By The Right Scoop


The Drudge Report has an exclusive that Condi Rice is the frontrunner for Romney’s VP choice:

Late Thursday evening, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign launched a new fundraising drive, ‘Meet The VP’ — just as Romney himself has narrowed the field of candidates to a handful, sources reveal.

And a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!

The timing of the announcement is now set for ‘coming weeks’.

MORE

It was Condi who received two standing ovations at Romney’s Utah retreat a few weeks ago, and everyone left with her name on their lips.

Rice made an extended argument for American leadership in the world.

In recent days, she emailed supporters.

“2012 is perhaps a turning point for the United States,” she warned.

“The upcoming elections loom as one of the most important in my lifetime. I’m very often asked to speak about our current foreign policy and the challenges that lie before us. However, we, as a country, are not going to be able to address any of those international challenges unless we first get our domestic house in order.”

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


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.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • badbadlibs

    I have mixed feelings. She’s not as conservative as I would like and how is she at debating? I want someone who can mop the floor with biden, though I realize an actual mop is smarter then that idiot.

    • M_J_S

      Also, she’s not married which is kind of odd.

      • aZjimbo

        What the hell does being married or not have anything to do with anything?

        • M_J_S

          Ahhhhh, yellow…when did we ever have a unmarried VP in modern history? She could potentially be President.

          It won’t be her, so it doesn’t matter.

          • aZjimbo

            Again, what the hell does her marital status have to do with anything. I am totally against picking her but the question remains the same.

            • M_J_S

              And, again, it is weird. This is the Vice President- I know of ZERO unmarried VPs in the past 50 years.

              • aZjimbo

                And I knew of no black presidents ever until 2008. I think maybe you are trying to insinuate something about Condi.
                Single or married she should be judged on her credentials and not her marriage status.

                • http://twitter.com/cynthia006002 Cynthia

                  absolutely, marriage is not a pre-requisite to being vp or president in this country. the marital status of a person does not matter. in actuality, a single person might be more focused than a married person due to having someone else to take into consideration and possibly having children to think about as well.

                • aZjimbo

                  We agree Cynthia.

      • MLCBLOG

        Oh, no!! really? What a thing to say! Many people are not married, especially those with careers.

        • M_J_S

          Yeah really meathead. I don’t care if it is a man OR a woman. It IS WEIRD not to have our public officials married. It is a political/social fact. Get over it.

          • MLCBLOG

            I simply disagree. I am sad you had to resort to calling me a derogatory name.

            • M_J_S

              haha…give me a break. If that’s derogatory, you need to visit the US Navy.

              Should I send you some Kleenex?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/H3FKUGAPVG6CDFYSCJHSAIAZW4 david r

        The great Thomas Jefferson was not married while he was President. He was actually a widower. That did in no way hinder him in his political life or as President. Same can be said for anyone who runs for office.

        • M_J_S

          Condi Rice is no Thomas Jefferson.

        • http://twitter.com/cynthia006002 Cynthia

          liberals are making negative comments about condi because they are afraid of romney winning if she becomes the vp. her popularity is high among many people. i hope she does become president someday.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      She’s also “mildly pro-choice”

      • keyesforpres

        Is that like being a little pregnant?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

          OR

          Like being a little bit of a father of a child

        • MLCBLOG

          Exactly!!

      • badbadlibs

        That’s what bothers me the most.

      • MLCBLOG

        Eeeewwww, yuk.

        You know, as I think about all this, I am getting queasy thinking Romney and his Utah confab might be going to blow it by not including the conservative faction.

    • 1mathteacher

      I understand your mixed feelings. Me too, mostly because of the pro-choice stance. BUT, she will make a great debater. I love to watch her in interviews. She is no-nonsense and totally together. Nothing gets by her, she makes her points in a calm, very rational manner, and she doesn’t take any guff. No one walks over her- ever. She thinks on her feet, and you can tell she really believes what she is saying. I have tremendous respect for her, although I believe her pro-choice stance is wrong.

      Mop > Biden. LOL. totally agree!

      • badbadlibs

        Good reply, 1mathteacher, thanks.

      • Medaton

        She would be no match for Allen West! He is a born leader, brilliant, and conservative to the core!

        • 1mathteacher

          Yes, I agree with you there. Absolutely love West!

    • TLaMana

      Neither is Romney. I would place Condi higher then Mitt on the Conservative scale, and not by a little bit.

