Posted on 04/01/2012 12:18:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While pundits, politicians and prognosticators have tapped Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as one of the most likely GOP vice presidential picks, conservative commentator Ann Coulter warned today that such a choice would be a “mistake.”
“I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.]Rick Perry,” Coulter told me Sunday during the “This Week” roundtable discussion. “I want someone who’s been a bit more tested.”
As the rising star of the Tea Party and a Hispanic from the delegate-rich state of Florida, Rubio would fix Romney’s two biggest problems: enthusiasm among the Republican base and lackluster support from Hispanics, argued conservative commentator George Will.
But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, which, as a first-term Senator, Rubio is not. Coulter suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
“He’s been tested, he’s steady, he’s not frightening,” Coulter said of Kyl. “He could certainly step into the job.”
Van Jones, a former environmental advisor in the Obama White House, threw a brand new name into the realm of vice presidential speculation: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under George W. Bush. “She ticks off a lot of boxes as far as women, persons of color, but she’s actually tested, she’s a national figure and she has foreign policy experience” Jones said. “You want to do something bold, put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Obama campaign go crazy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
My charge of TREASON was directed at you personally.
Engage in substantive discussion rather than ad hominem baloney.
@I did. Once again for your edification...
...much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett...
What does the age of a case have to do with anything?
And once again, just like before and as is seemingly your typical ploy, you chose to avoid answering a question instead of engaging in a substantive discussion as such discussion would prove you have a bias as well as a misunderstanding of the issue.
And since you obviously don't want to get into a substantive discussion on the aspect of dicta, as your previous reply indicates, I'll let the other question slide. You had no intention of ever backing up your assertion anyway, did you?
You'll probably ignore my question this time as well, just like you did my other, since there isn't an easy answer that doesn't torpedo your boat.
And while your words may seem flowery your own ad hominems still manage to spew forth the same recognizable putrid aroma of puddled, disease ridden diarrhea, which spills forth from within your rotting, curdled, highfaluting oral pontifications. And the silver platter upon which you serve your words doesn't decrease the stink one wit, even as it tarnishes from such corrosive elements.
BTW, I see you called in your tag team partner.
Are you always so needy of such emotional support?
Black Elk seems to follow the adage of - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS...and BE piles it up high when necessary.
Maybe it was Dubya’s fault.
And your charge was soooo articulate and well-reasoned and your scholarly arguments in support of that single word charge or your emotional temper tantrum or whatever: sooooo compelling! Who knew? s/off
May your vicinity be blessed with many fine and busily patronized and ever more profitable Mexican restaurants. Many are a LOT better than Taco Bell.
Your childlike faith in the "GOP" whores and bribe collectors constituting the "GOP" party leadership in the House and Senate is truly touching. My Congressman Don Manzullo just got purged in a primary reminiscent of Romney's lavishly funded campaign of lies and distortions against Santorum. Cantor endorsed his opponent Congressman Adam Kinzinger who does not even live in the district, funded Kinzinger's campaign out of the "Young Guns" PAC with Texas money. Manzullo had a twenty-year lifetime rating and a rating in the last term (Kinzinger's only term) that was MUCH more conservative than Kinzinger's from pro-life groups, pro-family groups, probably gun owner's groups, Illinois conservative groups, American Conservative Union, etc. The trigger was Manzullo's written demand to Boehner that the Republican controlled House pass a resolution telling Obozo in no uncertain terms that there would not be any further increases in the debt limit (Obozo's election year allowance) in this term. Who is this "we?" It's the little things that give YOU away with certainty. When I wrote "you MAY be able to stop," that is precisely what I meant.
Do not imagine that this post is an indication of any less contempt for you and your tactics.
Maybe it was Cesar Chavez's fault.
It's not (and never has been) about where the parents were born. It's about the citizenship status of the parents at the time of the child's birth.
In today's language, Rubio would be an "anchor baby," born in the USA of non-citizen parents. His parents got their USA citizenship years after he was born.
-PJ
I would modify your post as to one minor particular on the facts of Minor vs. Happersett. The plaintiff/claimant was Mrs. Minor and the defendant was Happersett and was presumably a man since Missouri's law at issue prohibited the registration of a woman and would have likely prevented a woman from being a registrar. Happersett was a registrar of voters in Missouri who was the nominal defendant.
