Apr 06 2012
Can Romney Be Energized By VP Choice?
Sorry again for the lack of posting. I am simply stunned with how much work is slamming me at the moment on multiple fronts. Not to mention we are now in the doldrums of the political season, so my interest in politics is at a true low.
Santorum cannot stop Romney – and I am not sure that bothers me at all. Santorum had enough missteps in terms of promoting a intrusive conservative government that he pretty much lost the 2010 Libertarian insurgent voters. I have accepted Romney as the GOP candidate – yawn.
One thing I hope is clear after this year is how useless Ron Paul is to the Libertarian cause. All he does is siphon off enough conservative votes to make sure the establishment candidate gets selected. It is also clear he has the backing of the GOP Political Industrial Complex to play this role of divider. He has been covering Romney’s flank the entire time – not once pointing out his fallacies. Ron Paul is a barrier to Libertarians – that much is now crystal clear. Hopefully we move beyond the quirky old uncle now and get serious.
Obama is almost a dead-pol walking. He has screwed up so many ways its impossible to list them all in a quick post. On the International front he has been the best thing for the Islamo Fascists taking over in key countries. Part of me is glad to see strong men like Qadaffi gone, but what we are getting in place of these Arab leaders is not stability but anarchy. This will have repercussions for a long time.
Obama’s economic disasters are now legend. In fact, the one thing hurting Romney is how Obama has decimated all belief in government as capable to solving any problem – without making things worse. One look at the Shovel Ready jobs of the defunct ‘stimulus’ package and it is clear how you can really make things a hell of a lot worse by applying foolish and naive socialist, progressive policies. The result was not just continued unemployment, but a pile of debt it I will not see undone in my life time, nor my kids.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi have so poisoned the image of government intervention Romney is seen as just another variant on the two-faced DC pol. It does not help that he is robotic (like Obama), too quick with the slick catch phrase (like Obama) and someone whose resume is chock full of big-government or big-business (the two banes of Main Street, USA). When Romney speaks I feel and hear nothing – its like he’s on a Charlie Brown episode speaking adult gibberish (wah, wah, wah, wah,.. wah-wah).
But I have been following the comments from our die-hard and patient readers here (thanks folks, no better sign of support than sticking through this dry spell) and maybe there is a chance for Romney to ignite some energy in his base.
McCain did this with his pick of Sarah Palin, which actually gave him a fighting chance (that he still muffed). I agree a Paul Ryan or Marcus Rubio type would be best. It has to be a Libertarian, tear-down-this-bloated-government type. The only way for Romney to tap into some of that 2010 insurgent vote is to get a Tea Party lieutenant.
The problem for Romney without this kind of fire-brand ally is the country may feel fine with divided and paralyzed government – especially if the US Supreme Court knocks down Obamacare. Divided government would impose a 4 year “Stop Screwing Up!” moratorium on DC as the Dem veto pen fights the GOP Congress. It would force a time for discussion and decision going into 2016.
Romney needs a personality implant and a jolt of Tea Party Libertarian. If he is going to sketch a new path forward, he needs to move away from Big Government and Big Business. Something I am not sure he is able to do, sadly. But if he does – then I and many others might find a reason to get interested again.
Maybe..
Mike M, I sure hope not. what a crew. Both Perry and Bush would give amnesty to everyone, Barbour isn’t sure of what he wants and I know nothing of McDonnell (no name recognition there, a waste of a nomination)
I’m not sure that Romney has a reputation for competence and I sure as heck hope he doesn’t nominate someone that believes in what he believes in. He needs someone that is on the conservative side to offset his liberalism. I do think he needs someone to carry a swing state. Well, since Romney is a compromise, I see no reason for him to not have a compromise running mate. 2 compromises are better than one, I guess.
Kathie, LOL, and support the terrorists in Libya….. yeah, we need that all right…..
Phil:
“I would be tempted to nominate someone for VP who does not meet the “Naturalized” qualification on purpose ”
What were you trying to say, I don’t understand this. The constitution does not require the candidate be ‘naturalized’, it requires natural born. that’s about like the difference in up and down.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is naturalized.
Unfortunately for your theory, Redteam, this issue has gone to court twice recently and it has lost both times. Now these decisions are at the State level, but the Federal Courts have shown no interest in even considering any appeals on these cases, which means these rulings stand as “good law” until some newer case can come along to overturn them. Being State court rulings, they are “binding precedent” only in their respective States, but they are supporting precedent in any US Court at any level. To define a term: “good law” in legal parlance means a case that can be validly cited as precedent in any US Court. The rules of precedence can be complex and sometimes have to be balanced against each other; for example, a higher court has more precedence than a lower court, but a newer decision has more precedence than an older decision. The reason newer has more precedence than older, even if the court is a lower court, is that there is a presumption that if the newer decision conflicted with current interpretation, then it would have been appealed and overturned. If the new decision has been allowed to stand by higher courts, then it is presumed to have been too much of a slam dunk for anyone to litigate it any further, which is why these cases are valid precedent in any US Court. Since they are at a lower level, they have the *Potential* to be overturned, but unless and until that happens they remain standing as current “good law”.