    • http://twitter.com/cynthia006002 Cynthia

      Condi is great at speaking and communication. When they put her on the hot seat before the congressional hearing she never even blinked. She answered their questions even when they were so rude to her. She always stays calm, selects her words carefully and is extremely intelligent. No comparison to Biden. She would definitely wipe the floor with him. : )

  • Crash_Davis

    Can someone let S.E. Cupp know that her crow dinner is ready?

  • 911Infidel

    Rice was great back in the Cold War days when she was working for Jeannie Kirpatrick. She’s a Russian specialist, but clueless on the ME and Islam. She’s another land-for-peace idiot.

    If Romney is looking for a “black” counterweight to Obama, then why not choose a better counterwight like Alan West. At least he knows the world better than Rice does.

    Oh and if he was looking to energize the base with that pick, he just failed miserably.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

      “If Romney is looking for a “black” counterweight to Obama”

      That’s exactly what it sounds like and it’s pathetic. They are trying to shoehorn a Bush era/establishment accepted person into the modern conservative movement and into another stupid appointment, based on race, like they did with the incompetent Steele.

      As far as Russia- If that is her true area of expertise, then I would like her to be involved since I think Russia is a bigger threat now since they have been running under the radar during this administration, and I do feel that they have infiltrated our government deeply.

      • 911Infidel

        Yep. And RHINOs beget more RHINOs. Birds of a feather, flock together.

        • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

          Exactly what it is- Remember when Romney wasn’t doing so well during the primary, and the establishment kept throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick? They kept pushing candidates that were pre-approved by the DC types, that would hopefully have enough pull with conservatives so that we would back them. We’re sick of those games- Allen West should be on the very short list….no more throwbacks.

          • 911Infidel

            Preach it Bro!! Amen to that!!

      • MLCBLOG

        I couldn’t agree more. She is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) through and through.,,,but we may need someone to put a damper on Mr. Putin’s recent show.

    • keyesforpres

      Actually, let’s keep Col. Allen West in congress (we need him there right now) and let’s go with Alan Keyes!

      • 12grace

        Excellent choice, K.

        Both fine and intelligent patriotic men.

      • 911Infidel

        Nope. I want a warrior as a VP. Alan West is the perfect choice. I want him front and center in every debate. I don’t need a guy guy who comes off as an elitist.

        • keyesforpres

          LOL. Go to http://www.alankeyes.com and watch the video he posted from a month ago. Rousing speech.

          • 911Infidel

            I’ve heard him speak many times. He can fight the culture war. But in politics I want a killer, not a an elitist.

            • keyesforpres

              The problem with our politics is we’ve lost our culture.

              • 911Infidel

                Which is the very same point that I have harped on dozens of times in this blog and elsewhere. And I’m still hearing crickets chirping from the Repubik party on that score.

                • keyesforpres

                  Well, Santorum got ripped for mentioning God and family.

                • 911Infidel

                  So has Alan West and he’s still hanging tough. Steadfast and loyal. Just what I expect from an old Infantryman.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Alan Keyes is far from being an elitist. He’s a strong Constitutionalist and would be great!

          • 911Infidel

            Not in my view. I want a guy who can speak well, is righteous and is right on damn near everything. It doesn’t hurt his cause in my eyes that he was a damn good combat commander who led from the front. Who put his own needs last and his men’s needs and safety first.

            I’ve heard Keyes speak many times. My impression remains: He’s a smug elitist. He just doesm’t resonate with me at any level, whether he is right or not. Its the same reason that I avoid talk radio. I like who I like and dislike who I dislike. I make up my own mind and do my own research. I don’t need anyone to do that for me.

            And I prefer a man’s man over an academic. Alan Keyes should stay with his mission to win back the souls of his wandering Catholic constituentcy. Its a good place for him to be. I know plenty of Catholics who could use a few more Alan Keyes in their parishes. But for VP, I’ll take the badass Infantry guy over an Alan Keyes any day.

          • http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello Salvatore Anello

            If Ron Paul wore his religion on his sleeve he’d be Alan Keyes. That might make the religious right forget about the moronism, but I don’t think that’s even an issue compared to Obama’s questionable cred there. I really think we need someone who has won popular votes against really bad odds. I can think of a really good Wisconsin governor.

            • keyesforpres

              We need him to remain as governor. We keep wanting to pull great people out of their elected positions. We need good folks in the governor positions. That is actually a more important position than vp.

      • keninil

        So how is Keyes doing on that LGBT thing? He’s had some bumps there.

        If he runs, he will have to learn to be concise. In the 2008 debates, he always ran long and went off topic, way way off topic.

