Free Republic

I read recently that if Detroit could produce a full size vehicle that would get around 35 mpg then that could be a similar boost to the US auto makers that Chrysler started with its mini-van back in the 80s. Add to that wish list durability; say 350,000 miles to first scheduled engine overhaul. Long service intervals; say 10,000 miles between oil changes. A quiet, comfortable ride at all speeds. Priced and financed in a way people can afford.

Well, I’m driving one right now! My Mercedes E320 Bluetec so far is getting an average of 32.8 mpg (4700 miles). With 398 lb-ft of torque it accelerates like a Detroit muscle car from days gone by and the drive quality is wonderful. Several people that have gone for drives with me in it have expressed surprise that it’s a diesel, it is so quiet. Unfortunately, not built in Detroit, I wish Detroit had something similar. I wonder why Mercedes-Benz will not use its clean diesel technology in its Chrysler division, perhaps they will the technology is simply so great a leap it is hard to see how it could not get a great reception with the American car buyer once properly introduced.

I read recently that if Detroit could produce a full size vehicle that would get around 35 mpg then that could be a similar boost to the US auto makers that Chrysler started with its mini-van back in the 80s. Add to that wish list durability; say 350,000 miles to first scheduled engine overhaul. Long service intervals; say 10,000 miles between oil changes. A quiet, comfortable ride at all speeds. Priced and financed in a way people can afford.

Well, I'm driving one right now! My Mercedes E320 Bluetec so far is getting an average of 32.8 mpg (4700 miles). With 398 lb-ft of torque it accelerates like a Detroit muscle car from days gone by and the drive quality is wonderful. Several people that have gone for drives with me in it have expressed surprise that it's a diesel, it is so quiet. Unfortunately, not built in Detroit, I wish Detroit had something similar. I wonder why Mercedes-Benz will not use its clean diesel technology in its Chrysler division, perhaps they will the technology is simply so great a leap it is hard to see how it could not get a great reception with the American car buyer once properly introduced.

... and any children born to an alien is NOT given U.S. citizenship

That would require a repeal of the 14th amendment which specifically prohibit congress and states from limiting citizenship rights of persons born on US soil

This is interesting to me because we had always told our kids that only #4 born, the only one born on US soil, could run for president. Even though the 3 older children were all citizens of the United States at birth through their mom and were issued “Certificate of Birth of United States Citizen Born Abroad” birth certificates by the US emabassy shortly after birth.

The way I understand it is as follows: First there is no question about John McCains citizenship; he is and was a citizen of the United States at birth by “blood” because his parents were US Citizens. What he is not is a Citizen by “soil” because he was not born on US soil. Being a citizen by “soil” is the only form of citizenship that can not be regulated by congress, it is unquestionable and irrevocable. All other citizenship “classes” can be and are regulated by congress, including the citizenship rights of children to US military personnel born on foreign soil. For example one limitation congress has put on Citizens that have their citizenship by their bloodline is: If a US Citizen by blood does not become a United States resident throughout their life time and does not remain a resident for at least 5 years(i.e. grows up and remains abroad), his or her Children again (grand children of the US citizen by soil) does not become United States Citizens if they also are born abroad. Children born to US citizen on foreign soil may also have citizenship rights in the country where they were born, however, that is typically not the case when the parents were there in a diplomatic capacity or as part of a military occupation and not all countries recognize citizenship by soil like the US does anyways but have citizenship laws based fully on citizenship by blood.

While the exact meaning of the requirement for becoming president; “a natural born citizen”, has never been tried in a court of law - the issue of Citizenship by birth on US soil versus Citizenship by blood line and congress’ right to regulate only the latter, was and has since been well settled law tried all the way to the supreme court.

Anyone up for discussing the dynamics of Romney quitting the race?

Got to wonder who these people voting for McCain are?

My take on that is that the recent growth in McCain support is, to quite an extent, the support that Huckabee has lost over the last few weeks in the "Huckabust".

Got to wonder who these people voting for McCain are?

My sense is that the recent growth in McCain support is, to quite an extent, the support that Huckabee has lost over the last few weeks in the "Huckabust".

The term appear to have been coined by W’s speech writer Michael Gerson

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010922

And this is why he still has a chance!

It should be noted that Huckabee used the word isolate not quarantine; there is definitely a difference. While quarantine has ugly associations of forced lockup and segregation from the general populus, isolation connotate any effort to keep a patient with a communicable disease from having contact with non-infected persons in ways that can transmit the infection.

