The Right Scoop
Rubio and Jindal are not Natural Born Citizens because their parents were foreign citizens.
They both fall into the catagory Native born and that's not what is required for the Presidency or the VP.
Both are fine fellows and need to admit that they are ineligible to be th chief
If the media is already shredding Rubio, where is the REP party for the response? Is the media so complicit they squelch that as well? Come on Preibus, wake the F up.
The GOP have emasculated themselves in this last election. They will certainly try to give us another moderate but we Conservatives need to start to push back now and keep pushing back hard all the way through the 2016 election for a true Conservative.
Personally I'm rooting for Palin. Especially considering the McCain/Palin ticket drew more votes than the more electable ticket, or so we were told by the RINO elite, of Romney/Ryan. Imagine how many more votes the Palin ticket will draw with her on top of the ticket?
Palin 2016!
I'm not even worried about Marco Rubio "Conquering" any election because I doubt he will even be able to get the "Latino" vote or "Black" vote. Latino's don't want anyone who is "Educated" because they feel an educated man or woman doesn't understand there so called "Pain" and "Suffering". At this point, I don't even "Trust" Rubio myself or anyone the "Republican" party has "Chosen" to run for the American People. Where always having "Candidates" shoved down our throats and being told there the "Best" choice. I don't think we will have to worry about to much in 4 years because where not even going to "Recognize" this country anymore and we can thank the "Republican" politicians for that who seem to be growing "Weaker" by the day. Once these "Politicians" enter the "Halls" of Washington they no longer "Speak" for the American people, they speak for "Themselves". Has anyone ever noticed how "Wealthy" these "Politicians" become on such a "Low Salary". The only "Rich" I seem to appreciate are the "Business Owners" who help to keep Americans employed, but lately even there disappearing. "Politicians" are getting "Richer" and hard working Americans are getting poorer. I'm disgusted with Washington.
Look, Rubio and any other GOP candidate is just going to have to STOP allowing the media to dictate terms. Gingrich was almost successful calling them out. But during the GOP primaries, NO MORE CNN, NBC, CBS debates. None.
When will someone stand up for all of us?!?! Stand up for us and you'll get enough people to follow you to victory.
But come on, if ALL Of US ARE SMART ENOUGH to ask why the f#$k is George Stephanidiot moderating a GOP debate, then what are all those stupid candidates doing up there pretending he's a journalist?!
Knock it off. If you bow to the media, you no longer get the support of conservatives. That's it. Understand?
How's those optics working for them NOW? This is EXACTLY why I said what I said, because people are worried about "optics". Its the last thing Reagan worried about. Stop worrying about optics and just focus on educating another 5% of the voters about what conservatism is. Period.
Besides, I never said go on Fox. Use C-SPAN only then. No moderators. Just a stopwatch. But really, "optics" is going to help the next candidate do better? I don't think so.
Look, you said the "optics" of it being only on Fox or somewhere else would be wrong. The point is, worrying about "optics" has not served the party well so far.
We need a large enough audience to educate on conservatism to be competitive with the Democrats who own the MSM.
Well, unfortunately your logic just doesn't add up. The debates were on MSM networks, and the candidates did not get more votes. If the debates are on c-span, those who want to see it will go to the network and find it. This will be 2016, not 1972.
You're on the money, jester! The only people that bother to watch are the junkies like us and C-Span is the perfect venue. We're not attracting a large audience, just the right audience. Frankly -- PJTV could stream the events as effectively. The rules of engagement:
1. no circular firing squads in the primary debate. We're better not having any debates than the circus we had.
2. no Ron Paul or anyone of his ilk that take up space and have no chance at the nomination.
3. limit it to three candidates. If there are six, then rotate them. This way we get long form discourse and the next Rick Santorum won't be compelled to throw bombs because his time is so short.
4. Accelerate the primary schedule so the convention is around July 4th.
Rush does make a good point, we are trying to make the enemy like us. This wrong, we should be trying to expose the enemy for who they are! I don't think we should run from these "trap" questions. What we need to do as conservatives, and not necessarily as a GOP voter, is find someone who can speak in articulate ways with wit and humor that will disarm the enemy and leave them as a smoking pile of "I just got owned"!
