GOP Victory in 2016? It’s as Easy as R-U-B-I-O

I am getting sick of hearing Republicans moaning about how their party has grown out of touch and irrelevant, how President Obama’s narrow victory in the 2012 election demonstrates that the world has passed the GOP by, how the chances of a GOP victory in 2016 and even beyond are approximately zilch.

It’s to be expected that the Democrats and their media buddies will talk that way, to boost their spirits and try to undermine the will of the opposition. But it is inexcusable for the leaders of the Republican party to accept this guff, to run around tearing their hair and crying and generally behaving like girly-men, to propose changes in their party’s core ideas and traditions that would turn the GOP into Democrats-light.

You can’t win, guys, if you insist on obliterating the important ways that you differ. That is the way to become irrelevant for sure.

I see a simple solution for the party’s supposed woes: Convene the next Republican National Convention in the coming year, instead of waiting until 2016. Do away with the GOP primaries and bring everybody together to nominate Marco Rubio by acclamation as the party’s next presidential candidate.
The Florida senator is a one-man demographic marvel. He is young, he is Hispanic, he believes in the core, conservative Republican values, he is spot on about fiscal responsibility, yet he also has expressed openness toward fresh ideas that could be added to the traditional GOP mix, including, not surprisingly, immigration reform.

He also is a man of considerable charisma, certainly more so than Mitt Romney. And he is a phenomenally articulate, powerful speaker.

Hispanic voters, of which there are 12 million or so, went 70 percent for Obama this year, which is about in line with their usual support for Democratic candidates in national elections.
I am not going to suggest that Rubio can pull 100 percent of the Hispanic vote. But suppose he boosts the GOP share to 50 percent from 30 percent. You can’t overestimate the powerful emotional effect of a candidate who campaigns in certain neighborhoods and speaks to his listeners in their first language. If he gets 50 percent of the Hispanic votes, that alone could give him a majority of the popular vote, all other votes remaining unchanged.
But would they remain unchanged, or essentially so? Not likely. In 2012 the Democrats ran a candidate of undeniable charisma – at least in certain circles – but whom are they likely to run next time?

Hillary Clinton? Have you seen her lately? She couldn’t win the nomination in 2008 against a first-term, black senator at a time when she still had her figure and paid attention to her grooming. Is she likely to win in 2016 looking like a sixty-nine-year-old beached whale with seaweed hair?

I don’t want to sound superficial about what makes a candidate desirable, but in this country looks certainly help, or hurt. You might say that Hillary is a stronger candidate now because she served as secretary of state. But she is the secretary of state who let Benghazi-gate happen. And even if you ignore Benghazi-gate, can you say that we live in a better, safer world thanks to her stewardship?

If you cut away all the chaff, Hillary’s defining traits are dullness, triteness and a foul temper.

Hillary can count on good support from the distaff side, of course, although perhaps not as much as she thinks. Along with Rubio’s other fine qualities, he is kind of cute.

Another candidate from the 2008 primaries who might make a run this time is our endearing vice president, Joe Biden. He has held public office forever, and he does have the advantage of looking and behaving more like the Democratic party’s mascot then any rival.

I don’t have to remind you what a disgusting loony he is, but I will remind you that by November 2016 he will be just shy of his 74th birthday. Nobody that old, not even Ronald Reagan and John McCain, has ever headed a major-party presidential ticket. He already is just about non compos, and imagine what he will be like in his eighties.

Let’s see, who else was contesting the Democratic primaries in 2008? Oh, yes, John Edwards.  And let’s not overlook Al Sharpton.

If we have learned anything in the past several elections, it is that a presidential candidate must stand a good chance of winning Florida’s electoral votes if he wants to be competitive. Rubio is very popular in his home state, which went for Obama by only about 70,000-odd votes.  Of all the states that chose Obama, Florida did so by the smallest percentage.

If Rubio can hold onto the states that Romney won, and add, say, Florida, Ohio, which gave Obama only 51 percent of its popular vote, and one or perhaps two among Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire – none of which gave Obama as much as 53 percent of their votes —  then that’s the old ballgame.

Why am I suggesting that the GOP nominate Rubio right away, rather than letting him work his way through the primaries, where he might very well win anyway?