        • keyesforpres

          well, no worries. Romney would never pick him. I think the LGBT need to keep their preferences to themselves. One’s sexual preference is a private matter and should not be waved around.

          • keninil

            I agree, LGBT need to keep to themselves. I actually think it may be a mild mental disorder like dyslexia, ahdh, or color blindness. I base this on the fact that head injuries seem to sometime cause homophobia. Some cases may be psychotic, caused by the environment they were raised in, but not all. They need to make the best of their lives that they can.

    • http://hashmonean.com saus

      I have nothing but respect for Condi Rice and her service, but everything you said about the Mid East + Islam is 100% correct. She made a big mess here in Israel when she was at the U.S State Dept, and was whispering into Bush’s ear all the time with very bad advice. She was weak as an ally when we were at War with Lebanon / Hezbollah Terrorists, weak on Hamas sezing power in Gaza, she put terrible pressure on Israel re the Palestinians, supports cutting the holy city Jerusalem in half.. and is alarmingly naive on the Jihad threat to both our nations. I respect her but on all this and more.. Oy Vey.

      These issues are exactly what Mr. Romney would delegate to her since he has almost no foreign experience.

      • 911Infidel

        Yep, yep and yep.

      • keyesforpres

        Thanks for posting. It’s good to hear from folks in Israel.

        It is amazing how a woman that knows 5 languages can’t get the islam thing. It’s really quite simple and would make a great bumper sticker….

        “It’s Islam, stupid”

        It is also against international law to make you guys give up any land.

        • http://hashmonean.com saus

          Appreciate the Israel supoort immensely!

    • 1mathteacher

      Ooh, land for peace. I didn’t know that. Not good. :-(

      Allen West would be awesome, but they won’t pick him because he’s fairly new (first term, right? I think..) and that would lay them open to the charge of hypocrite since we (rightly) criticized the dems’ choice of Obama as a first-term senator. Still, though, it’s apples & oranges, and Allen West would do a great job. Love him.

      • 911Infidel

        The only reason that Romney wouldn’t pick Alan West is because LtCol West likes to slap dimratz around like little bee-yatches. Romney wants to play by the Marques of Queensbury rules. The last thing that he wants is a street fighter by his side.

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    I don’t believe it. It would be a bad choice, it really would. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would be much better. And I don’t see Rice being that interested in the job, either. She’s a foreign policy expert and I think domestic policy would bore her to tears. And she’s NOT a good attack dog, which is what a Vice President is supposed to be. No, I think this is just a rumor designed to throw the press off the real pick. Jindal is a very popular and successful governor and he would bring some great ideas to the administration. He’s the man Romney should be looking at, not Rice.

    • keyesforpres

      I don’t believe Jindal’s parents were citizens at the time of his birth. If that’s the case he would not have natural born status.

      • LiveFreeOrDie2012

        You need to report to Liberty University for their online class on the Constitution. You are relying Supreme Court dicta to support your assertion. Any qualified constitutional scholar or attorney (such as myself) will tell you that you are FLAT OUT WRONG. Jindal is a natural-born citizen. Period.

        • keyesforpres

          LOL..Constitutional law has nothing to do with the Constitution.

          In order to have natural born status you must be a second generation American. If his parents weren’t citizens at the time of his birth, he does not have natural born status. If they were legal residents at the time of his birth he is native born. Not the same thing.

          Were his parents US citizens at the time of his birth?

          • M_J_S

            Yes, but there has been not clarifying statue. So as the law stands now and has for any reasonable person to read is that if you are born in the US from non-US citizens (even illegal residents) one becomes a US citizen.

            You don’t like it? Push for a statue to clarify. Don’t believe me? Call Levin.

            • keyesforpres

              i’ve done research on the 14th amendment and it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the presidency. Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being natural born. Babies born to illegals are most definitely not eligible to be president. Does anyone honestly believe that an invader giving birth on our soil is giving birth to a natural born citizen.

              Levin needs to research the Congressional Globe of 1866. In it the proceedings for the writings for the 14th amendment were recorded. Jacob Howard was recorded as saying that babies born to foreigners, aliens, etc (I forget this part)….are NOT US citizens.

              Another was recorded as saying that “subject to the jurisdiction” means owing loyalty to. Foreigners’ loyalty would be to their nation. You are subject to the jurisdiction of your own nation, regardless of what nation you might be visiting.

              • LiveFreeOrDie2012

                You don’t even need the 14th Amendment to reach the right conclusion here that Jindal is a natural-born citizen.

                • keyesforpres

                  Oh my gosh. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with the qualifications for the presidency. That was to give freed slaves citizenship.