I'm sorry, but as long as you keep putting trust in the republican party, you're going to keep getting shafted. The convention rule changes ensured that no constitutional conservative will win the nomination in the future. We must get over our fear of the idea of a third party, because the first and second parties are literally strangling us.
I think anyone less than an Allen West type conservative, and we are screwed. How good would an Allen West/Mark Levin ticket be?
how about sarah palin and allen west. both are strong conservatives and not afraid to take it to the dems and the media.
I like Rubio, but he's not (at least right now) the avenger we are looking for. I'm sorry, but he's the Hispanic version of Romney.
As far as I know, the Earth has existed only since the 1960s. I can neither trust any historical accounts/text/film nor verify anything before I was born. I could be living in a Truman Show & deck is stacked against me --> What else could explain my many failures?
They have dating techniques that keep changing to match their new numbers, so they know exactly how old everything is.
You know what gets me on this issue? It is the big bang theory. I have heard it several times, and all that I can conclude is that it takes faith to believe it. Evolution is a religion, plain and simple.
When the left brings up abortion to trap conservatives running for office, they need to simply say "do you think that I will be changing the legal status of abortion"? When they say "no", then they need to reply "so why are you asking me that question"?
I ask 'em: "tell me, when, after "the act", it is OK to kill the baby? For example - 47 days, 5 hrs, 23 minutes and 44 seconds?
OK?
No?
So give me the number".
And all I get is "deer in the headlights" look of an imbecile. :)
So true! All the "trap questions" should be answered: "ask Congress (or prezzy), not me"...
Or, better yet - just "Algor" them - whatever the question is, ignore it and go ahead with explaining your agenda.
Big bang? Yep, throw a grenade into a junk jard - Lamborghini will NOT arrive.
Evolution? "you know, the tail at human being was getting smaller and smaller, we did not need it so now it is just a small tail bone"......rrright; "negative" evolution? ;)
"We have an economic progress, only it is negative" ;)
It would alienate some of the pro-life activists if they were seen as ambiguous on abortion. Some may even refuse to vote for them afterwards.
I hope we don't have to talk about contraception too much next election. I don't think Santorum would be able to help himself. But then again, in four years our economy will be so totaled people may give up hope for it altogether and respond to Santorum's religious platform.
I just realized where the rest of that mock conversation could go.
Lets say that the interviewer then said "well you could vote to overturn Roe V Wade with a simple majority", so you could have an ability to change it.
Then the congressional candidate says EXACTLY!
Republicans could have done this when they had a house and senate majority under Bush. "NO MORE FEDERAL PERMISSION FOR ABORTIONS"
We can thank the republicans for many of the abortions that were done during their tenure in power.
YAWN!!! Rubio is nothing more than the Latin version of Mitt Romney and once Karl Rove gets hold of him, there goes the 2016 election for the GOP.
This is nothing more then a desperate attempt by the democrat party and the far left to try and destroy a man they are terrified of. Trust me on this: It won't work.
When will the GOP realize that the media is their enemy and stop trying to appease them? I see little hope for the GOPs continued existence unless they are willing to go on offense against both the Dems and the media. You can't reason with unreasonable people and they should stop trying.
Poor Rubio, poor Rush! When such a simple question becomes the big GOTCHA question! Reconciling the highly educated and affluent with the creationists - they really have so little in common. Rubio actually didn't do too bad with the question, all things considered. You and I know he knows the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, plus or minus, not anything remotely like 6000 years old. Ask almost anyone how old dinosaurs are, and they will give you "millions". Yet the same folks will still think someone is going to find the Ark on some mountain. Most of us never think about matching up the two worlds, science and the bible.
It is when someone does think about the clashes, and then decides to take the Bible literally in spite of all scientific evidence, and expects the US to build education and policy on that that a halt must be called.
Evolutionists keep raising the time frame for the age of the earth. Why is that? For the last thirty years I have watched it go from a couple hundred million to several billion. This is because they have to keep stretching it to make it jive with their overall theory.They keep having to explain things away by raising the numbers.
