Posted on 12/10/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
In the immediate wake of the election, Republicans felt so stunned — in no small part because they had deluded themselves into expecting victory — that it seemed momentarily possible that the party’s long march to the right may halt or even reverse. But the future of the party is already taking shape, and that future will be, in some form or fashion, a conservative reaction against the Republican leadership that has sold them out. The smarter Republicans have already shaken off the trauma of electoral defeat and begun positioning themselves to capitalize.
One important indication comes from National Review Washington editor Robert Costa, who writes today about Tom Price. You may not have heard of Price, but the conservative House member is conferring with Grover Norquist and right-wing members of the House, and setting himself up to challenge John Boehner in the event of a budget deal. Boehner earlier this year offered Price a leadership position on the condition that he offer full support to Boehner, a condition Price tellingly rejected. Costa quotes a Price ally, who hilariously tells him Price “is hoping for the best, hoping taxes don’t go up with any fiscal-cliff deal.” This is hilarious because this is tantamount to saying Price is hopeful the sun won’t rise tomorrow morning, but if it does, he may have to challenge Boehner.
But the truest indicator of the future of the party is Marco Rubio. The most unabashed of the 2016 candidates, Rubio is extremely skilled at discerning what his party wants and positioning himself as the man to give it to them. Last week, Rubio spoke at a party event in New York Washington, a speech that prompted New York Times columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat, whose defining trait is to always see a Republican moderate around the corner that never arrives, confidently predicted a Republican moderation yet again. Each cited Rubio’s speech, a paean to the party’s future as the shining beacon of hope for Latinos, the poor, and other problematic constituencies.
As always, there were caveats. Both columnists noted in passing that the great new moderation they foresaw was as yet entirely confined to rhetoric. (Douthat: “The speech didn’t offer the kinds of policy breakthroughs the party ultimately requires.” Brooks: “Some of the policies he mentioned were pretty conventional.”)
Well, yes, the fact that Rubio was merely wrapping party dogma in pleasant-sounding rhetoric is a wee problem in the analysis. And over the last few days, Rubio’s approach has grown more clear. On the budget, Rubio delivered the Republican weekly radio address, and his message was more of the old-timey religion: We must get the national debt under control. Tax increases will not solve our $16 trillion debt. Only economic growth and a reform of entitlement programs will help control the debt.
This is the classic Republican metaphysical dodge, which not only argues for keeping taxes as low as possible but refuses to acknowledge that revenue bears any relationship at all to deficits. Deficits equal spending! Two legs bad, Reagan good! On immigration, meanwhile, Rubio is carefully positioning himself to oppose any potential deal. He is not coming out and immediately throwing his body in front of the legislative train. Rather, he pleads that we must not try to do everything at once and should instead try to reform immigration “step by step.” Of course, “step by step” is exactly the catchphrase Republicans used to oppose health-care reform. It’s a way of associating yourself with the broadly popular goal of reform while giving yourself cover to oppose any particular bill that has a chance to pass. You’re not against reform, you’re against this reform. It’s too much, too fast.
It’s not coincidental that Rubio is speaking out on these two issues. They’re the two most plausible issue areas where President Obama is likely to sign major bills — and, as a result, the two areas where conservatives are nearly certain to conclude that their party’s leadership betrayed them. The anger of the base may or may not be strong enough to prevent Republicans in Congress from striking a deal. But it will surely be strong enough to shape the party’s internal decisions — no Republican who acquiesces on the budget or immigration will be eligible to lead the party in the future. Price and Rubio see that already, and others will surely follow.
Screw the GOP
Thanks for the info, I thought that was the case but just wasn't sure.
We won't get a Rubio like candidate anyway, we'll get yet another Dole/McCain/Romney. Notice they get progressively worse over the years? Although I can't imagine anyone worse than Romney.
I quit being "willfully ignorant" after McCain and am a little ashamed that I didn't do it sooner.
With all due respect, nonsense.
Palin will be our president if she runs.