                  Why do you think our Founders said the president must be natural born or a citizen at the founding of the nation? Because none of their parents were US citizens at the time of their birth.

                  They looked to the Law of Nations.

              • KenInMontana

                Under our laws of naturalization, a resident alien under going the citizenship process is considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That process begins once they declare their intention to become a US citizen. By the way Constitutional law has everything to do with the Constitution, that’s why it’s called “Constitutional” law.

                • keyesforpres

                  Yes, but if their parents have not yet taken the oath at the time of their birth, then they would be native born, natural born.

                  Remember. Obama was supposedly teaching constitutional law….

                • KenInMontana

                  Harvard hasn’t taught actual Constitutional law since the very early 20th century.

                  Harvard is where the practice of using precedents to interpret the Constitution got it’s start, it was wrong then, it is wrong now. Joseph Story is turning in his grave.

                • keyesforpres

                  Yup.

            • Nukeman60

              So as the law stands now and has for any reasonable person to read is that if you are born in the US from non-US citizens (even illegal residents) one becomes a US citizen‘ – mjs

              Your statement is true, but has nothing to do with the definition of ‘natural born citizen’. Therein lies the entire mess. People keep interchanging ‘citizen’, ‘native born citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.

              It’s no wonder the water is murky. People all the way back to the late 1700s have been saying different things using these terms indiscriminately. The only time it even matters whether a person is a ‘natural born citizen’ is to become President (and VP, in order to ascend to Pres).

          • LiveFreeOrDie2012

            You are wrong. I have told you that you are wrong, yet you refuse to believe this and laugh about being incorrect. Too cute. Once you have read the Constitution and reconciled it with the proper reading of the early case law, then we can talk. Until then, you are just an informed individual that basing your understand on some other misinformed individual’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

            • keyesforpres

              Oh my, you’ve told me I’m wrong and that makes it so. NOT.

              Natural born has to do with the LAW OF NATURE. That comes from your parents. You must be a second generation American in order to have natural born status. I don’t care what some lawyer declares. I am going by original intent.

              Do you believe that babies born to foreigners on our soil are giving birth to natural born citizens? Seriously?

              Were Jindal’s parents citizens at the time of his birth? Simple question. If they weren’t then he does not have natural born status.

            • Nukeman60

              I could say you are purple and it would be the same as you telling keyesforpres that she is wrong. Why don’t you back up your statement with Constitutional facts rather than just expecting someone to believe you because you say so.

              You have no idea whether any of us have read the Constitution (I, personally, have a copy next to my computer terminal), reconciled it with any kind of analysis of ‘case law’, or even know the difference between ‘case law’ and ‘original intent’.

              And if you don’t care whether someone believes you or not, then don’t worry whether they laugh at your brashness.

              • keyesforpres

                Thanks Nukeman. I keep a constitution in my purse and just reread the qualifications for president. It is the only office where they specify “must be natural born”. For senator it said, “must be a citizen for at least 7 years”. There is a difference.

                I went to the 9-12 rally in 2009 and many of the folks on my bus would be considered rednecks. They were very patriotic rednecks and I tell you something….they have a better understanding of the constitution than “constitutional scholars” and attornies practicing “constitutional law”.

          • keninil

            No. Bobby Jindal was conceived in India, born in the US. Both his parents became citizens — so he was a few years early for natural born.

            • keyesforpres

              Thank you keninil. That is what I thought. He does not have natural born status since his parents weren’t US citizens at the time of his birth.

              I see too many conservatives acting like the Obama fans. Obama fans didn’t care if O was eligible or not because they liked him. There are too many conservatives that are doing the same thing. They like a guy so they don’t care whether he’s eligible or not. I am a strict constitutionalist. We are in this mess because we let someone who is not eligible to usurp the presidency.

              • keninil

                O may be natural born. His parents may be Madelyn Dunham and Frank Davis. He won’t let anybody take a DNA sample to see if he is related to his half-brother George. Madelyn Dunham filed a COLB (its available on a birther site) that says he was born in Kenya. This is the same sort of doc she filed for Maya, born in Indonesia. So a hoax is run to keep under wraps that bank VP MD is poping out a mixed race baby that obviously doesn’t belong to her hubbie. So the story goes Ann flies to Kenya 8+ months pregnant (probably a 36+ hour flight in ’61), has a baby, and flies back when the baby is a week or so old. Meanwhile she had registered for classes in Sept in WA state. How likely is all that?

