Posted under "Birther" & Donald Trump & Election 2012 & Republican Party
It looks like most of the candidates are dropping out of the Trump moderated debate. This is unfortunate.
Trump has gone out of his way to criticize Ron Paul, I think because his ego was bruised when people were chanting for Ron Paul during Trump’s speech at CPAC, and Paul’s supporters went after Trump for his response. So I can see why Paul might have a legitimate beef with Trump, but I think Paul should have agreed to attend the debate anyway. Not attending, gives the appearance, whether real or not of shunning Trump because of the birther stuff. This then gives the appearance of deliberately attempting to avoid conspiracy “taint” which I think empowers the conventional wisdom right think enforcers. Paul should have gone to the debate if for no other reason than to not be accused of not going to the debate base on Trump’s birther history and giving the conventional wisdom enforcers the satisfaction if that makes any kind of convoluted sense. It looks particularly bad since Paul was one of the two earliest to decline. Huntsman, the other candidate to drop out early, was clearly looking to avoid Trump taint.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Dec 2011 at 11:35 pm #
Still with the birther obsession, Red? It never even occurred to me that was the reason why Ron Paul refused to participate. Rather I thought it was the fact that Trump had belittled him. Why participate in a debate “moderated” by an enemy? The public statement issued by RP’s campaign as to the reason for his non-participation made no reference to the birther “issue”. According to Newsmax today, Paul, Huntsman, Romney, and now Perry have declined to participate, Bachmann is still making up her mind, and Gingrich and Santorum are to date the only confirmed participants. Santorum is not even a factor in the race and the clownish Gingrich and Trump deserve each other.
C Bowen on 08 Dec 2011 at 11:44 pm #
What did Trump say about Buchanan again?
Paul’s reasoning, which, yes, might have something to do with the Birther issue, is sound.
If Trump does not ask Gingrich, on the other hand, a birther question, we’ll have our answer. Trump will have jobbed out to the man.
If he does, Trump is doing a job for the anti-Newt forces.
Ah, pro-wrestling.
I do hope Trump grills Santorum on his claim that Iraq really did have WMDs and thus accusing a sitting President of lying–that would be funny.
Or he could ask why Santorum voted for budgets that funded Planned Parenthood year after year, yet accepted accolades for being pro-life.
That would be solid Trump stuff too–or he can just job out to the Man.
Not Libertarian on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:03 am #
Paul set the trend and now they are all dropping out. If anything that is a good thing for Paul.
CorkyAgain on 09 Dec 2011 at 3:20 am #
“Why participate in a debate ‘moderated’ by an enemy?
By that logic, he should have refused to participate in *all* of the “debates” so far.
Matt Weber on 09 Dec 2011 at 3:39 am #
Birther taint shouldn’t be a forever proposition…Trump dropped his case as soon as the long form was released, so he shouldn’t be eternally unclean. That said, you shouldn’t expect these conspiracy theories to not taint those who promulgate them. That’s just how it is. If someone were wandering around talking about how the government caused 9/11, I think it would be safe to ignore them on that particular topic, and cast some doubt on their reasoning abilities in general. Conspiracy taint (really just the taint of being a perceived nutter) is a human phenomenon and is never going away.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:23 pm #
Apart from this theme, I’ve heard not a single comment from anyone to indicate that “birtherism” has anything to do with the decision of everyone except Gingrich and Santorum to duck this debate. It’s not as if his “birtherism” is Trump’s only flaw. He’s a narcissitic, celebrity, blowhard clown with bad hair. And if he does bring up the birth certificate in the debate, it’s a sure sign he’s working for Obama.
Bruce on 09 Dec 2011 at 6:48 pm #
I am skipping this clown’s feeble attempt to lead the parade. I will wait for something with more substance like the Kardashian debate by the pool.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Dec 2011 at 7:17 pm #
Well said, Bruce. The Kardashians are also narcissitic celebrity blowhard clowns, but at least Kim is nice eye candy.
rjp on 09 Dec 2011 at 7:57 pm #
No one should participate in a Trump debate.
It makes a mockery of our political system as Trump is a saleman who only acts for personal gain.
See what The Slitty Eye had to say: http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/american-politics-the-ultimate-farce-in-the-age-of-show-business/
RedPhillips on 09 Dec 2011 at 9:13 pm #
Kirt, I didn’t say Paul was skipping the debate because of Trump’s past birtherism. I said he should go to the debate lest people think he isn’t going because of Trump’s birtherism.
I’m sure you’ll roll your eyes and sigh in typical Kirt fashion, but that’s my thoughts, and I’m sticking to them.
