Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

So why not Bobby Jindal for V.P.?

So why not Bobby Jindal for V.P.?

Other than the fact that George Will thinks he’s a good default pick?

I’ve always liked Jindal, but admittedly I don’t follow his day-to-day actions in Louisiana that carefully.

He did a good job on the BP spill, doesn’t have any known personal problems, has experience as a Governor and Congressman, and passes the competency test.

And I still like this video, which I first posted on November 18, 2008, when I picked him for 2012.  I just didn’t say what I was picking him for:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Like Rubio, he is constitutionally ineligible. But who cares about the Constitution anymore.

    Phil is correct that Jindal is not a natural-born citizen – but he is wrong about it not mattering anymore. We are not Democrats, thank you very much.

    I hope that the vetting of Rubio, both on his citizenship status and on his unprincipled immigration stands will disqualify him as well.

      Milhouse in reply to gad-fly. | June 27, 2012 at 5:21 am

      Another crackpot heard from. And you link for “proof” to yet another crackpot. There is no legal basis to your theory. Jindal is a natural-born citizen, and so is Rubio, and so (probably) is 0bama. They were all born under the protection of US law, and that is all that matters.

    Doug Wright in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 26, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Ah, a strict Constitutionalist I presume, eh? 🙂
    ./sarc off

    Your line of so-called reasoning has yet to be verified; if it can even be considered a line of reasoning. If McCain’s birth in an overseas territory was accepted, why not accept Jindal’s birth in CONUS to persons legally allowed in the country accepted. If Obama’s shaky birth, given his foreign father, who owed allegiance to Kenya, was accepted, then Jindal’s should be accepted as should Rubio’s.

    Lastly, how far back should the parental line go as to citizenship? Or, is that a variable, given your political beliefs at the time?

      McCain was born to U.S. Citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone in a U.S. Military Hospital. Which at the time was US territory for perpetuity…until Jimmy Carter gave it back.

      Unfortunately natural born citizen has been so muddled, so misunderstood, that it will take at least five Clarence Thomases (I doubt Scalia would even go there) to get to Pasadena Phil’s definition.

        Mary Sue in reply to EBL. | June 27, 2012 at 4:51 am

        Technically speaking, I would say the Supreme Court did weigh in on the matter. There have been numerous cases petitioning SCOTUS to decide on Obama’s eligibility. All have been denied including one as recently as June 11, 2012. It seems to me repeatedly saying no to these cases amounts to something of an answer. I believe several have been denied by the attorney whose research informed the opinion in the blog post gad-fly linked as well.

        Nevertheless, following the information supplied in the link above, someone born to parents who were not yet citizens would be ineligible to serve as president. If the same parents became citizens a year later and had a child after that point that child would be eligible. Specifically, in this case if Jindal had younger siblings born after the parents became citizens they could be president but Jindal could not. This seems an absurd distinction to be drawn and would do nothing to alleviate the concern that led John Jay to suggest using the term natural-born as a precaution against electing a CIC with a foreign allegiance.

        Beyond that, a 50 page Congressional research report dated November 2011, cites numerous occasions when the Court either used native born and natural born interchangeably or specifically defined natural born to mean entitled to citizenship by birth. The report concludes:(emphasis mine)

        The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

        The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously
        resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.

        Therefore, it is settled law as far as Jindal and Rubio are concerned since both were born in the United States. Does anyone seriously think the Supreme Court would deliver a decision in conflict with this Congressional report? I just can’t imagine that happening.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to Mary Sue. | June 27, 2012 at 9:10 am

          The US needs to have a dialogue and tightening up of what it means to be a natural born citizen and tie that down to both pants being born citizens of the US at the time of the kid’s birth, else we will find ourselves with a POTUS from either China or Saudi Arabia whose mother was a birth tourist who came to these shores for the express purpose of having a kid with an American passport. There are lots of ways to lose this country and that is one. There is pride, and there is common sense

          I agree Mary Sue. The Supreme Court has answered. And it is settled (whether you agree with it or not) if you are born here you are both a natural and native born citizen. Given the tendency for an “evolving” constitution, that could change, but it is not likely to happen.