                • keyesforpres

                  Yes, I believe o would have had natural born status, because I believe Davis is his father. However, that means he’s produced a fraudulent BC…that disqualifies. He is probably a citizen of Indonesia. His step father adopted him and it is believed he became a citizen of Indonesia. That would disqualify him and on and on.

                  For me, the fact he won’t release his records disqaulifies him.

        • 12grace

          Please provide a link to prove your assertion, I would really like Jindal a lot! He has proven himself to a Conservative leaders with integrity.

          • LiveFreeOrDie2012

            There is no link. That is part of the problem. Relying on non-lawyers or others who don’t understand how to properly read Supreme Court case law is not beneficial. (HINT: Dicta is an opinion of the Court that is not essential to the decision of the Court on the relevant issues. Dicta is non-binding and has zero precedential value.)

            I am quessing you are forming your opinion based on some “link” to a story. Go to the original sources. Use Google Scholar and read the early case law properly. Then read the Federalist Papers. Then read the Constitution. There is nothing there that disqualifies Jindal. There is only dictum in one case that is used by some to reach the wrong conclusion.

            P.S. WND is WRONG!

            • keyesforpres

              So you’re saying that anyone can sneak into our country and give birth and that person would be eligible for president? Kind of dangerous don’t ya think?

            • 12grace

              You offer a lot of good information, L.

              I recently just successfully completed a course at Hillsdale college on the Federalist Papers as well as the Constitution and did not come to the same conclusion that some people have on this site, so I asked for clarification.

              I do not write, think, speak “legaleese” so I was hoping for more than a link to a story but perhaps an article/explanation from a respected Constitutional Lawyer explaining why according to the Constitution, Jindal is considered to be eligible for the position of VP.

              One of my concerns is that if we ever take obama to court after the fact, I don’t want the Dems to be able to say, that any of our conservative candidates may not be eligible due to “birth” issues of any kind. I don’t want to set a precedent.

              • keyesforpres

                Grace remember this, our Founders never intended for the Supremes to be the final arbiter on the constitution. They were supposed to uphold it, not interpret it. Remember, Jefferson referred to the judiciary as the despotic branch.

            • Nukeman60

              Not to be a stickler here, but since you are a constitutional attorney, dictum is the word you want to use with ‘is’. Dicta is the plural form of those legal opinions. Just clarifying.

            • KenInMontana

              Using case law to interpret the Constitution, is incorrect. SCOTUS does not “interpret” the Constitution, it measures laws brought before it by the yardstick that is the US Constitution. All that is required to “interpret” the document is an 18th century dictionary and common sense. There is no convoluted double speak in the document, it was written so that the common man could grasp it and embrace it.

              Case Law is the tool of the Fabian Socialists and Progressives with which they would dismantle the document. The school of thought you are espousing was designed to separate us from our rights, to lull us in to being good little sheeple, to makes too dull witted and complacent, to ultimately allow those that cast themselves our “betters” to control us. To essentially tell us we are too stupid, low born and uneducated to understand and we would be better served to just go about our mundane existence and leave such “high minded ideals” to those who feel themselves our intellectually superiors.

              You want to establish Natural Born? Try starting with established US naturalization law, duly passed, duly signed. As the Framers intended and the Constitution lays out plainly. Start with the Naturalization Act of 1790, more precisely Section 3;

              SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

              Now, much of Section 3 has been superseded by subsequent Acts, with an exception.
              This is that exception;

              And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization,

              Because this line was never mentioned or addressed by any of the Naturalization Acts that followed it, it stands as US law, it has never been superseded. There is your definition of a Natural Born United States Citizen.

              Carry on.

              • 12grace

                Excellent Response, K.

                • KenInMontana

                  The last line of the 12th Amendment;

                  But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

                • 12grace

                  Thank you, K.

              • Nukeman60

                Very well stated, Ken. I have seen many articles on the subject, which give unending quotes from the time period dealing with such terms as ‘natural born citizen’, ‘native born citizen’, and ‘citizen’, intermixing the terms to get what people declare a definition. Your introducing the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a good addition, as it addresses the term ‘natural born citizen’ itself (although it really only addresses children of citizens born overseas – it’s a two part paragraph, the first sentence declares a ‘citizen’, the second declares a ‘natural born citizen’).

                However, the Supreme Court case of Minor vs Happersett (1874) introduces the idea, in a side note, that indeed a person born in the US to naturalized citizens is a natural born citizen (no one denies this point). But, it leaves open the idea that other situations might also be considered (they did not rule on this topic).