When it was first announced that Huntsman wasn’t going, he made it clear why. He found out Trump was going to be moderating and withdrew (or declined I can’t remember). When I first heard this my thought was something like: “That figures. Huntsman is such a priss he doesn’t want his impeccable centrism tainted by association with Trump.” And I’m pretty sure my thought was right on. So likewise it follows that I don’t want some other person thinking Ron Paul is being a priss by not attending the Trump debate.
I would have thought you would have picked up on this dynamic through our many discussions. I don’t fear taint. If you are any kind of an outside the mainstream conservative you will get tainted. It’s inevitable or you aren’t doing your job. I fear someone thinking I fear taint. That is what has driven my “birther obsession” all along. I hate the squeamish acquiescence to acceptable opinion. I hate the idea that someone might think I have been cowered into accepting conventional opinion. I hate supposed friends acting as right think enforcers for the conventional wisdom. And I hate when supposed friends ostracize their side for transgression of right think. If you get that, you’ll always be able to figure out where I am coming from.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Dec 2011 at 11:11 pm #
So Ron Paul (and by inference any right thinking person) should suck up to Trump lest anyone think they are not sucking up to him due to his endorsement of birtherism and this even if RP or anyone else thinks that birtherism doesn’t make sense and that Trump is either a dupe or a demagogue for promoting it. So far from being a taint, endorsement of birtherism should be a mark of righteousness which protects one from any other taints. You shouldn’t shun Trump for his birtherism nor for any other reason lest some people get the wrong idea. Yeah, Red, makes perfect sense to me.
C Bowen on 10 Dec 2011 at 1:07 am #
Red;
To attempt to puncture the thesis, Gingrich or Romney, for example, might select a Mark Rubio as VP, who is not a natural born citizen, and an object of discussion in the negative by the same Birther Community–they are consistent, give them that.
Might there be something else up here?
roho on 10 Dec 2011 at 6:13 am #
Would past Presidential Candidates allow “P.T. Barnum” to control a debate?
Sean Scallon on 10 Dec 2011 at 10:11 am #
There’s no reason to give Trump any legitimacy whatsoever and given everyone else’s reaction, it looks like Ron Paul was ahead of the curve whatsoever.
Kirt Higdon on 10 Dec 2011 at 2:18 pm #
According to Wiki, Rubio was born in the US and so is a natural born citizen according to current interpretation of constitutional law. He’s an anchor baby, you might say. My main reason for opposing him politically is his militarist Zionist foreign policy position but unhappily that puts him squarely in the political mainstream.
RedPhillips on 10 Dec 2011 at 8:16 pm #
Kirt, no one said anything about “sucking up” to Trump. Those are your words, not mine. I said he should attend the Trump debate.
Also, what on earth ever gave you the impression that I care what the “current interpretation of constitutional law” is? You don’t know me very well. I care what the original intent was. That is one huge problem with the whole birther debate. Birther phobia has caused people who ought to care otherwise, to avoid the somewhat related but really separate question of what the Founders intended by “natural born citizen.” A good case (I’m not convince its a conclusive case) can be made that the Founders intended natural born citizen to mean two citizen parents. If so, then Obama is not eligible, Rubio is not eligible, Jindal is not eligible, etc. This is a very important question, and that people who call themselves conservatives haven’t attempted to address it because of fear of birther taint is evidence for why fearing taint is so problematic. It makes people otherwise smart people stupid. It paralyzes their thought processes.
C Bowen on 11 Dec 2011 at 1:27 am #
Red;
I am with you that Rubio cannot possibly be eligible by the intent of the Founders–which means nothing of course, but it should be part of your approach to understanding Birtherism/GOP, and in this case Trump.
Basically, isn’t the Birther issue really about Rubio & Florida in this moment in time?
Kirt Higdon on 11 Dec 2011 at 2:49 am #
Red, you can talk about original intent all you want, but unless you can quote chapter and verse on the intent of the founders, no one will be interested. If you can quote chapter and verse, maybe 5% will be interested. Since the founders themselves were not natural born US citizens and neither were their parents and neither were both parents for quite some time to come, what makes you think that this is what the founders intended to begin with? In any event, this is a case which must be proved by the birthers, not simply something assumed to be true until disproven. Once more, I’d rather make a case against these people (Obama and Rubio, etc.) based on what policies they promote, not on the background of their parents.
Chris Hewlett on 11 Dec 2011 at 10:33 am #
The country was brand new so, of course, the founders were not natural born citizens of the US. They created the country.
