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:

[Squeeky]

These people, who look like a Obotski Bowling Team to me:

The Gert Jonnys

OH Tee Hee!

[Yosemitest]

Another case of "Liberals Lie".
You provide no links to back up you theory.
I can find nothing on the internet to back you up.
You waste my time.
I refer you back to post #63, Post #11, post #64, and post #70.

[Yosemitest]

"there is a legally recognized difference between these term"

I refer you to post #70.

[patlin]

I can find nothing on the internet to back you up

Then you didn't read the entire post as I gave you the information on where to find it/ Don't blame me if you can't take the time to actually read the archives.

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

[Yosemitest]

I'm not wasting any more time on your fictitious theories.
You can't provide a link, because it isn't there.

[patlin]

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA129&dq=congress+globe+1845&ei=VytzTfSfBoGDgAe3vfjjBw&ct=result&sqi=2&id=YWEUAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=congress%20globe%201845&f=false

[patlin]

Yosemitest is a hard core Rubio junkie. Good luck as I haven’t had any thus far.

[Yosemitest]

I can't even read that.
Show me the LAW. Show me the Law under a government site.
I'm not accepting that.
Maybe it's time the Supreme Court cleared up this mess.

[Yosemitest]

First Palin, then Bachmann, then Cain, then Newt, then Santorum, then Rubio,
but NEVER Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, or Gary Johnson, and I'm not so sure about Chris Christie.

[patlin]

First Palin

Finally, something we can agree on!

[patlin]

so easy a kid could do it

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=552

[BladeBryan]

“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.”

According the majority opinion in WKA, the language is based on English common law, and the Court quotes British jurist A.V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” Thus the distinction between native-born and natural-born is that natural-born also included citizens from birth who were not born in the U.S., such as John S. McCain III.

[Yosemitest]

I read:

"The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether
children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,
although it has generally been assumed that they are.
A birth certificate (a.k.a Certificate of Live Birth for children born in certain states) issued by a U.S. state
or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship."

That clears it up for me.

[patlin]

HAHAHAHAHA, United States nationality law according to an astronomy website. Now that’s funny! No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[Yosemitest]

Everyone needs a laugh every now and then.

[patlin]

Permit me to point out the obvious error on that non govt website:

A birth certificate (a.k.a Certificate of Live Birth for children born in certain states) issued by a U.S. state
or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship.”

1st govt laws don't use a.k.a. and 2nd “usually accepted” means doubt and the framers did not put one word in the US Constitution that could be construed with any sort of doubt. Thus the grandfather clause. Even the founding fathers who became president never considered themselves natural born citizens even though they had been born on American soil. When more than one nationality exists at birth, it is the result of man made law, not natural law the reason the word “usually accepted” is used instead of “always accepted”.

[bushpilot1]

let me dig out something in my files..to give you a better understanding..

“The country of the child is that of the father.”

“There is” says McLeod, “something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child’s parents to that society.”

[Yosemitest]

I just needed a laugh and I figured you did too.
I trust Mark Levin (post #63) because he's one of the best legal minds in the country.
I would also think that you would trust Dean C. Haskins (post #70) since he's the Executive Director of The Birther Summit.
Lets read his reply to Bernard Goldberg's

Who Is A “Natural Born Citizen”?
Posted: July 19, 2011

So I’m on the O’Reilly Factor and I say
if the Republicans don’t put Marco Rubio on their national ticket they need to get their heads examined.
Such is my regard for the freshman senator from Florida.

What followed were emails from people who told me
that Rubio can’t be vice president
because the Constitution says only “natural born citizens” can be president or vice president,
and he doesn’t fit the description.

Some went a tad further.
Ray said I need to “wake up.”
Gregor – who signed his name “American by Birth – Patriot by Choice” said my comment about Rubio was both “uneducated” and “foolish.”
Edward said, “I’m sure you have read the Constitution but I urge you to reread Article I, Section II which gives the qualifications for president.”
David simply stated that,
“Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were citizens of our country when he was born.
Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.”