                So we have several cases where, as you pointed out, a certain situation is deemed a ‘natural born citizen’. But the reverse is not necessarily true. In other words, nowhere do they say a ‘natural born citizen’ is x only and not y. They only state that x is a natural born citizen. Sadly, I think. I read an article that also pursued this issue in detail, with inconclusive results.

                http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

                I most enjoyed their last paragraph, which to me sums up all the murkiness of the issue:

                There is a need to have a definition of natural-born citizen that cannot be politicized. The definition must be protected from the politics of today and ensconced in the Constitution. Whether common law ideas or Vattel’s ideas prevail, we need to define what is to be acceptable in our Commander in Chief. All of the arguments made by the Framers regarding foreign influence must be taken into consideration because they knew then as we know now; the sovereignty of our great nation is at risk.

                • KenInMontana

                  It will require an amendment to the Constitution to effectively put the issue to rest, a SCOTUS ruling won’t do.

                • Nukeman60

                  Yeah, I think you’re right. I always thought it was one or the other, and the amendment is the proper way.

                  Interesting that Congress tried to remove it already (Dems tried on 8 different occasions since Obama arrived) and it went nowhere. Typical progressives. Let’s hope someone genuinely addresses it sometime soon.

                  http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/

          • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

            grace, try this article on the natural born citizen issue. It gives background on opinions from Alexander Hamilton on. It’s a long and involved read but very interesting. http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/

            • 12grace

              Thank You abc, I am going to the link now.

            • Nukeman60

              Thanks for the link, ABiC. It was indeed an interesting read. However, the author of the article made the same mistake as many have in this argument (and utilized this mistake in the quotes he used). There was a lot of mixing the terms ‘natural born’, ‘natural born citizen’, ‘native-born citizen’, ‘native citizen’, and ‘citizen’.

              Natural born citizen and native born citizen were mistakenly used interchangably, and indeed that was the conclusion at the end of the article, that they were interchangable.

              It used the Supreme Court case of Lynch vs Clark (1844), which many people refer to, which claimed the woman was a natural born citizen due to the ‘Common Law of England’ at the time. I don’t believe the founders wanted the same definition, as they followed Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ quite a bit.

              The author stated Hamilton’s desire for the Constitution was ‘citizen':

              This means that, under Hamilton’s plan, and he was certainly important in the drafting of the Constitution (and as the Federalist Papers show, one of its biggest defenders), a President need only be born in the United States, with no “natural born” affixed to the term “citizen”. There is no real explanation that I can find as to why the Committee of Eleven changed the phrase to its present form, but it was. Making it even worse, the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born citizen”.

              Therein lies the rub, as they say. Many subsequent rulings and case laws intermix the terms, and the founding fathers didn’t explicitly define ‘natural born citizen’, even though it’s obvious they wanted something more than ‘citizen’ or ‘native citizen’. Do we go with ‘English Common Law’ or do we go with Vattels, ‘Law of Nations’? Or do we allow case law to determine the definition?

              Black’s Law Dictionary defines NBC as ‘a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government’, and that is what case law has determined to go by. However, I do find it interesting that, until Obama, every President not a citizen at the founding of the nation has had at least naturalized parents (save for Chester Arthur, which was only found out later).

              This is a tough call, but one I think the Supreme Court has to address directly in order to attempt final clarification.

              • keyesforpres

                I have to respectfully disagree. The Founders never intended for the Supremes to be the final arbiter on the Constitution. Remember, Jefferson referred to them as the despotic branch.

                • Nukeman60

                  But our problem right now lies with what does the Constitution mean by ‘natural born citizen’. It doesn’t say specifically, so we go to original intent. Well, we can’t ask the founders, per se, so we need to figure out original intent by original understanding. How do we do that? Some believe the founders followed Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’. Some believed they followed the ‘English Common law’. We’re stuck in a raging battle that can’t be decided by you, me, or any constitutional lawyer by themselves. They will use case law and what’s prevalent in the court decisions, perhaps, while we will use whatever papers we find from the era.

                  Either way, it’s not definitive, so we need to go somewhere. Where would you suggest that would be generally accepted by all? I think the best place is to have the Supremes figure out the original intent as best they can, as they would do a better job than all of us put together. The problem has been that they’ve only addressed it on side notes or as a side aspect of the case at hand.

                • keyesforpres

                  No amendment is necessary. I don’t trust the Supremes, especially after the Obamacare ruling and the lefties O put in.

                  Up until Obama we’ve always elected a president born to two US citizens (not counting our Founders). It seems to be pretty well understood. Even the dems get it, that is why they tried numerous times to get the natural born requirement changed leading up to putting o on the ballot. They know what it means and they know o is not eligible. That is why they tried to change the requirement.