          Milhouse in reply to Mary Sue. | June 27, 2012 at 9:49 am

          Oh, so you believe in a “living constitution”?! Or are you talking about an amendment to make it say this?

          Milhouse in reply to Mary Sue. | June 27, 2012 at 10:59 am

          Thanks for linking that research report. It’s interesting reading.

        Milhouse in reply to EBL. | June 27, 2012 at 5:09 am

        The Canal Zone was not US territory at the time; people born there didn’t become citizens.

        I believe McCain is a natural born citizen, because it was a US Navy base, and his father was there as a representative of the USA, so the law protecting him was US law, not Panamanian. If someone had strangled him at birth, they’d have answered to a US court. So he’s natural born under the same exception that provides for ambassadors’ children born abroad (and excludes the children of foreign ambassadors born in the USA).

          The Canal Zone was an unincorporated U.S. Territory (not as high as incorporated territory but still U.S. territory). Any person born in the Canal Zone to a single U.S. Citizen parent during the time the canal zone was an unincorporated territory of the United States was a citizen. For eligibility purposes to run for President, that counts as natural born.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2012 at 9:55 am

          EBL, there are two things very wrong with your claim.

          First of all, as you yourself note, this law applies only to those born there with at least one parent who is a USA citizen. If it were USA territory then the 14th amendment would make anyone born there a US citizen.

          Second, this was not the law at the time that McCain was born.

          There is no authority for your assertion that “natural born citizen” means the same thing as “citizen at birth”; had McCain’s parents been civilians, he would not be a natural born citizen.

    Doug Wright in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 26, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Forgot to mention that you’re in violation of the Trolling rules here! No use of machine generated comments allowed except under certain as yet to be defined conditions, as determined by our esteemed and kind LI leader.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 27, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Bulldust. You are making this crap up. Anybody born in the USA is a natural born citizen, no matter who his parents are, and that has always been the case. This nonsense about the parents being citizens is something neither you nor anybody else ever heard of until four years ago, and it has no basis. You may as well claim that gold fringe on a flag turns a courtroom into a naval base or some such insanity. Or that spelling your name in all caps makes it a different name. Or that the federal government can’t own property. Pure crackpottery.

      I have seen people argue about the fringe on the flag! It is awesomely anal retentive.

        Milhouse in reply to EBL. | June 27, 2012 at 9:56 am

        How can a matter of law be “anal retentive”? The theory is not bizarre because it’s anal retentive, it’s bizarre because it’s a complete fantasy, without any basis at all.

1. Interesting idea, but I’d like to know specifics about how LA is faring on his watch.

2. In addition, I need reassurance on two things:

a. In his college years he was involved in an exorcism. The Left has and will jump all over that. Swing voters will need reassurance about the incident.

b. Iirc, shortly after he was elected governor, the GOP picked him to give the reply to an Obama speech and he got bad reviews for sounding muddled. Some of his portraits look a little nerdy. However, these things are fixable and I presume that an individual of Jindal’s caliber would fix them.

3. Quite an achiever: M.D., Rhodes Scholar, entrepreneur, federal service, elected governor in bayou country. The resume looks terrific. It’s an authentic conservative counterpart of the image Obama is trying to project.

4. It’s important to me that Jindal lost his first race for governor, adjusted, and won the second time. Grit.

Reelected by a bigger margin than he was elected by, in fact by a landslide.

5. Sounds like he’d be credible both to social conservatives and to libertarian conservatives like me.

6. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if Romney makes a bold pick like Jindal.

7. In summary: I’m intrigued, well disposed, but not yet sold. Tell me more.

    gs in reply to gs. | June 26, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    My mistake: Jindal was accepted to Harvard Medical School (and Yale Law School) but instead took a Rhodes Scholarship, which he used to study health policy. His credentials as a health policy wonk will be highly relevant no matter what happens to Obamacare.

    gs, I don’t know you well enough to say for sure, but this sounds like concern trolling to me. Do you have reliable information to back up #2a?

      I first heard about this when Jindal became a national figure. I googled ‘jindal exorcism’ before posting.