Simply this: Although well-known, Rubio probably does not yet have the kind of name recognition a candidate needs to win the presidency.  If he begins campaigning nearly four years before the election, his name will be on everyone’s lips.

Furthermore, an extra-early nomination would help counter the customary dirty, Democratic, slash-and-burn campaign. Romney didn’t have quite enough time to fully redeem his image after the Democrats set out to destroy him with their vile ads, but Rubio would have plenty of time to demonstrate conclusively that he is not a felon, a murderer, a tax cheat, an animal-abuser, a job exporter, or whatever else the Democrats pull out of their sick but fertile minds.

Author Bio:

Arthur Louis spent more than forty years as a print journalist, with the Philadelphia Inquirer, McGraw-Hill, Fortune magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle, but he is not asking for sympathy. He is the author of two non-fiction books: The Tycoons, and Journalism and Other Atrocities, as well as a novel, The Little Champ. In retirement, he has decided unilaterally that he is a profound political pundit.
Author website: http://bernardgoldberg.com
  • Parker

    “I am getting sick of hearing Republicans moaning about how their party has grown out of touch and irrelevant, how President Obama’s narrow victory in the 2012 election demonstrates that the world has passed the GOP by, how the chances of a GOP victory in 2016 and even beyond are approximately zilch.”
    Well, that is what happen when you let the vocal minority become the loudest voice of the party. GOP has no one to blame but themselves for why they lost. About Rubio, I do think he is the best choice the GOP has in 2016. Who else can they turn to right now?

  • Parker

    “I am getting sick of hearing Republicans moaning about how their party has grown out of touch and irrelevant, how President Obama’s narrow victory in the 2012 election demonstrates that the world has passed the GOP by, how the chances of a GOP victory in 2016 and even beyond are approximately zilch.”

  • Montana

    So, the GOP is now trying to legitimize
    their only non-white candidates for president. Wow, I am so surprised. Hey,
    GOP, how that’s working for you. The GOP has the same problem that the Beach
    Boys have your fans are dying and you aren’t getting many new one. Suck on that
    baby!

  • Divineconnection7

    Hopefully there will not be voter fraud, again.

    • Mario__P

      I completely agree. All that voter suppression by the Republican governors needs to be dealt with.

      • Divineconnection7

        Yes, the Republicans are winning with all of that voter suppression.

        LOL!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

    Not going to happen. You’d better find qualified candidates or we’ll lose again.

  • Mr_Kuryakyn

    FDR and his student Barack Obama know that when you speak calm and confident you can win even when your record is failure. Marco Rubio speaks calm and confident but has winning plank to bring America out of depression! Rubio is the candidate who will win in 2016!Start Now!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

      Nope. Rubio is ineligible and will split the GOP ticket and give us another loss to the Dems. We have lots of good candidates – don’t go to Rubio.

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    I like Rubio – a lot! He appears to be truly conservative. Romney was not. I think that is the missing link in our candidate, a serious small govt. vision. Romney was sold as the man to fix a struggling business. We are in much worse shape than a struggling business.

    Early primaries, or no primaries? Wow! For all of the reasons you’ve stated; that’s a great idea, Arthur.

    • artlouis

      Thanks. After I posted this article, I heard that James Carville suggested the same thing for Hillary. Just nominate her now. Great minds?

  • cmacrider

    Arthur: As a Canadian, I hate to interject into American Republican affairs but I suggest:

    1. Rubio sounds, smells, tastes, and looks like an American to me. Unfortunately Obama sounds, smells, and tastes like a Canadian or European socialist and has from the day he burst onto the national stage.

    2. The Republican problem seems to run deeper than simply finding a charismatic and strategic candidate from an ethnic point of view. All you have to do is watch the Republicans attempt to negotiate on the “fiscal cliff” issue. Their strategic skills and negotiating tactics are non existent.

    All they had to do is:

    1. immediately after the election point out that Obama won the WH and the Dems won the Senate so the Republican House was going to patiently sit back and wait for a REASONABLE proposal which dealt with the spending problem. If they received a reasonable offer which dealt with the SPENDING PROBLEM they would be open minded and reasonable.

    2. When Obama started ranting about “tax the rich” all they had to say is that Obama obviously doesn’t know anything about economics since RAISING TAX RATES DOES NOT INCREASE REVENUES …. so he better go back to the drawing board and present another proposal which deals with reality.