          • marketcomp

            The problem 12grace is that Romney obviously does not want a Conservative. I mean look at the list of people, with the exception of Bobby Jindal, and rumor is that he’s not even in the running. So the short list is Portman, Rice, Rubio, and a couple of others. None of which on the short list are conservative. So I believe we are getting a RINO, certainly not a conservative on the short list.

        • badbadlibs

          Big change of subject here, sorry…but, I heard a lawyer refer to the SC decsicion on bocare as “dicta” and didn’t seem too worried about it thinking that it would never go into effect?

    • 12grace

      I love Jindal but we don’t for sure if he is a natural born citizen.

      • keyesforpres

        LOL, I was just scolded by a constitutional attorney that I’m wrong. It’s kind of funny because I just got done reading a book on the Constitution and it talks about how ‘constitutional law’ has nothing to do with the constitution. It has to do with “case law” and basically what lawyers what the constitution to be.

        • LiveFreeOrDie2012

          Mark Levin and I are both originalists. I guarantee you that he will give you same answer–Jindal is eligible for V.P. or President.

          • keyesforpres

            Answer the question. Were his parents citizens at the time of his birth?

            Sorry, but just because Levin says it, doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

    • Jim Botts

      Bobby Jindal is an up and coming rock star now in his second term as Governor. His future is bright. I’m not sure Jindal will risk his future being tied to the Romney campaign. If it went total RINO it would really hurt Jindal in the future.

      That said, if Romney did pick Jindal and Jindal accepted I believe that would be a sure sign that Romney is going to be firmly to the right of center in governance. Jindal wouldn’t accept unless he is absolutely sure.

  • keyesforpres

    I hope not. She actually helped to get Raila Odinga installed in Kenya. I don’t think she really gets the islam thing.

  • Constance

    Well, if true, this will be a show to watch! I’ll wait to hear how the race baiters deal with the first black VP candidate, and a woman to boot. Imagine the pretzels they will have to turn themselves into. Actually, Miss Rice is someone I always admired. I thought she was smart as hell. I have no idea about her conservative/moderate tendencies, so I won’t speak to that. I have always admired her, though.

    • p m

      I sorta used to admire her too – until she intruded herself into the Middle East. As keyesforpresident says, she doesn’t get the islam thing and was a disastrous addition to Israel’s problems. In fact, Rice caused many of them and exacerbated others.

      And, further, if her rumoured candidacy for VP is based on her colour, nothing could be more reprehensible and likely to backfire big time. Not so sure the likes of the NAACP would relate to her particularly or give her their support.

      She’s on a par with Colin Powell in my mind – definitely NOT a conservative. She can play the piano well, though.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3BA2JYS4A3QLNJOASHTJZC6ET4 cracky

    Will the left call her a handkerchief head, Oreo cookie, plantation mammy?

  • http://twitter.com/nickmarschel straw man

    Drudge is running a poll on this 61% in favor. Time for a therightscoop.com poll. Scoop! make it happen. :-)

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Groovy idea.

      • Nukeman60

        Heh, he said ‘groovy’. Now you’re talkin’ my language. :)

  • Mary O’Grady

    Good jobs guys: I KNEW you would have this up in record time :)

    Ps: I think Condi is a terrible choice given her links to the Iraq war, and the Bush years. Plus, I think picking a Black VP is going to look like pandering….

    Let’s hope it’s not her.

    • marketcomp

      I think Condi is qualified and articulate and can stand on her own, without race being an issue. But, she has a tendency to be a bit convoluted because she has been in academia. I mean we have Obama and Michelle who also come from academia and when picking a VP you need to think of them as having the ability to run the Country. So do we need another academia type? I think Allen West is much better choice because of his knowledge, ability to lead, and ability to communicate the Constitution. I don’t think I have ever heard Condi articulate the Constitution, but I could be wrong. I respect her tremendously but I am not really a fan so I don’t care who Romney picks we just need to get him elected. I cannot believe that they are making this out to be a media event.

  • pistol pete

    The fact she’s a woman is of no import to liberals.If you’re not a liberal,you can’t really be black.I would much prefer Allen West.He’d make Plughead soil his Depends.

  • LiveFreeOrDie2012

    She is not the most Conservative choice. But, damn, I want to win, and I think she helps with the minority and the women voters.

    • 12grace

      Can we trust her?

    • Freempg

      The GOP VP nominee needs to be in constant attack mode to force Obama on the defensive. That’s not in Rice’s nature. Allen West fits the bill.