I don't really know whether GEORGE Romney's paternal grandparents had renounced their American citizenship or whether any of his grandparents were born in the US or Mexico. During one of numerous Marxist rebellions in Mexico and after GEORGE Romney's birth, his father decided to move to Utah. I have heard that George's paternal grandfather had as few as four wives or as many as twelve, but have no solid proof. In the 1870s, the renowned Brigham Young, then the Mormon Prophet, determined that the Mormons should establish colonies in or near Chihuahua. If that was the reason for this branch of clan Romney to move to Mexico rather than outrage later over the USA imposing a requirement that Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition of admission to the Union is a question worth pondering in relation to whether there was intent to renounce citizenship. As to those 4-12 wives of GEORGE's grandfather, IF they were generally (whether 4 or 12) happy wives, I do admire his stamina and his social skills in serving as patriarch and a necessarily awesome referee. I find that being married to one wife is and has been enough of a challenge to suit me. God bless her.
The Founders really should have resolved the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the guidance of future generations. Since they did not, it is probably a good idea for SCOTUS to resolve it. Genuine ambiguity in the wording of an enactment is one of the most common grounds for SCOTUS to assert jurisdiction. The SCOTUS does not get to rule unless one or more cases are brought to trigger judicial jurisdiction.
I DO have to admit that "verbal left hook" is a pretty good line.
The English Common Law system, which, having been initiated by King Henry II, must go back to at least 1189, the year of his death. Trust that the passage of time has rendered many old decisions quite obsolete. The short version of the relevance of that fact is that the US, after successfully revolting against the Brits during the unpleasantries from July 4, 1776 until the Treaty of Paris, adopted the Common Law of England (as then it stood) and thereafter our common law and theirs diverged during the ensuing centuries and you would be surprised at how much of our own common law has been rendered obsolete by the passing of time and historical events. For example, Dred Scott vs. Sandford (SCOTUS 1857) was rendered more than moot by the results of the War Between the States and the subsequent post-war constitutional Amendments XIII, XIV and XV. If that is overinclusive, sue me; Minor vs. Hapgood did not survive the enactment of the Women's Suffrage Amendment; and Lochner vs. New York (SCOTUS 1905), a 14th Amendment substantive due process case involving New York legislative action limiting the work hours of bakers, was rendered obsolete by the New Deal with no Constitutional Amendment intervening and was, in effect, and was implicitly but not explicitly overruled in 1937 in West Coast Hotel Co. vs. Parrish with no intervening constitutional amendment. These are a very small sample of significant decisions rendered obsolete and, except for Dred Scott, all were subsequent to Minor vs. Happersett and all including Dred Scott were SCOTUS cases rendered obsolete one way or another.
Trust that the passage of time has rendered many old decisions quite obsolete.
I'm not trusting you for anything.
It isn't the passage of time that has rendered old decisions obsolete, it's subsequent court cases or Constitutional amendments that have rendered some cases so as your subsequent statements provide.
Is Minor vs. Happersett completely obsolete or only some portions of it?
...the relevance of that fact is that the US, after successfully revolting against the Brits during the unpleasantries from July 4, 1776 until the Treaty of Paris, adopted the Common Law of England...
No, America didn't adopt the Common Law of England. You're slip is showing.
America adopted the concept of common law, not English Common Law itself. Once our courts were established and cases were decided our own common law was made.
Minor vs. Hapgood did not survive the enactment of the Women's Suffrage Amendment...
I've never heard of Minor vs. Hapgood? Got link?
Your mistakes are critical in your misunderstanding.
Yep. Adjusting dosage. Awww crap.
It was the fault of Pope John Paul I and Pancho Villa.
At the rate you’re going you’re going to burn out this persona as well.
Ladies and gentlemen who have been socially rejected normally have the class to go away. You would do well to emulate their example. I have no interest in and certainly no obsessive need (such as your own) in discussion of any sort with you. You insist on prolonging interminably in chewing your various old slippers. If you want help with that hobby, get a dog. Any dog will do a more professional job of it.
Perhaps it was the fault of Pope John XXIII? Or maybe the late Congressman Manuel Lujan?
What’s so bad about liking Rick Perry?
I wish he’d stayed in.
But maybe Ann likes a substantial guy... body-wise, I mean.
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.