I’m always amused when I get letters from self-appointed “scholars” who have no doubt – none! – about how knowledgeable they are
when it comes to constitutional law even though not one of them spent even 10 minutes in law school.
How do I know?
If they had, trust me, they would have mentioned it – IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

Many of these people, I suspect, have another agenda, which I’ll get to shortly. But first …

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen.”
And as Wikipedia explains,
“scholars and politicians have not agreed as to whether U.S.-born children of non-citizens … qualify as natural born citizens.”

Also from Wikipedia:
“The natural born citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts,
but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.”

So what did the Founders have in mind when they used that term they didn’t bother to define?
Well, after the Constitution was ratified, some of the Founders opined about the meaning of the clause.
Here’s what James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution, had to say on the subject in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage;
but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

So Mr. Madison, speaking directly to the question of who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” states
that here in the United States “place” – or where you were born” – trumps “parentage”
– the citizenship of your mother and father.

Now let’s get to what I believe is the real motive behind all of this.
And it has a lot less to do with Marco Rubio than Barack Obama.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I think some of this is birther nonsense,
just the latest lame attempt to make a case that Barack Obama is not a legitimate president.
His father, after all, was not a U.S. citizen, therefore, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen,
and ipso facto, he should never have been allowed to become president.

In fact, one of my email pals, Cyndee, said just that:
He [Barack Obama] is not a natural born citizen because of his father. Case closed.
While the Republicans let the Democrats get away with it, I doubt the Dems will return the favor [if Rubio becomes vice president].”

Well, case not closed.
As Wikipedia states,
“Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural born citizen,
the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.”

I hope the Republicans heed my advice and the advice of many others and put Marco Rubio on their ticket.
And I hope the ticket wins.
Then Cyndee or Ray or Edward or David or Gregor the Patriot can go to court and make a federal case out of it.
When they lose, I hope they will stop beating the dead horse.

Now read Dean C. Haskins' reply.

July 19, 2011 | 2:14 pm


Mr. Goldberg, I am in a bit of quandary right now.
I see that you have lifted a graphic from a video I produced entitled, “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” Since you neither attributed the graphic to me, nor did you give your readers an opportunity to view the video,
please allow me to provide the link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g.

It is also quite apparent that you actually never watched it,
for if you had, you would have realized that whether or not the term “natural born Citizen” is defined within the Constitution (it isn’t a dictionary),
that issue is irrelevant, as the Supreme Court set a binding precedent in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett,
in which they ruled that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in this country to two citizen parents.
The “It’s-not-defined-in-the-Constitution” is an intellectual copout, as there is ample historic evidence for the framers’ intent,
and SCOTUS set the definition as binding precedent, which has never been overturned.
Minor v. Happersett is the only case in which SCOTUS construed Article II, section 1, and thus, it is the law of the land.

Dean C. Haskins
Executive Director, The Birther Summit
http://www.birthersummit.org

“Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” is 10 minutes and 48 seconds of time well spent, especially the last 2 minutes.
The two articles he referenced 10 minutes 22 seconds into this video from deanhaskins.wordpress.com are below:

Leo Donofrio's Natural Born Citizen

Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen-A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers.

Here are links to searches of Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio.
Enjoy.

[MamaTexan]

In some of these dialogues, it is proffered that in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that Ark was a citizen “because he was a natural born citizen” at birth.

Sorry, but your 'freelance writer, professional musician/producer, and the former chairman' blew it right there. The USSC ruled NO SUCH THING.

-----

Law of Nations defines Natural Born Citizens to be “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Law of Nations

Rubio's parents WERE NOT US CITIZENS when he was born. There are no provisions for people in the process of becoming citizens. You either ARE one, or you aren't.

Rubio was made a citizen after-the-fact of his birth due to the rule of naturalization. When his parents became naturalized, so did he....thus he is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN.

-----

You can rant, spew and insult me all you like. Your entitled to your own opinion.

You are NOT however, entitled to your own facts, and based on the Law of Nations, the conclusion is this;

Rubio is not eligible to be President!

[MamaTexan]

Thus the distinction between native-born and natural-born is that natural-born also included citizens from birth who were not born in the U.S., such as John S. McCain III.

Exactly!

Why do some people insist on making the simple concept that natural-born citizenship is inherited from you parents

so

bloomin'

HARD!

-----

LOL!