(and please, I do not make the rules, I’m just reporting what they are)
For anyone who wants to go to court, it is very important to have a strong handle on current “good law”, ESPECIALLY if you want to overturn it. Someone who goes in and just says “well that recent case was wrong, I don’t have to say why” gets laughed out of court on the first day of arguments. (kind of like what happened to the Solicitor General in the recent Obamacare arguments) For those who want to fight for an opposing view, legally you will have to go through the Indiana decision line by line and construct countervailing arguments based in actual law, not in philosophy or political theory.
Quotation from he concluding ruling from the Indiana Court: (full ruling available at the link at the end) Remember, I didn’t write this, the Court of Appeals for the State of Indiana did.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]
a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority intheir complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise andquotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure tostate a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case.
See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co.,860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs? arguments had been
sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant?s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156,1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)
, cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983)
full decision at: http://tinyurl.com/catd6wk
(end quote)
This was the ruling recently cited in a Georgia Court which resulted in a ruling that Barak Obama was indeed a “natural born citizen”. Even though many people do not like this result, and even though it has the *potential* to be changed if the Supreme Court makes a new ruling, as of this day, April 7, 2012, this ruling stands as current “Good Law” in any Court of the United States.
and just to add my personal preferences, I think Rubio should remain Senator from Florida rather than putting that seat at risk to Charlie Crist, and Paul Ryan should be Romney’s running mate.
btw, speaking of Amnesty – you probably all know that Barbour got into a hell of a mess as he left office by handing out amnesty’s like they were halloween candy. Changed my opinion of whether I would like to see him in a national office – not anymore.
That’s the problem. This whole field is awfully unappetizing.
WWS, I knew you would write what you did. and I have only one problem with it, you only used recent rulings from lower courts (which you pointed out) and ignored the one US Supreme Court ruling on the subject. I suspect not mentioning it was deliberate, since it didn’t support the point you were attempting to make. I’m sure you know the case as well as I do.
I will point out one other obvious fact. Citizens are mentioned several times in the constitution but only once is natural born citizen mentioned, and of course, that is in the qualification for president. There was, of course, a valid reason for that as well you know there are valid reasons for each and every item in the constitution. Just ignoring that fact will not make it go away and when that one fact is addressed in the Supreme Court, they will also have to find on the facts. And if they don’t ignore the facts, they can’t ignore that a natural born citizen has two parents who are also citizens.
Enough about that, you’re not going to change my mind and I’m not going to change yours. We may as well just agree to disagree.
One other point before I quit with the issue. To demonstrate the fallibility of the courts, almost every single ruling involving obama’s eligibility are dismissed due to lack of standing. That is hilarious because it is so ridiculous. Every single citizen of the USA does and should have standing because each and every one is drastically effected. I’m not sure what has the judiciary so scared, but they are.
Yes, I lived in Ms for a long time and Barbour was a favorite of mine but he totally blew all credibility with his actions and pardons, etc.
I’m gonna be for Ryan.
Redteam
I solidly agree with the last paragraph of your last post — both about Barbour as well as Ryan.
Whoa, that’s quite a change, isn’t it!
jan, not so much, we just had different ways of getting to the same point, both for good reason. the point being to not let obama have 4 more. I’ve also noticed that WWS and I agree on many more points than we disagree on. Difference’s of opinion are what makes the world interesting.
Redteam,
That’s what I like about this site. There are definitely hues and variations of opinions here. But, the end game is similar, along with the values and principles applied to it’s final construction.
OK… now that I’m done laughing…
Sarah Palin, while energiing the base, was an embarassment simply because she wasn’t ready for Prime Time, i.e. the national spotlight. She had less than two years as Governor and no real national exposure. Lest you think I’m bashing her, just look at her media savvy and performance in 2012 v. 2008. She is 100X better now. It is simply a matter of experience.
Rubio is good, but he’s in the same category as Palin was. Same for Conressman West. Same for Nikki Haley. Ryan is a bit better. I really don’t know who would be best so here’s my challenge: Give me the name of a Tea Party favorite who has at least four years experience in the national spotlight. I’ll favor your nominee.
Laughing? who is the comedian that has provoked you? “was an embarassment simply because she wasn’t ready for Prime Time, i.e. the national spotlight.”
So help us all out here: was Obama ready for prime time? Did he have a lot of experience, like, for example; had he been an executive such as a governor of a state for two years? If you think someone with only two years experience as governor is not ready for prime time, then what kind of time would someone such as Obama with no executive experience (zero, nada) be ready for? Do you think he was/is an embarrassment? What was it you were laughing about? I guess I missed that.
You do agree that we need these very, very experienced politicians, such as Obama to pull us through these tough times, don’t you?
Just exactly what is it he’s experienced in? I missed that somehow.