Priebus: Huckabee a ‘Model’ for GOP

[MR2]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Okay, I'll rephrase. Who among the current potential Republican candidates for POTUS do you consider to be 'strong'?

And... how 'electable' might they be against potential Democrat candidates, whomever he or SHE may be?

I'm thinking a Ryan/Paul ticket could get some traction as long as Rubio (who is not a Natural citizen) is not in the primary and is supportive.

The Democrat party could run Dennis Lynn Rader and the so-called media (including John McCain) would still attack the GOP candidates.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by MR2

I'm thinking a Ryan/Paul ticket could get some traction as long as Rubio (who is not a Natural citizen) is not in the primary and is supportive.

The Democrat party could run Dennis Lynn Rader and the so-called media (including John McCain) would still attack the GOP candidates.

Carson may be a factor, too. All the right values, and black to boot.

Remember how the media left Cain alone?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Remember how the media left Cain alone?

Just like Clarence Thomas.

TR

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

There aren't any.

The media will see to that.

How long do you think a Republican Senator would last who had been taking trips out of the country with a campaign donor to have sex with underage prostitutes?

Or one who had a female assistant drown in his car after he fled a DUI car accident?

McCain and Romney had serious hatchet jobs attempted on them, largely baseless, with the complicity of the media. Yet the Dem candidates face very little such slander.

TR

+100

The Orwellian doublespeak that Stephanie Cutter, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, David Axlerod, Harry Reid et al. spewed out of their pie holes during the 2012 Campaign was breathtaking, both for their collective abilities to stay on point/message regardless of the mountain of facts/evidence to the contrary presented to them as well as for the duplicitous actions of the MSM to ignore each and every incongruity, simply because a candidate had a (D) after his/her name.

[Pete]

".........Earlier today, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus pushed back .............."


That's all you need to know about the story. Priebus is part of the GOPe, the same GOPe that told the newly elected Tea Party folks to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. The same GOPe that said they didn't need the conservative Republicans to move legislation, they'd get their support from the Democrats.

The same GOPe that would rather spend tons of money in a primary to defeat a conservative running against a GOPe dude than just spending it on the winner of the primary.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by MR2

...as long as Rubio (who is not a Natural citizen)...

How could his being "born in Miami" in 1971 not make him a "natural" citizen?

In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover. When he was eight years old, Rubio and his family moved to Las Vegas, Nevada where his father worked as a bartender at the Sams Town Hotel and his mother as a housekeeper at the Imperial Palace Hotel.

In 1985, the family returned to Miami where his father continued working as a bartender at the Mayfair House Hotel until 1997. Thereafter he worked as a school crossing guard until his retirement in 2005. His mother worked as a Kmart stock clerk until she retired in 1995.

Rubio attended South Miami Senior High School, graduating in 1989. He attended Tarkio College in Missouri for one year on a football scholarship before transferring to Santa Fe Community College and then graduating
in 1993 with a bachelor of science from the University of Florida. He continued his studies at the University of Miami where he earned his juris doctor, cum laude, in 1996.

http://www.republicanbusinesscouncil.../rubio_bio.pdf

Richard

[MR2]

Richard, et al

A consensus on the correct definition of “natural-born citizen” has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution’s silence, the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means.

I agree that he is Native-born. The question of Natural-born remains unsettled in the minds of many - including myself.

Going back and doing some Internet research - I find two sides to the issue - all from sites that I have no trust in...

The question begs - In the end, would you vote for him or stand by your principles? As there are no principles in politics anymore, yes I would vote for him.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by MR2

Richard, et al



I agree that he is Native-born. The question of Natural-born remains unsettled in the minds of many - including myself.

Going back and doing some Internet research - I find two sides to the issue - all from sites that I have no trust in...

The question begs - In the end, would you vote for him or stand by your principles? As there are no principles in politics anymore, yes I would vote for him.