I have seen both sides of the argument. Have you watched documentaries from Christian scientists that explain the earth's geology and biography from a biblical perspective? If not, you should study both sides if you are going to be scientific about it. Arbitrarily rejecting any factor is detrimental to proving a theory.
I think Rubio should have answered that Earth question from GQ differently. He should have said ,"if you want to know how old the Earth is ask Helen Thomas, she was there in the beginning."
Rubio could just say, "4.5 Billion, plus or minus. Looked it up on wikipedia." and the whole thing would go away. He is on the Science subcommittee, you would think he would be good at getting such basic info.
The reason this keeps coming up is that there are a lot of us scientists - many who are republican or independent - that feel education, climate, health policies should be based on science.
And NOW is a good time to bring that up because there ISN'T an election. So a scientist or educator can talk about this issue when there clearly is no electoral issues at hand. When opposition to bad science is just that - not an attempt to elect somebody.
So when you offer a 10000 year old earth up, or a literal "Great Flood" with Noah, or cave men riding dinosaurs, in the name of "teaching the controversy" expect to get some response, OK? and it isn't a "partisan" response. There is science and there is parable; both have something to teach us, yes. But it is important to know the difference.
To think that education, climate, and health policies should be based on science is to legitimize a huge central government who mandates it. It also seems to legitimize redistribution of wealth, as we are taxed by the federal government so that they can give it back with federal control attached.
Many conservatives believe that free markets in education and the like would decide through competition what works best.
Is government run education succeeding at anything, statistically? Our country is something like 27th in the world for literacy. Evolution is taught as fact, even though they cannot complete the scientific process for proving that something is fact. In doing this, they are willing to fail a child in school who believes something else. This is punishment for not accepting a lie. By lie, I mean "fact" vs "theory".
In a free market educational system we would find out if factoring evolution in to equations was more profitable to the cause of science or not. He who progresses faster has an advantage that the other is not accepting.
Accept or reject the bible, but don't expect people like me to reject the clear historical record in the bible.There is no lucid interpretation that claims that Genesis was not literal. That is paramount to the argument that gays give for their lifestyles being biblical, which is that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
Who is Rush's choice to be our nominee in 4 years?
Rubio, Jindal, Santorum, Ryan, Rand, or Jebb.
Yeah. Maybe too many voters don't know their records or were scared to make the change. Or maybe you have a point. McCain attacked Hayworth harder much harder than he did Obama. It could have been rigged. You're probably right.
I see what you are saying about Pelosi. Makes sense. Graham and McCain may as well be liberal democrats, so it seems that they would get ousted. When something makes no sense, it is probably fraud.
Reid definitely cheated Sharron Angle out of his Senate seat.
But Pelosi happens to live in one of the most extreme-left districts in the whole country, San Francisco. Lots of illegal aliens, Hollywood types, minority interest groups, and being the Mecca of the far left means she gets elected.
Graham and McCain both live in heavily red states, unfortunately. I don't get how they don't pick a more conservative candidate, but any Republican is likely to win the general election there.
Lindsy Graham is the epitome of an establishment shill. The only way that I can explain his continued election is that his district is full of electronic voting machines. Same as McCain and others that stay in forever, no matter what. (Reid and Pelosi come to mind as well)
Fox and Hannity are the worst. They promote Lindsey Graham of all people! How many conservatives admire Lindsey Graham?! Out of all the people they could promote, they promote Lindsey Graham and Karl Rove.
I support his investigation on Benghazi, but not his long record of RINO policies.
I have heard Rubio pump out some really good speeches, but I don't trust the guy. I have determined in my mind that he is a RINO just waiting for his moment of power.
Conservatives need better RINO radar, and these pundits seem to egg on the quick support of them.
I've been impressed with Rush's intellect and wit. I felt compelled to put all of the candidates down even though the last one just took place. Rush does not want Jebbie boy the third. I know that for sure. Now, he was late to the party on Dubya though. W played him and it seems to me he wants Rubio so apparently Marco's playing him too.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.