The fact that HIV has had a special status among STDs that has allowed for a degree of annonymity in testing and treatment has kept public health epidemiologists from investigating and isolating infected persons that are actively spreading the disease. For other life threatening STDs such as syphilis, laws are on the books that allow for necessary steps to be taken to keep persons with active infections from engaging in behaviour that would put other people at risk, these measures include forced "isolation" if voluntary behaviour changes fail. I think this type of isolation was what Huckabee had in mind!

Thanks!

You are right about that - there is a climate in the country these days that I have not experienced previously, a climate where a few, I am assuming simple minded, people assume that I am an illegal since I have a slight accent. (I have lived here 20 years - met this cutie from Michigan on the train to Paris one day and we have been married for 26 years now, we started out our marriage with 6 years in my homeland but, I had to relent and buy her a home next to Mom in Michigan eventually)

The Electability Question

I think it might be wise for the FReepers who involve themselves against Mike to consider the electability issue of candidates and perhaps tone down the bellicoseness of the discourse a tad. Not being conservative enough (or progressive on the democrat side) is only a problem during the primaries; as soon as the primaries looks settled the candidates run for the middle where the real battle for the presidency is fought. At that point we the conservatives become "The Base".

Pro-Life single issue voters make up about a little less than 15% of the presidential election vote, if I remember correctly from the last two elections. With most all such voters voting for the Republican candidate, that makes up 30-40% of the number of votes cast for the Republican candidate. It is my strong impression that without the abortion issue this voting block would split Democrat / Republican in about the same numbers we see in the rest of the population. In essence; many single issue Right-to-Life voters are not real conservatives or feel "at home" in the Republican party. Thus I argue that without a believable pro-life candidate the Republican party can not even come close to winning the general election but will end up with less than 35% of the vote (maybe even under 30%).

So who is a believable, electable candidate on the right-to-life issue this election season?

Well, Rudy is (thanks for being honest!) pro-choice and will, I fear, trigger a lot of pro-life voters to either stay at home or vote democrat. Nothing that hasn't been said before there but still needed to be repeated I think. I also do believe he would be chicken feed against the assumed Clinton machine; too predictable, too much dirt and an already an established recipient of what I term the Democrat "hate" frenzy. (The Democrats do a remarkable job of whipping up sheer hatred in otherwise reasonable people against vulnerable opponents - not nice!)

Romney I personally thought was not very believable but, some of my friends in the pro-life movement say that they feel they could vote for him and that they think his "conversion" is for real. I see similar thoughts expressed regarding him that I saw regarding W in 2000; we didn't really believe he was genuinely pro-life either but he showed enough concern and cared enough for our votes to make it so (he has since, in my view, proved to be the strongest pro-life president we have ever had). If for nothing else so for the notion that if a candidate worry enough about us as voters to risk a blatant flip-flop, then maybe that is good enough. As far as electability goes, given that the right-to-life crowd follows; I am not convinced - I think the center of the electorate, the independents have an appetite for something "radical" this time around and might go for a woman just for the pure novelty of it (I would too if she was a pro-life Republican My family and I supported Keys in the 2000 primaries). Romney, in the soon to ensue MSM rush to elect "a woman" is just not a strong enough contrast to be visible. I think the tactic from the democrats if Romney is the candidate would be to simply drown him out of the spotlight, which will not be too hard - when was the last time we saw Romney on TV in a spot he didn't pay for?

Fred got the nod from the National Right-to-Life organization and that should have been enough-said about him, however, my sense is that many in the movement were quite surprised at this, kind of like the Pat Robertson / Rudy endorsement. Nevertheless, if he can get himself enough votes to win the primary then he'll do for the right-to-lifers. But, Fred is looking tired, near haggard in some unguarded moments. Sure, a young wife and two(?) small children can do that to a young man never mind a guy in his sixties and I truly respect the taxing effort of the fray that campaigning is. That's what he signed up for though and if the fraying is proving too hard then that in a sense is part of the election process as well. Should he find the form over the next few weeks and manage to get the primary nod then he better have found the form of his life because even more taxing times are ahead. I am trying to be kind but to get to the point; I would not be surprised if he bows out early in the primaries or even before, I respect his effort but he looks like he is ready to throw in the towel now - what will he look like in the general election with its torturous schedules and murderous, relentless attacks. If he wins the primaries, never mind the general election then that would be the biggest surprise in my years of following politics (and I do not usually get surprised)

Duncan Hunter: I was an early fan of his (still getting his emails), excellent TV persona, solid pro-life but, he is not going to get elected. The reason, I think, is that he ran the illegal immigration and anti free-trade messages too hard, almost to the point of earning himself a tinfoil hatter view with some. Also, note to the single issue immigration voters: Evangelicals may talk the talk on illegal immigration but for the most part the emphasis is on the illegal part of that catch phrase with them - not on immigration; I sometimes get the feeling that immigration is a bigger issue than illegal here on FR these days.

