Posted on 04/08/2016 7:17:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Breitbart, the key bit below starts at 6:30. When he says “set the country on fire,” does he mean people literally setting things on fire in rage over how much they hate a Trump/Cruz ticket? Because I can sort of see that. Trump’s numbers are flaming garbage, as you know, but check out Cruz’s numbers from the same poll:
What should we call that? Smoldering garbage? I’m a Cruz backer but I’m also under no illusion about how popular he is and isn’t among the general electorate. (Although the AP data here is from a poll of adults, not likely voters, please note.) Unlike Trump, he really would have a chance against Hillary this fall, but only because her own numbers are a smoking dumpster — and even then, he’ll have trouble flipping any of Obama’s blue states in 2012 to red. There is no ticket involving Trump or Cruz, let alone both of them, that sets the country on fire. There’s a ticket involving Cruz and someone not named Trump that might eke out a close victory if they catch some breaks. That’s your best-case scenario.
Buchanan’s logic here, if there’s any logic behind this, presumably is that a Trump/Cruz ticket would give the party its best chance at unity against Clinton this fall by reconciling embittered Trump fans and embittered Cruz fans. It would, for sure, eliminate the risk of a major third-party effort from one side or the other. But so what? What’s the prize for bringing the party together only to lose with 45 percent of the vote in a two-way race instead of with 37 percent in a three-way one? Trump/Cruz still leaves you saddled with all of Trump’s negatives at the top of the ticket, with all but the most hardcore Cruz-fan conservatives deeply disaffected with the direction of the party. It’s one thing for Trump to win the nomination by piling up votes in the primaries, it’s another thing for him to coopt the party’s leading conservative lights by bringing them onto his team to serve his agenda. Many Cruz fans would be enraged at him, I’m sure, for tossing his principles aside to join Trump, especially after Trump’s boorish nastiness towards Heidi Cruz. There’d still be a #NeverTrump movement, albeit a bit smaller than it is now as some strong Cruz supporters would eventually decide to suck it up and back Trump. How does all of this add up to setting the country on fire? Which swing voters, among whom Trump is toxic right now, are thinking, “No way will I support that buffoon — unless he puts Ted Cruz on the ticket, in which case ‘game on'”?
Buchanan does make one good point, though. If we go to a brokered convention, which seems likely, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Cruz agrees to accept the VP slot. Trump will lead on the first ballot; if he doesn’t clinch there, a bunch of votes will shift to Cruz on the second. If Cruz doesn’t lead on that one, he almost certainly will when more delegates become unbound on the third. Once he takes the lead, what incentive does he have to accept the number-two slot? You’d need to see some delegates shift back to Trump on the fourth ballot or fifth ballot, I think, and then have them end up in a protracted stalemate. In that case, Cruz might eventually cave and agree to be VP. (If only because, once there’s a stalemate, the odds of a dark-horse nominee will rise and Cruz will risk being left with nothing.) So long as Cruz maintains a lead among the delegates, though, he has no reason to bow to any other prospective nominee. If you want a Trump/Cruz ticket, it needs to happen with Trump winning on the first ballot.
Exit question: If you’re saddled with Trump as nominee, wouldn’t one of your top priorities for VP be finding someone who’s exceptionally personally likable, whom voters trust instinctively? They could look at the veep and tell themselves that if that person trusts Trump to run the country, maybe he’s worth taking a chance on. Ted Cruz has many good qualities. Being exceptionally likable isn’t one of them.
Update: Glenn Beck’s head writer chimes in:
Not only would I not vote for Trump/Cruz ticket, I wouldn't vote for Cruz/Trump. Taking Trump would convince me I'm wrong about Cruz.
— STU BURGUIERE (@WorldOfStu) April 7, 2016
Plus, Trump will be 70 himself, and odds are that Hillary chooses a younger running mate. I think it would help Trump to balance that with a younger running mate as well.
Great minds think alike.
>>So, if you’re leading, you can talk whatever nonsense you wish?
>>/not getting into this fight, just pointing-out an inconsistency
What country did you move here from where elections are polite and civil?
This one has been the worst of my lifetime, but it is a symptom of America’s slide into Third-world status, where elections are always a barroom brawl. The political class prides itself on putting on a show for the ignorant masses to give the impression that there is any real difference to choose from. Trump entered this race to give us a choice and the entire political establishment on both sides (including those so-called “outsiders” who really aren’t outsiders) lined up against him. We demanded that he fight and he is fighting.
Trump is chemotherapy for a sick, cancerous political system that is infested with tumors and disease. Chemo isn’t pleasant and doesn’t always work. But it is better than doing nothing.
‘o’ brought the kindling
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Agreed. Hope they kiss and make up.
I don't think it is "reasonable" to assume that Congress simply had a flash of inspiration five years after the fact that "gee, I guess what we did five years ago was unconstitutional".
However, even if you do think that's a "reasonable" assumption, that doesn't prove it as a fact, and you can't build your "I am certain I am right" on a foundation that is based on nothing more than something being a "reasonable possibility". So, the elimination of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Act of 1795 was nothing more than standard legislative housecleaning of eliminate redundant language in a statute.
You may not agree with that, but that's certainly as "reasonable" as assuming they all realized five years after the fact that they had acted unconstitutionally. In fact, if their motive was to correct an error, wouldn't it have been prudent of them to pass some clarifying measure to ensure that people born during 1790-1795 were not considered natural born citizens?
Trump as President. Cruz as Vice president. Trump serves 4 years then Cruz 4 or 8. But as was said already here. That bridge was burned.
Madison led the committee which drafted the 1795 statute. He was not involved with the drafting of the 1790 statute.
Trump builds bridges - has done so all his life
The problem is that Kasich does far better than the others against Hillary
“....Hillary is going to take Cory Booker.”
Interesting. No chance on that Castro turd?
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
Where have you been Pat? I said this when they both started running for office. To late for this combo now. They are enemies.
Brewer would be a far superior choice, though I too would be OK with Susana, despite her slide into the establishment. I believe Trump would set her straight on that, and she hopefully would return to her roots which made her so attractive in the first place. I did more than my share in the SW part of the state to get her into the governor’s mansion the first time around, but she later fell for (wait for it) former Bush advisor’s advice and slid into the establishment’s noose, which meant a falling out between us, and no more invites to her party’s for me. But I do believe that she is a good woman, and in *if* she chose to bail out from her current circle of establishment goons, entered into Trumps inner circle, most of the attractive qualities and virtues that have been smothered would resurface and the nation would be proud to have her as second in command.
I've read that entire piece (and I'd encourage any who doubt me to do the same) and nowhere in there does Mr. McElwee (who apparently wrote that article in 1967) provide a source for his claim of a "false inference" being found. That appears to be nothing more than McElwee's own individual conjecture as to why it was changed. He offers absolutely no evidence, no link to contemporaneous statements or Congressional records, to support that claim.
Looks to me like Mr. McElwee just didn't like George Romney, and wrote that article to argue against him being eligible.
If you believe me to be mischaracterizing this, please identify specifically the evidence that Madison believed there to be a "false inference". What contemporaneous document contains that proof? Again, here's the link for anyone who wants to check for themselves. The key language regarding the desire to correct a "false inference" is contained on p. 10.
http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McElwee.pdf
Not going to happen.
“VP choice will likely have more weight than compared to past elections.”
I agree fully. I think that if the *right* choice was made well ahead of the convention, such will (could) go far in the delegate’s decision making process. Of course it could mean absolutely nothing depending on the level of manipulation the delegates experience beforehand.
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.