I hope she will.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874). Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
The following is often used to support people like Rubio who seek to be President, but it was superceded centuries ago and is a false argument.
“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad were to be considered “natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
I bet you he can. Who’s going to stop him? No one stopped Obama. Why do you believe anyone will stop Rubio?
Cue up the birthers...
I voted McCain too to get Palin. I learned my lesson then about supporting the RINO in the hope for something better. Now it’s Conservative or Scorched Earth. Nothing between.
Never again.
And as to your other post, I firmly believe if a more liberal ‘Republican’ exists on Earth or any other habitable planet, the GOP will find them and run them. Half of FR will then call him a Conservative and trash the other half of FR for not worshiping the most conservative man to ever run for office...
For truly we must be traitors to our country. They like to say so.
Not trying to argue but I was under the impression that anyone in the line of succession must be natural born citizen also. If I'm wrong, it would not be a new experience for me.
A VP must be as eligbile as the President. Down the line, you do not have to be eligible you are just skipped in line.
If during the Clinton Administration has the Pres, VP, Speaker, and Senate Pro Tem all been killed or incapacitated, the Secretary of State Madeline Albright would have been skipped and the next Cabinet member would have become POTUS, Sec of Defense IIRC.
Oh absolutely.
Any pundit that flat out lied to people by wither directly twistion or ‘omitting’ the facts of Romney’s political history is absolutely to blame.
Same for all the non- and internet pundits. The general public are expected to be sheep that follow the lock. And when the ‘leaders of the flock become the MISleaders, the blame should follow.
I fault the gen pub for being sheep, but I understand why they are. Basic laziness and a lack of integrity. “Conservatives USED to pride themselves on being held to a far higher standard. Coulter’s and other ‘performances’ closer to home should be called out often for what they were.
And blame placed accordingly. Of course, that ruffles feathers and causes GREAT indignation.
Good.
What I am saying here is this: natural born Citizen is not a statutory citizenship, where citizenship is defined by a legal statute. Hence the link to a government immigration site.
Natural born Citizenship is ‘natural law’. It means there is no question concerning the U.S. citizenship of a person born in the U.S.A. of parents who are both U.S. citizens, and thus no legal statute is required.
Native born plus citizen parents is required for a candidate’s eligibility to be President (Vice President).
Anyone in the line of succession NOT a natural born Citizen would have to be passed over in the succession.
For example, people born in unincorporated U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal Zone, are considered statutory U.S. citizens and NOT natural born Citizens. In other words, the U.S. “Constitution does not follow the flag”.
Yeah, but this time they will be DEMOCRATS.
I like Rubio but will never vote for him as Pres or VP (since he could move to Pres and would likely be the next Rep to run for Pres) due to the natural born clause.
The fact that Obama also doesn’t meet the NBC clause and got away with it doesn’t alter my stance. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and Rubio is probably a prime reason the Reps haven’t pushed the NBC/Obama issue.
The irony is, I wouldn’t put it past the liberals to scream bloody murder about Rubio not meeting the NBC requirement - and sinking Rubio with it.
Rubio hasn’t said squat about the Repubs signing a consent decree in 1982 that they wouldn’t challenge democratic fraud at the poles.
I know a lot of people here hate Rubio. I don’t. He is a good man.
“No point in arguing with idiots, so why don’t you give it up, idiot.”
I agree, itsahoot. It is a waste of time to argue with idiots. Their heads are full of cement.
“Not trying to argue but I was under the impression that anyone in the line of succession must be natural born citizen also.”
Yes, that is true.
Until she takes the time to learn what the hell she's talking about and then to communicate it concisely then, to me, she's nothing more than a grandstanding cheerleader blathering platitudes. After the way she went for RINOs in nomination fights, particularly Carly Fiorina in California, while leaving good conservatives to flail, I'm not convinced about the reality of her principles either.
Didn't happen, and didn't need to happen. I saw the title championing Rubio as some sort of conservative savior and that was enough to get the impression.
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.