If Rubio had his way regarding illegals, we'd lose another 10 percent or so in the polls, regardless of his citizenship status.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by MR2

Richard, et al

I agree that he is Native-born. The question of Natural-born remains unsettled in the minds of many - including myself.

Going back and doing some Internet research - I find two sides to the issue - all from sites that I have no trust in...

How about this web-site? You're either a citizen at birth ('citizen') or gain citizenship after birth through the naturalization process ('naturalized citizen').

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

"Natural born" is an archaic term which began fading from legal prominence as far back as 1795, and Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] of the Imigration and Nationality Act of 1952 merely confirmed its demise.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...90aRCRD&CH=act

Rubio was, by law, born a citizen.

Richard

[MR2]

Not questioning his citizenship - just the Natural-born part.

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine A GOP Presidential Candidate Supporting Gay Marriage

Fox News contributor and former Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said this morning on "This Week" that he can imagine the next Republican nominee for the White House supporting gay marriage.

"I could," Rove said on the "This Week" roundtable.

Rove's comments came days after Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, whom Mitt Romney considered as a running mate in the 2012 election, announced that he had shifted his position and supported gay marriage. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress do not support same-sex marriage. Portman is the only sitting senator in the GOP to support same-sex marriage.

The Powerhouse Roundtable also addressed gun violence-prevention measures now being discussed in Congress. Rove said that universal background checks would not have stopped the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children dead in December.

"Let's be clear about this, this was prompted by the Sandy Hook murders. Those guns were legally purchased with a background check, " Rove said. "This would not have solved something like that. Let's be very careful about quickly trampling on the rights of people."

Former Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina pushed back, arguing the importance of background checks.

"Look, 40 percent of all gun sales currently don't go through background checks. The background checks have stopped two million people from getting guns they shouldn't get," Messina said. "But we know there are loopholes all over the place. And Karl, just saying no, which is what the NRA and your party is doing right now, isn't moving us forward."

http://news.yahoo.com/karl-rove-coul...170403406.html

[Trapper John]

Maybe it's because I'm just a FOG or maybe it's because I am a Hamiltonian Conservative, but reading through this thread I think that we can see a microcosm of the problem that the present day Republican party has in not being able to come to a consensus of principle or message. The misinformation/disinformation campaign is working. I have referenced Archibald MacLeish before in other threads and do so again here http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/1942-06-26b.html An excellent read IMO and particularly germane to the issue.

As a Hamiltonian Conservative, I believe first and foremost in the right of self-determination (liberty) for the individual. However, in a diverse society it becomes imperative to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Our constitutional republic was brilliantly designed to do just that. Take for example gay marriage. This is a civil rights issue to ensure equal protection under the law for all, no State should be able to abridge those rights and the Supreme Court is in place to adjudicate such instances. Proposition 8 in CA is a prime example IMO.

That simple universal principle should and once did define the principles of the Republican party. Today the Republicans are fragmented over disparate ideologies from gay rights, illegals, gun rights, same sex marriage, abortion, etc.
The unifying principle is the right of self-determination and equal protection under the law. I can think of no more inclusive and powerful principle than that. That should be the governing principle and the message.

So while we fiddle about this group or that Rome burns. The unresolved issue is economic- and that is where the Hamiltonian and conservative part of my philosophy takes over. IMO, that is the only point that needs debating in a national discourse. What course do we take in economic policy (fiscal and monetary)?

Just my 2-cents worth.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

As a Hamiltonian Conservative, I believe first and foremost in the right of self-determination (liberty) for the individual. However, in a diverse society it becomes imperative to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
...
That simple universal principle should and once did define the principles of the Republican party.

Thanks, timely comments given I followed an end-note in another book last night down a Sigaba-like rabbit hole, and ended up visiting John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - what a buggy ride. Back then you'd have been called a liberal.

Not surprised to see the recent Army Times poll indicating Soldiers still largely leaning to (modern) conservative values but feeling much more identified with the TP or libertarian platforms and a notable disconnect from the current GOP.

[Richard]

Something to chew on while enjoying that Monday morning coffee.

