole citizenship question really out in the open and settle the matter once and for all. What do you think? I’ll have to bookmark this as I’m off to work but look forward to more of this later.

[MamaTexan]

As soon as they apply for Citizenship, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

LOL! I can't blame you for believing that - it's something we were all brainwashed by our public education to accept as a 'fact'.

--------

The point is, applying for citizenship is not enough. Until they ARE citizens they cannot pass their citizenship to their offspring.

That's how natural-borns are made - they inherit their citizenship from their parents.

No parental citizenship means NO NATURAL-BORN OFFSPRING.

The fact they had begun the process of naturalization is irrelevant.

[Wong Kim Ark's parents had begun the naturalization process as well, but the USSC still considered him to be native born, not natural born]

-------

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” —
John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

Citizenship is an absolute. There are no exceptions for a quasi state of 'almost' a citizen.

Rubio is not eligible for public office for the same reason Soetoro is not....and I will not be a hypocrite and say otherwise just because he is 'one of ours'!

[MamaTexan]

That's a distinction that doesn't exist in the law.

Yes, it does.

Wong Kim Ark
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

------

This is like saying a car is just as much a vehicle as a truck.

A true statement on it's face, but it doesn't make a car INTO a truck.

Wong Kim petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen. The court agreed he was such, but the finding made the distinction between natural-born and native born.

Had there BEEN no distinction, the finding would not have been worded as it was.

[MamaTexan]

Resident aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" legally.

Constitutionally, resident aliens are 'denizens' and are subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside.

[Yosemitest]

If it chooses,

Congress and the states can ratify a constitutional amendment that eradicates the decision and/or protects an entity from future action, form the Supreme Court.

While the President and Congress can't directly change an unfavorable decision, they may circumvent the decision by passing legislation that addresses the constitutional challenge while still accomplishing their goal. Congress also has the right to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases under their appellate jurisdiction (called jurisdiction stripping) to reduce the possibility of certain controversies being declared unconstitutional in the future. Neither of these actions would overturn or change the Court's decision; they are simply political maneuvers used to check the federal judiciary.

,/a>What part of March 26, 1790 don't you understand?
Do you think today's Supreme Court is going to undo a LAW that was written by the Founding Fathers?
You jump the gun, too quickly. Slow down and read the post.
Don't just respond through emotion. That's what liberals do.

[Yosemitest]

I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm getting tired, and I need to go to bed and get some sleep.
Diabetes can be a real pain to my schedule.

" if Rubio were to run, it might bring the whole citizenship question really out in the open and settle the matter once and for all.
What do you think?"

Well in an honest society, I think that it would get settled.
BUT ... we're living in evil times, and today, only one side is even trying to be honest.
I don't think it will get solved today. Here's why.
I WISHED we could solve it, but I also wished that Democrats would have been honest about the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF.
I wished the Lame Stream Media wasn't so communistic in its agendas, and I wished they would have really vetted Obama.
It'll get worse before it gets better, but it WILL get better.

[Yosemitest]

You're as sharp as the leading edge of a basketball.
Read the LAW again. Argue with it, not me.

[GregNH]

If you have to depend on a LAW to determine your citizenship then you are not a natural born Citizen.