Posted on 11/20/2011 10:17:45 AM PST by grumpa
Dear Mike, Paul, and Marco. Help!
As the current crop of Republican candidates have all flamed out or carry various electability anchors around their neck, I implore you to get into the race. It is not too late!
Republicans are hungry for a candidate that can unite the party. I suspect that such a candidate could capture the nomination without much of a ground game in Iowa. With the right platform, you could quickly capture a majority of the Republican faithful.
Essentially, the platform would be built around the already good ideas of the existing candidates. Such a candidate would openly draw on those ideas to show that he is the one that can unite us. Here is the proposed platform statement by such a candidate:
"I believe that every one of the current Republican candidates would make a great President! Each candidate has offered some terrific ideas and I would like to be the person that brings these ideas together and unite the party. My platform includes:
I can support either Herman Cain’s 999 tax plan or Rick Perry’s 20% flat tax plan. I will work with the Congress to develop a flatter, simpler income tax while considering a supplemental national sales tax that will capture taxes from the underground economy. My plan would include generous personal exemptions so that the lowest income familes would pay little or no income tax. Incomes of the super-rich (incomes over $10 million) would be taxed at a higher rate.
But I think we also need to get a permanent hold on the federal budget and am in favor of the constitutional amendments recommended by Mitt Romney—a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Federal Spending Amendment to limit federal spending to 18% of GDP.
I strongly support Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul’s liberty initiatives and also support Ron’s plan to eliminate 5 federal departments. My pledge is to bring our federal budget into balance within two years of taking office.
I also very much like several ideas of Newt Gingrich including ceasing federal loans for higher education, his commitment to a strong national defense, and a vigorous foreign policy.
I further appreciate Michelle Bachman’s insistence that we repeal Obamacare and her inspiring patriotism.
I fully support the family initiatives of Rick Santorum and greatly appreciate his leadership on this."
So how about we quit letting the Junk Media with their knee jerk hyper negativity tell us what to think about our candidates and start listening to them instead?
Hate to burst your bubble but the ONLY reason these people seem attractive is because they are not in the race. The second they were subjected to the same sort of hyper negative constant media assault as the other candidates they would look just as flawed.
Huckabee? No thanks.
Ryan? hmmm.... Scratching head....
Rubio? Well, he does talk a good game.
Rubio can’t even run?
Huckabee? Never. The guy is a snake oil salesman.
Marco Rubio? Not a natural born citizen. Just because the Dems have corruptly and criminally violated the constitution is no reason for us to do so.
Paul Ryan? A good man, but not that well known. And we need him right where he is.
Watch out. The “Rubio is not a natural born citizen” brigade will arrive soon.
He's not.
Rubio isn’t experienced enough yet. He needs to get his own affairs in order first.
He is **not** a natural born citizen!
You clearly know nothing about Huckabee - really - to keep him in this discussion. He is a class warrior, a liberal economic populist who has only made his money off of the offering plate, the tax bill, and recently Roger Ailes’ brilliance.
Never had a real job and doesn’t understand those who have.
>> Watch out. The “Rubio is not a natural born citizen” brigade will arrive soon. >>
I have researched to some degree and heard pro’s and con’s, and while somewhat conflicted I do not believe the folks concerned about the parentage have it right.
And what this brigade refuses to realize is this:
A: there is deep intellectual resistance to their interpretation of “natural born” citizen from many conservative Constitutional experts. — including Mark Levin, believes it means to be born in this country and not referring to birth place of parents.
B: If the Founders had meant natural born to mean what these birther part B folks say, we would have never gotten our government off the ground. Think about it.
C: Even if the phrase “natural born” meant what they say it meant, the Obama precedent based on his parents shattered it.
Just because the obama hit squad, or who ever, tried to take a good man down with a cooked up scam, doesn't mean I will run away with my tail between my legs. Nope!
Investigator: Herman Cain innocent of sexual advances
Didn't we all know this was going to be a bloody battle? Do we run or do we stand our ground? Well, I'm standing my ground!
I can think of someone better who he might appeal to. Apparently, she's going to need more convincing, though.
And what "real job" has Newt Gingrich ever held?
You need to read the Constitution. The Framers exempted themselves and the Founding Generation from that requirement. They had to, otherwise, none of them could have served as President.
Too late, they’ve missed important filing deadlines. What is in front of you is our field. Plus, Huckabee? LOL
Schmuckabee ??? Not a chance !
The definition of Natural Born was traditionally clear enough, and it has been shown that Samuel Adams had a copy, with his signature, currently in the Boston Public Library.
“If the Founders had meant natural born to mean what these birther part B folks say, we would have never gotten our government off the ground.”
Actually, there was an agreed exception for those persons who were born before the founding. So the earliest Presidents were not required to be natural born. Because there was no “America” before the founding.
>> And what “real job” has Newt Gingrich ever held? >>
You are such a child. This thread was not even on the subject, but since you were run slap out of the other thread by everyone calling you a child, you had to resurface here.
But again, I’ll answer your mindless question this way: First, Newt’s lack of free enterprise experience is a weakness of his. Second, Newt has authored 20 plus books on a myriad of subjects. Third, Newt has taught American history and I don’t know if it was for a state university or a private university. But mainly, Newt is not an economic populist liberal and is a much bigger believer in the free market than is Huckabee.
But again, why are you here in this thread?
I have read article 2 and seen it both ways. Your argument has some merit but with due respect, you are out of step with most conservative Constitutional scholars on this subject.
Mark Levin and Ann Coulter would be just two examples who are in the public eye - and before they were in the public eye, they were both Constitutional scholars.
I can see it your way. But I think the other argument is just a bit stronger. And besides, you can never change history now even if you were technically correct.
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.