2016 Republican Primary Already Underway (R.I.. Related)

Certain Republican governors left no doubt their hopes and dreams for 2016 when they collectively piled on against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney this past week – indicating Romney’s statements Barack Obama was elected in large part because of his willingness to promise freebies to particular segments of the voting population was not the right tone for Republicans.  (Romney was right by the way – but it appears those governors cared less about that and more about distancing themselves from someone who lost a national election)  According to Politico, there are at present no less than 15 prominent Republicans giving serious consideration to running for president in 2016:

(Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio is among a long list of Republicians hoping to usher in a new era of conservative values in America as the GOP nominee in 2016)



Tired of presidential politics? Get over it: Upwards of 15 prominent Republicans are privately contemplating 2016 campaigns for the presidency — and the most serious and ambitious of the bunch are already plunging in, some quite publicly.

Don’t expect them to officially announce or even officially decide for many months. But Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are doing nothing to disguise their presidential ambitions.

Rubio and Ryan, both arguably better positioned than Jindal, are also competing for the mantle of the high-energy, forward-thinking conservative. POLITICO has learned both will unveil new policy plans at an awards dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation in early December: Ryan will begin a new push on a more modern approach to alleviating poverty, focused on education; Rubio will lift the curtain on an economic empowerment message, heavy on college affordability and workforce training.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and heir to his father’s libertarian following, is now on the record exploring a run that will focus heavily on returning power to the states. In a post-election interview with POLITICO, Paul said he wants to find common ground with liberal Democrats on softer marijuana laws and help create an eventual pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

POLITICO has also learned that Rick Santorum is telling friends he wants to run again. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said publicly that he might, too, and has begun talking to donors and other top supporters like he means it. And Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor with strong credentials on education and winning back Hispanics, has told advisers he will sit back to see how things unfold over the next year before deciding whether to finally give it a go.

“On every conference call, the message is the same,” one top official said. “We’re going to push out our new generation of leadership. We’re not going to sit back and let the extreme voices define what it means to be a conservative.”

Unlike 2008, when Republicans chalked up their defeat to a bad GOP ticket in a terrible post-Bush environment for the party, many of the most influential voices are calling for substantial rethinking of the conservative approach to politics. They are reckoning with demographic trends that favor Democrats — as well as with exit polling suggesting the assumption this is a center-right country might be wrong, or was at least wrong on Nov. 6, when a center-left electorate showed up.

Rubio plays up his working-class roots and values as part of an appeal to voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year — a group Romney lost badly but with whom Republicans used to be very competitive. That, combined with his connection with Hispanic voters, would make him a bit of an anti-Romney — the one card nearly every one of these candidates will try to play, however subtly. Rubio planted the flag in Iowa last weekend, setting a record at a Republican fundraising event. Look for him to flex his muscles in coming months in the other early states: New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.


512 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

13 Comments to 2016 Republican Primary Already Underway (R.I.. Related)
    • 57th State
    • Of the potential candidates mentioned above, these people are not even eligible for the ofice…Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum. In each case, these men were born to non-citizen parents. When is the GOP going to realize that millions of people will not play the game with them?

      • bill o'rights
      • Yup.

        I will never vote for an ineligible candidate. I think we have seen what happens when ineligible candidates win.

        NEVER AGAIN.



    • MEL

      • 57th State
      • Which part of the following do you dispute?….

        Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

        Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

        Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate’s character and qualifications to be President.

        Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers’ meaning of what a “natural born Citizen” is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

        The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    • SteveM
    • Does anyone else cringe when they hear the name Jeb Bush floated out there as a potential candidate? I simply will not even pretend to support such a blunder. And the very first thing that I will require of any candidate is a thorough vetting complete with irrefutable documentation of Natural-born Citizenship in accordance with the Constitution. Period. If I’m alone in this, I’ll just go away.

    • Ylem
    • One official said: “We’re not going to sit back and let the extreme voices define what it means to be a conservative.”

      From what I read, it seems these candidates are more like Liberals than Republicans. I don’t see anything changing in the Republican Party.

    • Ylem
    • TO RI: I’m not really excited by any of these candidates. I think it’s time I leave the Republican Party. You guys are still saying that you don’t want the “extreme voices” to define the Republican Party. We all know who you guys mean — the Tea Party. When common-sense people (average Americans) who believe in the Constitution, God and the right of the individual are considered “extreme” then I don’t belong in this Party any longer.

      You guys are a bunch of RINOs and you give us RINOs to vote for. It’s sickening to me, that after these past 7 years of pouring my heart and soul into educating the public about the unions, the MSM propaganda, the UN, the Muslims, the race-baiters, corruption, Obama, etc. and, after all of that, the Republicans are giving us more of the same — just younger and less experienced.

      The Republican Party is making it pretty clear that I’m not wanted. I’m too extreme. I’m not down for legalizing pot or giving illegal immigrants free citizenship or Obamacare. Instead of working to educate people about conservative values and their benefits, the Republican Party is giving in to the RINOs. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. You guys all work together and I’m sick of it. I’m done.

    • Publius
    • Jeb Bush? This is a joke, right?

      Aside from fact that no candidate named Bush will ever be elected on a national ticket again – or at least for the next 50 years – is GOP really prepared for Jeb’s “bimbo eruptions?” Or Mrs. Jeb’s attitude about rules not applying to her – especially those concerning what one is legally required to declare to US Customs. Or the arrest records of their children?

      If Republicans are ready to strike “family values” from the platform, by all means nominate Jebbie.

    • Ylem
    • One more thing. I haven’t forgotten that Marco Rubio attacked Bauchmann after she and others wrote a letter warning about Muslims working in government. Can someone please tell me what makes Rubio a conservative.

Leave A Response

* Required