RedPhillips on 11 Dec 2011 at 6:55 pm #
Kirt and C Bowen, I don’t think a definitive case can be made about what the Founders intended, but I think a compelling case can be made. If a definitive case could be made then someone would have already made it. I’ve only looked into it superficially and asked people I trust. There was actually surprisingly little said about what they meant and intended. That is why so many people end up referring to a foreigner, Vattel. What I believe is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the person was supposed to have two citizen parents. As Kirt rightly points out, the issue is complicated by matters of history. They didn’t have all the apparatuses of state for recording citizenship back then that we have today nor hospital births nor easy mass travel etc. So people were generally assumed to be subjects of the place they resided unless they otherwise weren’t, meaning they still claimed allegiance to a foreign government/King, they were obvious temporary residents, etc. IMO, at a minimum, the person should be born of two parents neither of whom still legally technically owed allegiance to a foreign government. This IMO represents the most cautious default opinion. This should be the opinion that conservatives defend with a unified voice. I think the issue should be clarified with a Constitutional amendment, although I don’t think I would like the way that would likely go. I think requiring that the President be born of two citizen parents is a good and cautious policy. There is no right to be President and if the President were the minimalist position it ought to be, no reason to believe that we so desperately need to broaden the talent pool to include those otherwise born.
The problem is that very few conservatives initially even bothered to look at the issue from an original intent standpoint. Many just made arguments off the top of their head based on what felt right to them. Worse, many made definitive foot stomping arguments based on what felt right to them. This is true of both the birthers who foot stomped that being born on foreign soil, if true, was exclusionary, and anti-birthers who foot stomped that it wasn’t. I was guilty of this at first, because initially I argued that what was meant by natural born was “not naturalized” or “born a citizen,” essentially what Kirt says it means. In fact. I’m still of the opinion that a better case can be made for a child of two citizens born on foreign soil than can be made for someone born on US soil with one or two foreign parents. The birthers in general, there are exceptions I’m sure, generally didn’t latch on to the Obama is inedible regardless of where he was born argument until definitive proof he wasn’t born in HI seemed less and less likely to be forthcoming, which raised skepticism and decreased the credibility of the claim in the minds of many.
This is an issue of extreme current and future importance. If “natural born” means simply born a citizen, then Obama (assuming he was born in HI which I do), Jindal and Rubio are eligible. If natural born means something other than just born a citizen then Obama, Jindal and Rubio are not eligible. Since Rubio and Jindal are both talked up as potential VP nominees and future candidates and Obama is the current President who is seeking reelection, then I can’t understand how this could be viewed as an issue of little significance.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy of silence on the part of organized conservatism to not address the issue because they want to maintain the viability of Rubio (I believe this is what C Bowen is implying), although I think many do. That would imply more logic and forethought and organization than I have witnesses in this debate which I have been following closely from the start. As I said, I haven’t seen any kind of organization or a script or talking points. I’ve just seen a bunch of knuckleheads foot stomping and making definitive statements based on what felt right to them. I do think fear of birther taint has contributed significantly to this lack of a consensus. I also think that modern “conservatives” are just squeamish about making the argument because it seems anachronistic and harsh to them and might bring the dreaded r word charge. Birthers are partially at fault for their own taint associated with them because they weren’t cautious with their claims or their sources and brought discredit on themselves in many ways. But “reasonable” conservatives are guilty of letting their fear turn off their brains and silence them. Reasonable conservatives ought to be able to shift through the junk and figure out what is important. From the very beginning organized conservatism should have made the case in a unified voice that Obama is most likely ineligible because his alleged father was a transient foreign national. (The transient issue is potentially important because Obama’s alleged father wasn’t even here legally with the intent of becoming a citizen.) I’m as guilty here as anyone, because I didn’t make that case from the start, but at least I always had sense enough never to foot stomp and never to believe that his eligibility was determined by anything other than the original intent of the Constitution. By implication, organized conservatism should rule out Rubio and Jindal as potential VPs or candidates.
While I agree with Kirt that we are unlikely to overturn a popular election based on a preponderance of the evidence interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts the “current interpretation” so blatantly, to me this is also about what our unified voice should be. At a minimum, no one who calls himself a conservative or a Constitutionalist or anyone else for that matter should be able to simply assert the eligibility of Obama or Jindal or Rubio without being asked to back up that opinion with evidence regarding original intent.
Does “Natural Born” Require Two Citizen Parents? | Conservative Heritage Times on 11 Dec 2011 at 7:27 pm #
[...] born citizen” require a President to have two citizen parents? This came up in a thread below, and since I think it is an issue of utmost importance to anyone who says they care about original [...]
RedPhillips on 11 Dec 2011 at 7:42 pm #
Please take this debate to the separate thread if you don’t mind.
Kirt Higdon on 14 Dec 2011 at 5:05 pm #
Now Trump has recused himself from the debate and it’s up in the air as to whether the debate will even take place. Kudos to Ron Paul for getting the ball rolling on this.