    3. Every time the MSM tried to ask them about taxes … all they had to say is were waiting for Obama and Reid to present us with a reasonable proposal on cutting spending …. and then if there is some tax proposal they would certainly consider that part of the proposal.

    Republicans need to learn how to frame the debate .. and they need to represent their constituency … which if I understand things correctly Republicans were not pushing for increased taxes on ANYBODY .. or increased national debt.

    • Mario__P

      cmacrider, you wrote:

      “RAISING TAX RATES DOES NOT INCREASE REVENUES”

      Is this business revenue or tax revenue?

      • cmacrider

        What makes you think raising tax rates increases revenues when the empirical evidence clearly establishes that it does not. Do you actually think that American corporations of which most have Canadian subsidiaries will not arrange their affairs to pay the Canadian 15% corp. tax rate rather than have Obama simply denude their treasuries ????

        • Mario__P

          I was asking for a clarification what type of revenue you were referring to, either the revenue as in the money a business collects for sales/services, or tax revenue, the money the government collects in taxes. Although you did not answer which revenue you were referring to, based on the rest of your two posts, I believe you were talking about the tax revenue.

          What makes me think raising taxes will increase tax revenue? How about the fact that during the pre-Reagan era, the budgets didn’t experience the deficits we observed during the post-Carter era? When Clinton raised taxes a bit, we finally saw some normality in the budgets, and Obama is trying to return to those rates. Why should we further the Bush-era tax rates, when we didn’t see a single balanced budget? What empirical evidence are you talking about? No, I don’t think companies will divert their money trails through Canada. Our economy did just fine with the Clinton rates.

          Your claims are completely unjustified. First show me when in our modern history lower rates have managed to collect enough tax revenue to pay for the government’s bills, and then maybe I’ll listen to your theory. But until then, your point is invalid.

          • cmacrider

            Actually, if you would do some research you would find that when both Regan and Clinton reduced tax rates the revenues increased.

          • Mario__P

            It’s easy to increase tax revenue when the economy starts improving from a recession as the GDP starts growing again. (Reagan caused his recession, while Clinton inherited slow times.) Reagan, however, could not accomplish what Clinton did, which was to run a strong economy on a balanced budget. Clinton collected more tax revenue when compared to GDP than Reagan did. But the ultimate deciding factor whether enough tax revenue was collected during strong economic times is to see if all the bills were paid. It has been several decades since a Republican president was able to accomplish that.

          • cmacrider

            Of course the reason the economy started to grow was because the tax rate was reduced. Once the economy grew it followed that budgets could be balanced. And in Obama’s case if he thinks he can solve a 16 trillion dollar debt and an 87 trillion long term liability problem through increased taxation … he is delusional

    • artlouis

      What you say is largely correct. I don’t think Boehner is the man for this job. Reminds me of a kid trying to stand up to the schoolyard bully, but his knees keep knocking.

  • ARJ127

    I don’t think that Rubio is the star you hope he is. He couldn’t deliver Florida to Romney, despite lots of campaigning. There are too many older Americans who see the Republicans as being a threat to their Medicaid benefits.

    • artlouis

      Well, do we know whether Rubio helped make it closer? Ryan tried to make it plain that his plan would not change things for anyone currently over 55, I believe it was, but the Dems did their best to cloud the issue.

    • SmarterThanPaulSmith

      Rubio couldnt deliver Florida for Romney because Romney was the wrong candidate for the Republican party…Dont get me wrong, I voted for Romney because he was my only option, but he was way too moderate, uncharismatic, and un-personable…He also needed to be more aggressive in the 2nd & 3rd debates, and get into further detail of his tax plan for all the people who accused him of not doing so.

  • Concerned

    Um, yeah, no. Most Hispanics view Rubio as a white guy. Mexicans won’t support a Cuban more than they would any other race. This is the exact kind of blatant tokenism that left Republicans wondering why Mia Love and Allen West went down on Election Day; minorities won’t support your candidate if they aren’t in line with their views. How did Herman Cain go over with black voters?

    • artlouis

      Before Romney chose his running-mate, there was discussion about whether it would be Rubio. On TV, a worried-looking David Axelrod tried to squelch that idea. He said it would be an “insulting” move in the eyes of Hispanic voters.