      As for your imputation of concern trolling, IMHO defeating Obama is by no means assured. To do so, it’s important to remain united. To that end I try to avoid unnecessarily ticking fellow conservatives off as the election approaches.

    Milhouse in reply to gs. | June 27, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Why is the exorcism story a bad thing? Why do you think it will turn people off, any more than Romney’s magic underwear, or any other religious thing? Most Americans are Xians, and most Xians believe in exorcism, at least in principle, don’t they?

TryingToBeHopeful | June 26, 2012 at 11:16 pm

No, no, no! Let him continue his signature issue of reforming education in Louisiana. God knows it’s a Herculean task, but if it can be done, he’s the one to do it. Then maybe other states will take notes (a la Walker and the unions).

We lived there during Hurricane Gustav, and when he got on the radio to give situation updates, it was said that he “could give you 30 minutes of information in 20 minutes.” Amazing! Especially when contrasted with Kathleen Blanco (D-Pathetic) during Katrina. The guy is brilliant.

Mainly, though, and not that it seems to matter much anymore, but he’s not eligible since his parents weren’t American citizens when he was born 😉

O/T: re: fast and furious

Before It’s News on June 25, 2012 at 12:47 am
[…] Original Page: Related Stories Did Obama Just Commit High Treason?!? BRAVE NEW WORLD 2009 You vote obama […]

Jindal would make a great choice as Veep; a conservative policy wonk who could team with Paul Ryan (and maybe Democrat Ron Wyden in the Senate, who’s shown himself willing to work with Ryan) and solve entitlement mess within a year or so. He’s my number one choice.

And yes, both he and Rubio are eligible:

    Milhouse in reply to Phineas Fahrquar. | June 27, 2012 at 5:51 am

    I agree that Jindal is eligible, but that article proves nothing. It’s a silly piece, utterly conclusory. It claims that “natural born citizen” is the same as “citizen at birth”, but offers not a word in argument for that conclusion, let alone any evidence. Really, it’s every bit as bad as all those articles claiming that “natural born citizen” means born to two citizens, without giving any reason why that should be so.

    If we want to know what “natural born” means, we have to look for how that term was generally understood at the time when it was incorporated into the constitution. And the best source for that, as for many terms in the constitution, is Blackstone, who defines “natural born subject”, from which our phrase is clearly derived. Every person is a natural born subject of the sovereign under whose protection he was born, and owes that sovereign a natural loyalty; that means the country where he’s born, except for children born abroad to “the King’s embassadors”.

      Until we can get you on the Supreme Court to correct this imbalance with the force, we are stuck with the current interpretations of the constitution. I am not saying I like it, I just recognize it for what it is.

        Milhouse in reply to EBL. | June 27, 2012 at 10:00 am

        What current interpretation? What you’re claiming, that “natural born citizen” means the same thing as “citizen at birth”, is not the “current interpretation”. What authority can you cite for it? None at all. You’re making it up, just like the nutcases who are making up the requirement for the parents to be citizens.

I’ve liked Jindal as a Veep pick for a while now. He’s a policy wonk who has also proven to be an effective leader and speaker. I like him over Rubio just because he has more experience, particularly as an executive.

Great guy and scary smart. But neither of his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born in the U.S., and that makes him not a natural-born citizen.

What I’ve heard is that after his big reelection victory and coattails, he’s backed off on pushing for reforms now. He doesn’t help with his state, which is safe Republican in Presidential elections, there aren’t enough voters of Indian-American heritage to make a difference, and he is an unexciting speaker or campaigner.

On the positive side, he is extremely intelligent and in command of the details on most subjects and all policies. He has administrative experience and expertise.

Of course he would make Biden look stupid in a debate, but so would my Lab.

Romney could pick a bag of rocks to be his VP and I’d still vote for him over Obama. Actually, come to think of it, the bag of rocks would probably win a debate with Biden.

    I would prefer Romney’s Irish Setter, who would tilt its head every time Biden said something strange and bark at the especially bad ones.

Except that his method of “reforming” LA schools was to institute Creationism into science class.

Complete dolt.

