Sunday, March 17, 2013

Rand Paul wins google poll

Rand didn't just win the CPAC straw poll, he's winning the Google interest poll, too. Here are the search results for the rest of CPAC's top four, as well as for Jeb Bush, who the AP, swimming against the grassroots tide--in vain, one hopes--describes as "perhaps the highest-profile establishment figure [in the GOP]". Results track from December 2012 through the present (that is, they're post-election):


The filibuster was a publicity stunt. So what? It was in no way at odds with the positions he's maintained from the beginning of his political career, and it worked. It netted him more google traffic than Marco Rubio's insipid state of the union response. The guy's adroit media savviness and polished public presentation are attributes his father sorely lacked. This Paul has a legitimate shot.

Parenthetically, his murky positions on immigration worry a restrictionist like myself, but, unfortunately, whose in the GOP don't? Paul thinks the 14th amendment has been misread to grant birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens and wants it challenged in the supreme court. If unsuccessful there, he wants to add an amendment explicitly denying birthright citizenship to the Constitution. There's hope for the man, and, just maybe, there's hope for this country, too.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The MSM love Jeb Bush because he is both liberal and a loser. His liberal ideology combined with his GOP affiliation make him an ideal politician of interest because the MSM can characterize anyone right of him as an extremist. His identity as a Bush mean he will lose because Bush haters will blindly vote against him while uninspired conservatives will not show up to vote for him. Also, the hispanic/immigration angle can be used to vilify GOP voters as racist. He really is the perfect GOP candidate for the MSM.

Ed Tom Kowalsky said...

Winning the GOP presidential nomination is tantamount to winning an all-expenses paid trip to the Great Barrier Reef and the right to wrestle a 20-foot great white shark. In other words, the GOP nomination permits one to lose the presidential race to whichever villain the Dems nominate, nothing more.

Black Death said...

We need a constitutional amendment barring anyone named Bush or Clinton from the presidency.

Dan said...

I don't think it was a publicity stunt at all. Killing a US citizen on US soil without a trial when that US citizen is not presently attacking someone?

Prior administrations would never have flinched at saying no.

Hard lines must be spelled out because future administrations may be to Barack Obama as Thabo Mbeki was Nelson Mandela.

As Derbyshire says, the true conservative is a pessimist!

Noah172 said...

Rand Paul is emerging as more of a doctrinaire libtard than his father, who is rather more like a paleocon than a jerk Randian.

Ron Paul backed off a presidential campaign in 1992 in order to support Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush. The elder Paul's positions on immigration, trade, and even foreign affairs are closer to Buchanan than Gary Johnson, CATO, and Reason. Ron Paul has guts and gives real meaning to the phrase "speak truth to power".

The younger Paul has voted for free trade, endorsed mass immigration, and isn't even all that great on foreign affairs (and his attempts to curry favor with Israel's useful idiot Bible-thumpin' "allies" are egregious).

Back to the drawing board. Maybe Walter Jones could pick up the banner of real American conservatism?

JP Straley said...

He's right about the fourteenth amendment and anchor babies. Here's the argument:
Anchor Baby Debunker. Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Here is the relevant part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty: "The Mexicans by birth shall be…The individuals born abroad from Mexican parents who were born within national territory, from a Mexican father who was born within national territory or from a Mexican mother who was born within national territory…The Individuals born abroad from naturalized Mexican parents, from a naturalized Mexican father or from a naturalized Mexican mother…

A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. However, Mexican citizenship is primary because the Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry.
Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship: rights and duties. This is what establishes jurisdiction thereof, and since Mexican citizenship is primary for anchor babies, Mexico has primary jurisdiction over their new citizen.
The Wong Kim Ark (WKA, 1898) case is often cited as the linchpin for the legal status of anchor babies. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of WKA is emphasized reviewing the concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.
"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” (Italics added.)
For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have “…permanent domicile and residence...” But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.

Legal aliens can indeed have a “. . .permanent domicile and residence. . .” and WKA appears to be written for this class of persons. However, , it is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
Many foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife’s pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called “birth tourism.” WKA calls out two qualifications to allow birthright citizenship: permanent residence and doing business. A temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification and precedent for a “birth tourism” child to be granted birthright citizenship.
JP Straley
March 2013

James Van Zandt said...

I have to agree with Ed Tom Kowalsky on this one, winning the Republican nomination is just setting yourself up for a loss. But the problem isn't with the Republican ideals or plans. The Republican party is going to continue to lose the presidential elections until it learns the right way to campaign. They have such a horrible image and the majority of voters don't remember anything more than soundbites.