      I think the GOP would have done better with Rubio on the ticket, in either spot. The GOP would be foolish to take advice from the Dems, especially Axelrod, but it seems that sometimes they do.

      As for Allen West, he already had been elected in that district two years ago. Are you saying that he shouldn’t have run for re-election?

      By the way, if you are a Democrat, as seems likely, I am not going to take your advice.

      • Concerned

        There is a big difference between Rubio as a Veep selection and Rubio at the head of the ticket. He certainly would have been a better VP nominee than Ryan; it is likely that Romney wins Florida with Rubio as his running-mate. However, I have a hard time believing that southern Evangelicals are going to turnout any better for Rubio than they did for Romney when he was running against a very weak incumbent.

        I am an independent who voted Gary Johnson because I was very underwhelmed by Romney’s campaign, and I am not impressed by the token minorities (Rubio, Jindal) the GOP is trying to push forward. The Republican Party is best served having real men or conservatism take the torch in 2016, not these moderate panderers as of late that excite absolutely no one.

        • artlouis

          Is there really any evidence that the evangelicals didn’t come out this time? Romney didn’t lose any states where they are a major force.
          Rubio, if nominated, would be the first Catholic GOP presidential candidate. That might be a worry in the Bible Belt, but I suspect that he still wouldn’t lose any states that Romney won.

        • SmarterThanPaulSmith

          So you are saying that you voted for someone who had NO chance? You wasted a vote that could have been put to WAY better use, if in fact you are a Republican…Nice job.

          • Concerned

            I live in Kentucky, so pump your brakes, tiger. It was a personal referendum for me on this election as someone who leans libertarian, anyway; that’s what ever Ross Perot voter from the 90s can say. Are you always this prone to jumping to conclusions?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            All candidates had a chance. Had you voted for someone other than Romney, we might not be in this fix. But I’m sure you don’t see that. Just don’t nominate Rubio or Jindal next time and you might pick up votes from those who won’t support an illegal candidate.

    • John Dillinger

      That’s what people thought about Obama — Rubio is a Hispanic, period. He would change the demographics and also the attitude of other Hispanics toward Cubans, because the position of president is very powerful in the culture of the country they are living in. Having a Hispanic president would elevate all Hispanics.

  • Wheels55

    Republicans will continue to lose if they allow liberals to define them. The problem is that the message from the GOP is not heard and understood. We have become a country that prefers to listen to minorities and it seems like it will take a minority to sell the message. Rubio has been doing a great job selling the message. If only Paul Ryan could develop a great accent.

    • artlouis

      Ryan may try for the presidential nomination next time, which would be quite a step up from the House of Representatives. I doubt that he could win the election. In recent years only one losing v.p. candidate later got nominated for president — Bob Dole, who of course lost for president as well. I believe that the only losing v.p. candidate who actually got elected president was FDR (he ran for veep in 1920).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

    You keep that crap up, Bernie, and I GUARANTEE a GOP loss. Rubio is not a natural born citizen and if you nominate him (or Bobby Jindal) you’ll split the GOP ticket right down the middle guaranteeing yet another Democrat win.

    DON’T DO THAT!!

    • Mario__P

      Rubio is not a “natural born citizen”? Please explain yourself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        Rubio’s parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born. Just as a baby born of American parents in Cuba is an American citizen at birth AND a Cuban citizen, a baby born in the U.S. of non-U.S. citizen parents can be claimed to be a citizen of the parents’ country of origin – dual citizenship.

        • Mario__P

          Last year the Congressional Research Service stated that,

          “…the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

          Therefore, it doesn’t matter what citizenship the parents have. The constitution also doesn’t state anything about dual citizenship, so why did you even bring that up? Yet more of your “deeper” interpretation of a very simple legislature?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Yes, a junior lawyer in the CRS did that (but it wasn’t last year). Their opinion is – to be polite – non-binding.

            Nominate Rubio or Jindal and lose another election. Choose wisely.

          • artlouis

            Paul,

            May I step in here for a moment? You have expressed the same opinion here more times than I can count. Anyone who has even glanced at the comments now knows what point you are trying to make. If Rubio runs, he will lose your vote; you have made that clear. May I suggest that you not comment again unless you have something else to say?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            You noticed, did you? Except you got one thing wrong. . .I am but one of millions who will not vote for an ineligible candidate. But don’t believe me; put him on a GOP presidential ticket and see for yourself.