As an added bonus, picking Jindal would make Barry look even dumber when he plays the race card.

Romney will probably will go with a bland, uninspired choice like McDonnell or Portman. I hope I’m wrong.

after giving the most boring ‘republican response’ speech ever, i no longer believed the hype about his rising star status. even biden would appear animated against this guy.
as they say on the talent contest tv shows, it’s a big ‘no’ from me.

    They sent Jindal out with that terrible speech when they were still shellshocked from Obama getting elected. It was a bad decision, a terrible attempt to say look, we have ethnicity, too, and it’s better, smarter, and more poignant and real than Obama – it was his only slip up – don’t judge him by that one thing.

Why not?

Because he’s in a good position now and doing a fine job, that’s why.

A VP is a lap dog – not a leader.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 27, 2012 at 5:13 am

I think louisiana would hate to lose him but he certainly is bright .

Also because in early 2009 I stopped at a Hot Springs pool just south of Auckland run by a unique Indian family. they were just so funny & entertaining except the lady was an Obama fan.

I said -“you should watch out for Bobby Jindal – he is a star on the rise.

Come on Mitt make me look smart & make 1.3 billion people happy.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 27, 2012 at 5:36 am

    Ps -On a serious side but there would be enormous trade benefits for the US that I cannot see any ther VP bringing. Just by Bobby being Bobby.

    Hispanics are not the future . Go West America. The asia Pacific is where it s at.

Back in November 2008, I boldly predicted that the 2012 election would not see a white man on either major party ticket.

I thought Palin would be a shoo-in for the GOP nomination, and would run with Jindal. Jindal would not run for president because his 2011 reelection campaign would be too close to the primaries, but by August 2012 he’d be available for VP.

Meanwhile Clinton would do to 0bama what Kennedy nearly did to Carter, and succeed because as far as we know she hasn’t killed anyone. Having defeated the Light Bringer she’d need a black running mate, to heal the wounds and keep the black voters from staying home, and I thought she’d go with a moderate such as Harold Ford, or perhaps David Paterson (and she’d move back to Illinois so they wouldn’t be from the same state).

Well, three of my four predictions came to nothing (and both Ford and Paterson have crashed and burned), but Jindal’s still a possibility.

So why not [pick] Bobby Jindal for V.P.?

Because its Romney’s decision.

Might as well take a poll as to which GOP VP pick would cause the least Liberal handwringing and campaign of destruction among MSM Journolisters, left-wing political pundits.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to OcTEApi. | June 27, 2012 at 10:25 am

    The word you inserted in brackets completely changes the nature of the question. So you answered your own question, not mine.

      Not necessarily looking to butt heads Professor or argue semantics but you posed an open ended Q to illicit a response from your readers. Then you posted additional information that so-n-so thinks he’s a good default pick?

      I may be wrong but the nature of your question seems to imply:
      What Say You? .. about [pick]

PrincetonAl | June 27, 2012 at 7:32 am

Okay, its a positive piece from NRO, but it gives a good view of his ability to take responsibility early and seriously throughout his career.

He is the best governor LA has had in the last 100 years.

Whether these are the skills for a VP, are the right launching pad for Jindal to the next level, or translate into additional ticket support, I don’t know.

As a guy who has accomplished real reform and results, he is better than most Red governors (contrast to AZ’s Brewer, who outside of her immigration stands has made many mistakes including being a fiscal nincompoop). He took a broken state and fixed, as opposed to not ruining a state that was already working.

My friends from LA rave about him. I think there are only a handful of governors who have really improved their states fortunes and set about real reforms at this level, vs. just keeping decay from setting in or holding off the unions.

Jindal is one.

I’ve heard Jindal speak about energy and he really knew what he was talking about. I would love to have Jindal as the pick – certainly more than Rubio whom I do not believe is ready.

Not sure why you would want to take one of our fiercest fighters of the battlefield, and stick him in the closet for 4 years.

And, this talk of Rubio is nuts.

Go back- Who was the last President to put someone of national political consequence on the ticket?

Better for us to have Rubio attend State funerals, and his Senate seat replaced with a lib?