Richard

Do conservatives even want to win?
TheWeek, 24 Mar 2013

Karl Rove and Reince Priebus clearly do. And then there's Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin...

Is it time to remake the old movie Death Wish — this time starring conservative Republicans who seem to think polls are wrong and that America really loves them and hates Barack Obama?

This is not a joke. Whether conservatives even want to win is a serious question in light of the reaction to the Republican National Committee's brutally honest "autopsy" on why the party lost the 2012 presidential election. The RNC concluded that the party should change such things as the number of primaries, its image among minority voters, its positions on immigration reform, its ground game — and become less "scary" to voters. It all amounts to this: At least look more moderate. But "moderate" remains one of the filthiest words in the Republican Party, and the feeling is kinda mutual: Moderates voted for Obama in droves.

Indeed, many conservatives are rejecting the RNC's tough-love report faster than Michele Bachmann running away from a reporter. And it makes you wonder: What are they thinking?

The GOP is divided into two factions symbolized by what New York's Dan Amira calls "the world's worst investor, Karl Rove, and the world's worst vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin." Rove, an establishment figure and Bush family stalwart, wants to win. Palin, darling of the Tea Party, the grassroots, and talk-show fans, wants purity — which she believes will bring victory.

It's déjà vu all over again: The Goldwater Republicans in 1964 and the McGovern Democrats in 1972. Both groups later tempered their rough edges and became more influential in their parties. But first they clung to extreme platforms far outside the mainstream of American politics. And they lost badly.

National Journal's Charlie Cook says Republicans face two choices: Change or go over the cliff. But major change seems unlikely. Rush Limbaugh immediately rejected the idea that conservatives are out of touch. "I'm sorry, but we're not disrespectful to anybody," he told his listeners. "Look at what these focus groups have got these poor guys believing... Republicans are not narrow minded."

So "denial" is a river in what country?

With the far-right rejecting reasonable changes that are necessary to bring the GOP back into the mainstream, the war between conservatives and the Republican establishment will likely get even bloodier. The New York Times' Thomas Edsall:

In January, I pointed out that "If the conservative movement continues on its downward trajectory, the American business community, which has the most to lose from Republican failure, will be the key force arguing for moderation."

That moment has come. The Priebus report and Rove's Conservative Victory Project together mark a significant escalation in the battle between the center and the right over the soul of the Republican Party. What has yet to be determined is whether they are fighting over a patient who can be quickly resuscitated or a patient with a chronic but not fatal illness — or a corpse.

Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg writes that the GOP "continues to fracture more seriously than I expected following last year's re-election of President Barack Obama." When Rothenberg asked a Republican pollster what the GOP can do to turn things around soon, the GOPer replied that the "Republican brand will improve... only when the president screws up." That is not a winning strategy.

And let's face it: Perfunctory appeals to groups Republicans feel they need to win over will backfire if not backed by real changes in policy — and in political style. That mean moderating. And yet, there are already reports that conservative members of Congress want to force yet another debt ceiling showdown with Obama this summer — and hold out until they can repeal ObamaCare and get entitlement cuts.

One hopeful sign of moderation: In the interest of political self-preservation, the GOP is finally embracing immigration reform. But don't expect major shifts on other key issues.

As attorney-blogger Pat Edaburn notes, "A pure minority is still a minority." No matter the amount of Koch money backing the GOP, the bottom line is that polarizing conservative talk show hosts, CPAC members laughing as Ann Coulter calls Bill Clinton a "forcible rapist," House members using the nation's credit-worthiness for blackmail, and attacks on Obama's Latino cabinet nominee will not appeal to America's growing minorities or its moderate middle — and does not a future winning national Republican coalition make.

http://theweek.com/article/index/241...en-want-to-win

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Thanks, timely comments given I followed an end-note in another book last night down a Sigaba-like rabbit hole, and ended up visiting John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - what a buggy ride. Back then you'd have been called a liberal.

And at that time I would have been proud to wear it. Labels change, principles don't