          • Mario__P

            Ok, so you believe Rubio will lose, because people like yourself think Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Do you believe Obama is an NBC?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Of course not; don’t be silly. Obama is a usurper of the first order and for the same reason. We’ve been fighting that for almost five years now. Too bad more of you failed to support us in our efforts.

          • Mario__P

            Ok, so the nation re-elected Obama, who you believe is not an NBC. Therefore, why can’t Rubio, who you believe is not an NBC, be elected? You would rather have a Democrat in the Office than a Republican who you think is not an NBC?

          • Patrick H.

            Oh great, another birther rat. Gee, we got enough of those with Obama.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        Question: The founding fathers felt that it was dangerous to allow a citizen to become POTUS and elected to change the wording to ‘natural born citizen’. Do you seriously think that they would approve of anchor babies (like Obama, Rubio and Jindal) becoming our POTUS? I don’t think so.

        • Mario__P

          The title “natural born citizen” alone means anyone born in the States. The constitution doesn’t define it any further, and any limiting interpretations you may have, are false. Since you and I have no idea if there was any intended deeper meaning the founding fathers had, but if there was, the founding fathers should have written it into the constitution, but was not. Hence, your restricting definition of what a “natural born citizen” is, is therefore false. True, lives were way simpler back in the late 1700’s, and the concept of an anchor-baby did not exist. But that brings up a whole new debate of whether 200+ year old laws still apply to today’s society.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Nominate Rubio and lose another election. We have lots of choices; choose wisely.

          • Mario__P

            Claiming that Rubio will lose the election is an opinion, which may or may not come to fruition. Claiming that Rubio is not a natural born citizen is a false opinion, or simply put, a lie.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Put him on a ticket and lose another election. Choose wisely.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            On what do you base your definition, Mario? We know that the founding fathers changed the wording from ‘citizen’ to ‘natural born citizen’. We also know that deVattel’s The Law of Nations was heavily used in their deliberations that defined a NBC as a person born on the soil and of citizen parents. Anchor babies were given U.S. citizenship by the 14th Amendment (naturalized under law) – they cannot be natural born citizens.

        • SmarterThanPaulSmith

          Marco Rubio, by EVERY definition and/or legal interpretation of U.S. law & the Constitution IS a natural born U.S. citizen…It is clear that the individuals replying to you so far have engaged themselves in an intellectual battle with someone who is completely disarmed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Opinion noted. Nominate Rubio and lose another election. Your choice.

        • smrstrauss

          Answer. YES. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal.” So, if the writers of the US Constitution had meant that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens, they would have told us—and they didn’t.

          More importantly, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and that hence every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen. That means that anchor babies are Natural Born Citizens. If you do not like it, ask your legislators to try to change the Constitution, but that is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

          More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:

          http://www.fredthompsonsameric

          http://www.economist.com/blogs

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

          http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

          http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

      • Mr_Kuryakyn

        Marco Antonio Rubio born Miami Florida May 28,1971

    • artlouis

      Where do you suppose Rubio was born? Kenya? His parents came to the U.S. in 1956, and he was born in Miami fifteen years later. The Constitution doesn’t say that you have to be descended from the Mayflower.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        I know of Rubio’s (& Jindal’s) background. Like Obama, their parents were not U.S. citizens when the boys were born. They are not natural born citizens.

        • artlouis

          It doesn’t matter whether their parents were citizens of Mars. If they were born here, they are eligible. By the way, what makes you say that Obama’s mother was not a U.S. citizen?

          • ARJ127

            Art

            You’re right and Smith’s wrong. It looks like the same kind of BS we’ve seen from white racists about Obama. You may not like Obama’s free-spending ways (I don’t) but you gotta admit that he is as American as apple pie.

            America is changing. It isn’t “white” any more. It’s becoming increasingly colored. Unless the Republicans get to understand this truth, they will be the minority party forever more.

          • artlouis

            Color or ethnicity shouldn’t really matter, but unfortunately that’s what guides many voters. Rubio is as true a Republican as any politician, and if his ethnic origin helps him pick up some extra votes, the GOP might as well take advantage of that. I can’t think of a better candidate anyway.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            Rubio is a wonderful man, a great politician and he has a very bright future. . .just not as POTUS. The GOP had best think very carefully before going down that road – the Constitution still means something to many of us.