Hell, just read a survey that 59% of voters don’t know who Joe Biden is.

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | June 27, 2012 at 10:32 am

    America has taken it on the chin from Obama and his backwards ideology…

    -one of our fiercest fighters on the battlefield

    I nominate an Undercover CEO or Mike Rowe the Dirty Jobs guy… America needs a the obligatory shot in the arm to make up for the Bizarro world beat down Obama has given it.

It exasperates me to see some of my favorite bloggers out here still asserting that Jindal and Rubio are eligible. The are not ( Not only did Monroe and Washington correspond directly on this, not only did the founders cite Vattel’s Law of Nations as the foundation of their thought on this (meaning they are not eligible), not only did the first 3 immigration acts by Congress reaffirm they had to be born on US soil to two US citizens at the time of their birth, Minor V Happerset clearly reaffirms that is the case.

I wish conservatives would just quit taking whatever popular columnist or talk show radio host says (for either viewpoint) and do the homework themselves.

Bottom line: If you support either Jindal or Rubio – you desecrate the Constitution and are no better than the Constitutional revisionists like Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Get your damn facts straight so we can save this country, will ya?

    Milhouse in reply to PolitiJim. | June 27, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Minor V Happerset clearly reaffirms that is the case.

    This is an outright lie.

    Really, Prof, what is it that attracts so many crackpots to this blog?

    “Minor V Happerset clearly reaffirms that is the case.”

    No, it does not.When Chief Justice Waite wrote the opinion, he was looking at the various definitions of citizenship to see which may apply in Minor’s case. See at 167 and 168. Waite decided that Minor met the tests of citzenship even by the most exclusive standard, but did not exclude or deny others. Puzo is miunderstanding or misrepresenting Waite’s opinion; by Waite’s own words, the ruling does not deal with the question of “natural born.”

TryingToBeHopeful | June 27, 2012 at 10:07 am

Hmmm… I don’t know. What DID attract you to this blog?

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to TryingToBeHopeful. | June 27, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Shoot 🙁 meant for Milhouse, not PolitiJim

      Why don’t you go back to the Birch society or wherever you came from?

        TryingToBeHopeful in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2012 at 10:45 am

        A little testy, are we? It seems everyone with whom you disagree is either a crackpot or a Bircher. Maybe you’d feel more at home at HuffPo or Kos… I rather prefer blogs where people can share their thoughts and have authentic discussions without being called names. Sort of like LI usually is 😉

          No, only people who repeat a crackpot theory that is only found in the lunatic fringes such as the John Birch Society and WND, are crackpots and Birchers. It just seems to be, to my great surprise, that there are a lot of these people commenting on this blog.

They should have a foot race to decide VP, a triathlon that maybe includes some shooting sports…

Sarah could fire the starter pistol from the skid of a helicopter and Donald Trump could be a judge.

The whole notion that a person is born with a natural allegiance to a country by being there, let alone by his parents happening to hold its passport, is bizarre. It’s one of those strange 18th century ideas that makes us wonder what drugs they were on. There is no rational reason to expect someone born in the USA to be more loyal than someone born elsewhere, and there is certainly no rational reason to expect someone’s loyalties to be influenced at all by what passports his parents happened to hold at his birth. The whole “natural born citizen” requirement is outdated and ought to be removed by amendment, though it’s not at all urgent. In the meantime, though, let’s stick with what the constitution actually requires, and not invent new requirements that nobody ever thought of before 2008.

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Milhouse, I’m not trying to be vexatious here; I’m curious what your opinion is on this:

    Do you think it is possible for 0 to be, simultaneously, a natural born citizen (and therefore eligible), and a dual citizen, as he has claimed?

      Of course. No sane person has ever suggested that dual nationals can’t be president. Lots of people who are natural born citizens of the USA, even according to the birthers, are also citizens of one or more other countries. There can be no question that they are eligible for the presidency.

