Dear Republican Establishment,
Congratulations. You have done it. It looks like you are going to get your candidate to be the nominee. You have successfully pushed the most liberal Republican in history to the nomination. Of course, that does not matter to you. All that matters is that he is a member of the club and was the next guy in line.
Your candidate did not appeal to the Tea Party or the conservative base. In fact, for the most part he ignored us. You can do that when you can outspend your opponents 5-1 or in some cases as much as 21-1.
But now it is a new ballgame.
You proved you could get Mitt Romney nominated without conservatives. Of course you guys are the one’s who drove the Republican Party to the brink of political extinction in 2006 and 2008. Why should you pay attention to the Tea Party, the group that single handedly saved the Republican Party in 2010?
At this point, you need to buy a clue.
You cannot win the White House without us.
In surveys we have done, 25% of conservatives surveyed said they would not vote for Mitt Romney in the General Election. Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to set records, not only for the amount of money they raise, both legally and illegally, they are also going to set records for the number of dead people voting as well as people voting early and often. After all, it is the Chicago way.
If 25% of the Republican base is checking out, you are not going to win the White House.
So how do you get the conservatives you made a point of ignoring in the primary back into the fold?
First, someone better tell Romney to choose a conservative VP. Chris Christie isn’t a conservative. Neither is Tim Pawlenty. If you want a conservative, think Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.
If you give us another “moderate” or a liberal as the Vice President nominee, we will not be there.
Assuming you do not drive us away with a really bad choice for Vice President, the Republican Party needs to push for the replacement of both Mitch McConnell and John Boehner with competent conservatives. Neither McConnell nor Boehner is competent nor are they conservative.
John Boehner has managed to singlehandedly blow the greatest mandate in Congressional history.
There is an old joke that says the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that with the Democrats you get more of the same and with Republicans you get less of the same.
We are tired of less of the same.
If the choice conservatives face is between a radically leftist Democrat Party and an only slightly less liberal Republican, then we will vote with our feet.
We are conservatives because we believe in liberty and freedom. We are Republicans because the Party of Reagan embraced the concepts of freedom and liberty.
Most of us will not vote for Romney. We will vote against Obama because despite how bad Romney is, Obama is much worse.
For us, once again, this will be a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. This is the last time most of us are going to do this.
We do have choices and if the Republican Party chooses to embrace socialism instead of liberty, we conservatives will embrace our other choices.
Well said Judson!
Marco Rubio is not eligible to be selected as a VP on any ticket. He is as ineligible as the current pretender-in-chief. His father did not become a citizen until Rubio was a young boy. If conservatives continue to push Rubio as an option, you are doing as much to make the constitution irrelevant as the progressives.
Good point! I don't understand why his name keeps coming up when he is ineligible.
Take Marco Rubio off the list. We're fighting to get another illegal ZERO off the list. That would look funny if we do as others do. Not right.
Marco Rubio is not an illegal and he is eligible to be VP.
I have no idea if he is even being considered...but if he is, he most certainly can take the position...legally and constitutionally.
Perhaps Mr. Phillips can make that issue a blog on here, so all will understand.
What say you Mr. Phillips?
You need to do some more investigation. Marco Rubio's parents were not American citizens when he was born. Yes, he was born in the United States, but to be a Natural born citizen (which a President must be constitutionally) both parents must be American citizens. I would love to see him serve in another major capacity though.
Natural born citizen was not defined in the constitution. We can only go by what it was assumed to have meant and up until the recent unrest with Obama, it was defined among those before us... as one who was born on Americas soil.
I too would love to see him rise and be a part of the administration..in some form.
No, but natural born citizen as defined by one who is born in country to two citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court - Minor v. Happersett, 1875. Look it up.
Minor v Happersett was superceded by (and, de facto, overturned by) United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court held that a person born in the United States is a "natural born citizen" even if he or she is born to non-citizen parents. THAT is the law, not Minor v Happersett. By that criterion, IF Marco Rubio was born in the United States, then Marco Rubio is eligible to be the President or the Vice President. Everything I have found from credible sources says that Rubio was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to the U.S. fleeing the Castro revolution.
In Minor v Happersett the court established two classes of citizenship - one by birth and the other by naturalization, defining the first as "natural-born" only if both parents are themselves citizens. The court also indicated that the citizenship status of children born in country to non-citizen parents, or those outside the natural-born citizen class, were subject to doubt but that it was not necessary to solve those doubts for purposes of that case. In deciding the case the court effectively defined as separate and distinct the class of "natural-born" citizen from all other definitions of citizen.
When Wong Kim Ark was decided some twenty years later, Ark's claim was vindicated on the basis of the 14 Amendment, for those persons not in the class of "natural-born citizens", and in fact the court applied the term "native citizen" in its decision. Therefore, the court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens as defined in Minor to include those born in the United States to non-citizen parents.
You read Wong Kim Ark differently from how I read it, and you are reading it differently from the way most lower courts have read it since it was decided.
please show us your law degree. make a copy for Judson.