          • ARJ127

            And the facts mean nothing to you. Rubio is as American as you are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

            How can I be wrong when I simply stated a fact? I, and millions like me, feel that Obummer is a usurper and that Rubio and Jindal are likewise ineligible. Millions of us will NOT vote for what we deem to be an ineligible candidate. Nominate him and lose yet another eldction.

          • smrstrauss

            Because it is not a fact. The fact is that every child born in the USA regardless of the citizenship of one or even two parents is a Natural Born Citizen (the only exception is the children of foreign diplomats).

            Here are the words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which by the way was AFTER Minor v. Happersett. The ruling was six justices to two (one justice did not vote):

            “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            The above clearly states that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it refers to the PLACE of birth. There is NO mention of parents whatever. And the ruling goes on to say that every child born in England, or the 13 colonies or the early states was considered a Natural Born Citizen with the exception of foreign diplomats etc. And it says that the same rule continues UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

            Confirmation:

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

            “Every child born in the United States is a
            natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)—Senator Lindsay Graham.

            And this from former Senator Fred Thompson:

            http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

            And the Wall Street Journal:

            “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

            And the Economist magazine:

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

            And these:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

            http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

            http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

            http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/

            http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

    • John Daly

      No offense Paul, but it’s people like you who hurt the GOP more than anyone. As conservatives, we have enough trouble dispelling unfair stereotypes and Democratic smears… Then, someone like you pops in and adds legitimacy to their claims. Not good.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        Opinion noted but it makes no difference. Rubio and Jindal are not natural born citizens. I will NOT vote for them nor will millions of other people. There are lots of good alternatives – deMint being one of the best. FIND SOMEBODY ELSE!

    • deny916

      I think you’re confused dude! If you are BORN in Miami you are an AMERICAN citizen. Jeez.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        I agree 100%. You are NOT necessarily, however, a natural born citizen.

    • http://rickbulow1974.freesmfhosting.com/ Rick Bulow

      Rubio IS a natural born citizen. You have no proof that he is not. And if you think parentage has anything to do with it, well that is debunked with this: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. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

      Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        The decision in Ark BYPASSED Article II, Section 1, Para 5 (natural born citizen) and relied on the 14th Amendment to declare Ark a citizen. It supports the definition provided by Minor v. Happersett that an NBC is a person born on U.S. soil and of citizen parents.

        You won’t change our minds. . .nominate Rubio or Jindal and lose another election.

    • Political_Paige_Blog

      Aw, don’t both Paul with facts. He is obviously from a blue state, and they don’t recognize anyplace that isn’t jammed with crumbling infrastructure and riots as being inside the US.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        I live in Houston and am a committed conservative. Trust me, I love the Constitution and have worked very hard to support it against the tyranny we’ve experience for decades. Obama is a usurper and I don’t want the GOP to repeat that mistake.

    • Mr_Kuryakyn

      Check Facts or Wear Tasty Shoes! FACT: Marco Antonio Rubio born May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

        Very good. Any idiot could come up with that information. He is, indeed, a U.S. citizen. He is NOT, however, a ‘natural born citizen’. Find somebody else.

        • artlouis

          To everybody but you, natural born citizen means born a U.S. citizen (rather than naturalized). Rubio was born a U.S. citizen, because he was born in the USA. Please stop tooting the same horn over and over.

    • smrstrauss

      The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case
      (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural
      Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, and
      that hence every child born in the USA except for the children of
      foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

      More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:

      http://www.fredthompsonsameric

      http://www.economist.com/blogs

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

    • smrstrauss

      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

      More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:

      http://www.fredthompsonsameric

      http://www.economist.com/blogs

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

    • smrstrauss

      In fact, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, and that hence every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

      More reading on the Natural Born Citizenship issue:

      http://www.fredthompsonsameric

      http://www.economist.com/blogs

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/wh

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

  • deny916

    The minute I heard that Romney had lost the presidential race the first words out of my mouth (well, we can’t say those words) but then I said Rubio in 2016–and I still believe that! Let’s hope we can hold on that long! I am in total agreement with you on this one Art!

    • artlouis

      Thanks, Deny. He might even have won this year. Romney ran an honorable but ineffective campaign.