    PolitiJim in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Milhouse, what is bizarre about your comment is that A) this is precisely the logic the founders used in their explanations (but of course – you now better), B) your theory would allow a US soil born baby to be raised in Iran, Venezuela or elsewhere only to return at 35 to try and change the sense of “freedom” America holds dear, and C) that you don’t address a single one of the 25 evidences that this is precisely the intent of the founders but that you want to just ignore it (rather than change it by Amendment) like all the liberals.

    THAT is truly bizarre.

myveryownpointofview | June 27, 2012 at 10:32 am

Another crackpot chiming in. Pull out another tuft of your hair Milhouse.

Jindal is not a natural born Citizen.


“Not only did Monroe and Washington correspond directly on this, not only did the founders cite Vattel’s Law of Nations as the foundation of their thought on this (meaning they are not eligible), not only did the first 3 immigration acts by Congress reaffirm they had to be born on US soil to two US citizens at the time of their birth, Minor V Happerset clearly reaffirms that is the case.”

The Fourteenth Amendment has confused the understanding of many people, as has the non-binding resolution proclaiming McCain to be a natural born Citizen. BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment never amended Article ll, Section 1. On obama’s own campaign website it stated clearly that obama was a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. Fight The Smears clarified it for anyone willing to read – that obama is a NATIVE citizen, a dual citizen at birth, and born subject to Britain through his father. Yes, words do have meaning.

    the first 3 immigration acts by Congress reaffirm they had to be born on US soil to two US citizens at the time of their birth, Minor V Happerset clearly reaffirms that is the case.”

    Both of these claims are outright and clearly provable lies.

    the first 3 immigration acts by Congress reaffirm they had to be born on US soil to two US citizens at the time of their birth,

    The very first of these laws ,from 1790, said: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

    This flatly contradicts your claim.

      myveryownpointofview in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      First, read the US Constitution requirements for Legislature and Executive branches of the US Government.

      Then just Article ll.

      “Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ³No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; etc.”

      “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is a good hint.

      But folks like you Milhouse, would never accept that while a natural born citizen can also be considered “native”, not all “native” born citizens could qualify as natural born. And DUAL citizenship is not the same either, just ask the State Dept.:

      snip:The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
      snip:Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

      Note that the State Dept. acknowledges that a persons allegiance to a nation can indeed be affected by their dual nationality.

      I believe that the wording in some of State Departments breakdown on dual citizenship was changed in early 2011, so may be a little different than what I included which was downloaded 1/2011.

      Frankly I think that referring to people who have the uncomplicated understanding of the term “natural born citizen” to be “two US citizen parents, born on US soil”, as “crackpots” to be a bit over the top. But whatever floats yer boat.

TryingToBeHopeful | June 27, 2012 at 10:44 am

A little testy, are we? It seems everyone with whom you disagree is either a crackpot or a Bircher. Maybe you’d feel more at home at HuffPo or Kos… I rather prefer blogs where people can share their thoughts and have authentic discussions without being called names. Sort of like LI usually is 😉

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to TryingToBeHopeful. | June 27, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Delete! see above

    No, only people who repeat a crackpot theory that is only found in the lunatic fringes such as the Hohn Birch Society and WND, are crackpots and Birchers. It just seems to be, to my great surprise, that there are a lot of these people commenting on this blog.

LukeHandCool | June 27, 2012 at 11:14 am

I’ve always liked Bobby. I didn’t see his widely panned SOTU response, but I did see him on a late night talk show quite some time ago and he was brilliant off the cuff … and very funny, too.

He’s my first pick, but the GOP has a deep bench from which to choose.

While I like Jindal I don’t think that he’s ready for prime time.

OTOH, my choice would be Allen West.

a) The race issue neutralized
b) What an attack dog!
c) Squeaky clean
d) Reflects most of our values
e) Articulate and fearless!

But I suppose that I’ll just hafta dream on…

SCOTUS clearly affirmed the definition of NBC in Minor V Happerset.. The current SCOTUS has so far avoided the issue regarding obama as all the cases that have reached SCOTUS conference were denied at the lower courts because of standing issues and SCOTUS apparently agrees. Sooner or later, SCOTUS will take on a case that has a ruling by the lower courts that has satisfied Standing. The main stream media and the elite GOP would like nothing better than to put up Jindal or Rubio for VP to coverup their culpibility in allowing obama a pass on his lack of eligibilty…

My money is on Tim Pawlenty-for the record.