Mike Huckabee: Definitely highest score on Pro-Life, Pro-Family issues - no problems there. However, the solid pro-life candidate in Republican primaries has typically played the role of "balancer", by that I mean that the front runner needed to have enough votes siphoned off to a single issue pro-lifer that it kept him on "our side" (e.g.: Alan Keys in 2000). Huckabee is different though; first of all, I think he could actually handle the Clinton deus ex machina if he should be lucky enough to get the Republican nod. How could he do that? Well a couple of things that majorly go in his favor; he is very likable, he is a phenomenal TV persona, looks and sounds fantastic on stage in debates and also in one-on-one interviews and to top that he is, convincingly, stealing the thunder on a couple of issues that the Democrats hope to run hard on next year - the environment and compassion for the weak in society. OK, so we drift a little to the left (what's new) but, we get our pro-life president. Does he have enough international political experience? I would think that for any governor that get elected to president the question should rather be: Does he have a history of picking strong people for government posts - any governor elected to president will have to rely on people more experienced than him or her self to govern effectively on foreign policy, there is nothing new or different between him and other governors in that sense. I honestly do not know his track record for picking staff and officials; perhaps someone from Arkansas would like to chime in on that - that is truly an important question.

So what are Mike's chances, realistically, to become the next POTUS. Not too good I'm afraid; he is still very much a long-shot for the primaries, ironically enough, mostly because so many thinks he is a long-shot. The relentless attacks on him from the right on the web are also pattently unhelpful, of course (kudos to the cntl-C~cntrl-V debaters on this forum for a well orchestrated campaign). Now, would it be worth the "sacrifice" for the pundits on the right to lay down the swords and let him have a go at it? I honestly think so - the field of candidates is what it is, sure we could wish for some ideal candidate that is both a "true" conservative or even libertarian and pro-life and who also has a chance to win us the POTUS for the party but that candidate is not running this year. I know a lot of FReepers will have to swallow real hard to give Mike a chance (I personally despise caving to the global warming fraudsters) but, I think it's worth giving him the go-ahead because I want a strong pro-life candidate that stands a chance in the general election. (Global warming will be a non-issue sooner or later anyway because it is a hoax, and maybe that's what Mike is thinking as well). Being an immigrant myself (legal - now citizen) I will refrain from debating immigration as much as possible; other than to say that what is being displayed on this website is sometimes offensive to me - it's fair game, I think, to discuss both legal vs. illegal and number of total immigrants to allow but I fear that the line is getting a bit blurred between the illegal / legal debate and being negative to immigrants in general and that is not too good. As a matter of fact I see it as being somewhat of a threat to the high regard of Free Republic

Let's hear it for Mike!

Too much fun!!!!

"These are folks who walk around feed lots enough to know when to avoid the manure and when to recognize what it is"

Good job Dano1!

It’s got to be a job and a half to keep up against the monkey-C~monkey-V debaters here on FR who are sitting at the ready with the finger on the ctrl-V key to paste in their favorite(negative)pieces on Huckabee. I have read just about every thread on Huchakbee here the last month or two (yes I am a lurker!) and every single thread have the same negative articles pasted into them very shortly after posting of the thread start. Seeing consistency such as these “debaters” are displaying, it certainly makes me wonder if such a diciplined effort isn’t orchestrated somehow by another campaign.

Could'nt have said it better!

Another great rant from Super Lena Bluestein!

Great oped, way to go, the young people of America are our future!

This young, 22 year old local gal just recently started writing a weekly oped column for the Ludington Daily News here in Michigan. She writes so well that I decided to help her set up a weblog for her so that others may enjoy her writing as well. Have a look at www.lenabluestein.com to get Lena Bluestein's Definitiv column. You may want to subscribe to the feed from this site!

Enjoy!

Ola Kvalvaag, Ludington, Michigan

Anyone?

He is real alright - started the church as a prayer meeting series in is Mom's Detroit home and went the grades from store front downtown Detroit to via larger and larger churches in the Detroit area until he aquired a very large property in Southfield, just North of the Detroit city line. His services were always flavored by a very propper mix of orderliness and free worship. A very impressive man - he will be able to do anything he sets his mind to. And on top of that he has proven electabillity in Detroit! Detroit makes up over 20% of the votes in Michigan and usually breaks +90% democrat, it's a near all black city of just under 1 million and they love Keith.