The whole “must be born in the US thing” is in the Constitution, which significantly predates the Republican party, let alone the modern Republican party.
I never said otherwise.
It’s actually “must be a natural-born citizen”, not “born in the US”. Children who are born to US citizens in foreign countries are still natural-born US citizen and eligible to run for the Presidency.
She may be thinking of the “two terms max” thing, which the Republicans were responsible for after FDR. Back in the 1980s, when Republicans were miffed that Reagan was ineligible for a third term, I met a staunch conservative who swore it was the Democrats who were responsible for that law. I believe it was Senator Taft, the president’s son, a staunchly conservative Republican from Ohio who was the main driver behind that? Pointing this out, this conservative person ridiculed me mercilessly for thinking that.
Huckabee (Oscar Quote: “I didn’t raise taxes*; I raised hope”) would seriously offend fiscal conservatives (who are already dubious of McCain because he didn’t support the Bush tax cuts). It’s a non-starter.
*er, yes you did
Okay, just checking.
No, I wasn’t.
You’ve never used the phrase “I regret the existence of X” or “X is regrettable” when X isn’t something you did? It’s not an exact synonym for remorse.
Since it is apparently unclear and is causing an unnecessary hijack, I’ll rephrase. “I bet the Republicans wish the Constitution didn’t have that ‘natural born citizen’ thing when they look at someone like him or even Arnold (though I think Arnold is considered a pretty liberal Republican. I’ve never paid much attention to him).”
So, maybe this is the thread to ask- I tuned in to Hannity last night and he was in the middle of a huge “mea-culpa” monologue in which he said he did a lot of soul-searching, that basically everything that he has been saying is wrong, and that McCain is right, and that he will be a good president.
I focused pretty hard but I was unable to pick up the normal indicators of sarcasm (I don’t count the patently false reference to “soul-searching”, since this is clearly a lie and not a joke, unless he is referencing an unusual interpretation of the phrase and actually searching for a soul), though I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic. I had to leave the car before I could tell for sure.
Anyone care to input? He is a Romney guy, right? If that was all sarcasm he was going pretty far out on a limb against McCain for a guy who I’ve always thought of as a fall-in-line guy.
OK everyone, who did you think got the better of the debate?
I thought McCain turned several of Romney’s attacks back on him very well. Especially the NY Times attack. The rip about the papers that know Romney best, backing McCain was a great zinger with a lot of truth.
Of course this is colored by the fact that I think Romney is a lying piece of shit. So please take my assessment with a grain of salt.
Jim
Hannity is a “Whoever-Roger-Ailes-tells-me-to-support-on-the-air” guy. That, at one point, was Romney. Now that Romney’s own “inevitability” is starting to list a bit and Huckabee started looking less pretty as he left Iowa behind and started spouting crazy-talk on television, the establishment GOP (of which Ailes heads the propaganda arm (i.e. Fox News)) has apparently decided to step up for McCain. He’s not their first choice, but he’s starting to look like he could end up the candidate come the convention, and god knows Fox News doesn’t want to be on the bad side of their actual candidate for President. I think we’ll begin to see a bit of a balancing act with Fox News between McCain and Romney, at least until Super Tuesday. If one of them comes out of that with an overwhelming majority of delegates, then that’s going to be the ordained candidate, and FN will be slobbering all over them just like everyone else on that side of the aisle.
To clarify, this was Hannity’s radio show. Why do I listen? Hell some people like nipple clamps. Leave me alone 
I think the nipple clamps would be less painful. :eek:
This quote from Romney today really has me wondering just what it is he’s been smoking:
Romney concedes Northeast to McCain
It sounds like Romney was expecting a nomination by acclaimation.
Funny though, it looks like the GOP really did wrap it up in January.
And its rich prize of 18 delegates.
Watching the CNN debate last week it struck me how much better debaters Huckabee and Paul are than Mccain and Romney. Personally I’m glad that the GOP is not smart enough to realize this and are backing the wrong guys. The former two could maybe actually hold their own against either of the Democratic candidates, but the latter two are just going to get trounced.
Any chance we could see Huckabee and Paul split off and run together as a third party? Paul could keep Huckabee from putting god in the constitution and Huckabee would keep Paul from putting social programs out of operation.
I actually would kind of like to see this. First off it would split the Republican vote so much that the Dems could coast to the WH, but it would also make a good showing for a third party nomination and potentially help push the Republican party in to a more sensible direction.
James Dobson says that there are no circumstances under which he could support McCain, and if McCain’s the nominee, he’ll stay home and won’t vote.
May every evangelical conservative in America emulate your sterling example, sir.
Didja see The Colbert Report last night? All the RW commentators are saying, “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain!” But we all know that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Stephen Colbert! Therefore, by the transitive property of Huckabee . . .
I suspect out of all the GOP candidates we’ll see the equivalent of Bushisms coming from Romney, making them Romneyisms…
…I should clarify that when I say “hold their own” I don’t mean that their policies are even remotely as good, or rather, as sane as the Dem’s, but just that those two can talk a pretty good game, which is more than I can say for Mitcain, who lack in both substance and style.