My biggest argument against Jindal is that he would leave a large vacancy if he accepted. Yes, the GOP is developing a deep bench, but many of them need more time and aren’t ready for the big game. That is also why I would be against Ryan as well as several other names I have heard mentioned. At this point in time, I think it is imperative to keep the people who are in critical positions in those critical positions for as long as possible. For this reason my preference for VP would be someone who has a good conservative background/history, but is available. E.g. not currently in a critical position. Some of these other names I’ve heard would be a good choice in 2016/2020 once they’ve been term limited out of their current position. That is also why I wish that Palin hadn’t been hounded from office, and would have had a longer record from which to pursue future things.

    ALman in reply to hald. | June 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    I concur. We need as broad and strong a base as possible, especially in these times. There’s time enough for some of the afore-mentioned to continue in their present offices and, then, at a later date move to other ones.

Henry Hawkins | June 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Our VPs over the last 40 years:

Bush 1

By my count (and by my prejudices), about half of these guys were goofs. The vice presidency is a terrible place to waste a currently good man or woman, one currently in place and helping the cause. Therefore, I think Romney shound go for entertainment value and would be safe picking from the following list:

Conan O’Brien
Tim Tebow
Ralph Malph
Sheldon on Big Bang Theory
Keith Olbermann’s psychiatrist
That homeless guy with the voice
Alan Colmes’ psychiatrist
Manny Pacquiao
Carrot Top
Anybody from Swamp People
Lou Dobbs
The Old Man from Pawn Stars
Mark Steyn’s plumber
Joe The Plumber
Any New Black Panther
The Kid Who Cried for Brittney
Joy Behar’s psychiatrist
Mrs. Paul (the fishmoner, not Ron or Rand’s wife)

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Additions to the list are welcomed.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Carrot Top ????

    Are you serious ????

    The comedy club circuit would be devastated from the loss.

    When we moved back to America from Japan, we soon took a mini-vacation in Vegas and stayed at the MGM … where Carrot Top was headlining!!

    Carrot Top with his own show at the MGM. That was complete culture shock.

    My vote is for one of the guys from Swamp People, or one of the ones from Duck Dynasty.

If Romney really wanted to:

-not remove an important player from the current political landscape

-have someone who can clearly articulate Obama’s failures

-clearly articulate the “choice” Americans must make this election

-Have someone who will meet the upcoming slander and onslaught of the MSM that will surly come following the announcement of his choice head on, and set them back on their heels

There is but one man I know of…..and you know him too.

I wrote about the Jindal/Rubio “natural born” citizen dilemma here:

“Those conservatives who argue against “birthright citizenship” have just been thrown under the same bus as the “birthers” — whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.”

The article explains why, and also gives a list of prominent conservatives and other experts who have long fought against the practice of granting citizenship to every baby born on US soil–arguing that it is not mandated by the 14th amendment.

    PolitiJim in reply to Pat in Shreveport. | June 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Pat you are dead in. I have business associates and friends that have bore the brunt of a LOT of corruption in the Jindal mansion. He’s not John Corzine for sure. But the fact he had absolutely NO charisma or speaking “mogjo” when he gave his failed GOP rebuttal is enough to stop right there.

    Jindal has to communicate well enough to win over NON-CONSERVATIVES, which is a plus for Rubio were he not ineligible.

A Mormon with a VP who’s a creationist. The left’s collective mouths will be foaming.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm

This ‘natural born ‘ thing is tedious. Obviously Obama does not have 2 American parents & he has not been removed.

In fact it was seen as a bonus by the american people.

He doesn’t have a particularly pressing need to be VP. If Obama wins, Jindal will conveniently leave office with a full year to campaign for president. If Romney wins, he’ll still be young enough to run in 2020, and perhaps with a cabinet post adding to his resume.

Yes, some people will continue to judge him by one speech in 2009. These people are what’s wrong with the electorate, and must be marginalized by asking “What about his positions? What about his accomplishments? Why are you ignoring those?”