    • marketcomp

      Which is exactly the wrong reason to pick someone. I was so proud of him for speaking at the NAACP. Well I guess we should expect this because when I look at Rooney’s decision making in Mass. particularly when it came the Romney care, I wasn’t impress. And to me this is just an extension of his fallible and flawed decision-making. Could this be a set-up? He will probably come back with Rob Portman!

  • jjsmntha

    I personally don’t want a woman vp. I’m not saying that a woman couldn’t handle it but if something happens to the president and the vp takes over, would this country be ready for a woman as president? I am not so sure. ps. I am a woman so there is no bigotry with me.

    • deepindaheart

      I’m very sorry, jj, but if it’s not bigotry then it’s stupidity.

      The country is ready… but, you don’t sound like you are.

    • Nukeman60

      Being a woman shouldn’t ever be a criteria, much as being Black should not be a criteria for the Presidency. Rice has many qualifications that would suit her well in the position of VP, the most important being able to assume the role of President.

      I’m sure you’re not talking in terms of bigotry, but the country is indeed ready for a woman to be President. That’s as it should be. Romney may well be picking her because she’s Black and a woman (to help him with those liberal attacks), but I would hope he’s picking her because she’s qualified politically.

    • Mary O’Grady

      I am a woman too and I understand your concern.

      Having said that however, I really did support Sarah Palin’s run in 2008 ;)

      But this is not 2008 anymore…..and honestly, I too would prefer a good strong male leader as Romney’s running mate. Fighting the Chicago Thugs n Slugz will require someone with the ‘b*llz’ to match their tactics and be willing to fight to the death.
      Condi just ain’t that person.
      In fact I think I recall reading about her making quite fawning comments about Obama in recent times……?

      I have always liked her demeanour and I respect her accomplishments, but I feel choosing her would be a mistake for THIS particular run.

  • Jim Botts

    The GOP VP pick is always portrayed by the media as a incompetent baffoon.
    The Romney people think Rice can neutralize those attacks by picking a black woman with Rice’s background. She’s highly educated at prestigious institutions, check. She’s been head of the NSA and Secretary of state, experience Check. She’s a woman, war on women meme thwarted. She’s black, racism attack thwarted.

    As for the VP debate, she will make Biden look like the foolish uncle buck that every family has. It won’t even be close.

    Shrewd move if you ask me. Does she have RINO tendencies? You bet. But she would be running for VP not President. VP seldom helps a campaign but can be a liability with today’s crooked media.

    Condi is a very shrewd pick indeed.

  • HopeHeFails

    The link to Bush is inescapable and will prove deadly if Republicans hand the Democrats a slam-dunk to destroy Romney.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    She seemed to be the right person for the job at the time as Sec. of State under GW, but she is not the right one for VP in the most critical election in the recent history of the US.

  • Freempg

    Condoleeza Rice said she was “especailly proud” of Obama win.

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/rice-congratulates-obama_n_141414.html

    “An emotional Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveled Wednesday in Barack Obama’s election, calling it an ‘extraordinary step forward’ for the nation.”

    • keyesforpres

      Well, that seals it…she doesn’t sound too bright.

  • BMartin1776

    Its like going right into the lions den picking her. All we hear is blame Bush, blame republicans of the last 8 years now Mitt is considering getting someone from that admin for VP??? INSANE! If this is true if she gets the nod its over and we are all screwed!

    Use this tag on twitter #condirice

  • http://twitter.com/nickmarschel straw man

    My opinion – I like Condi and I think she would be an asset for candidate Romney. She would be a net positive and would help his election chances. I don’t think she would be much of an asset after the election though should Romney win. The main issues after the election if he wins will hopefully be repealing Obamacare and reigning in government spending. She has not been an advocate on these issues and has too timid of a personality to help fight these battles. I would much rather have someone like Scott Walker, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan in the spot after the election.

    Edit: I also believe Romney can win with any of these other options. This is his election to win or lose.

  • johnos2112

    PLEASE PLEASE CHOOSE RUBIO!

  • keninil

    – and West has a good understanding of the why and how of Islam and knows how to express it off the cuff. I am always amazed in to his incites in to political science thru the ages.

  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    Romney owns Drudge so this is certainly orchestrated. Romney needs a Bush lobatomy. Every step he takes is in response to those who backed him. He will float this and Drudge will poll it and see if it gets traction. I do not see her as the leader of the free world. More likely a college professor. I suspect Rove, the architect has his fingers in this. There is a GOPe political motive here. Want to guess what it is?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E4C65QOIQ4XH67F6MEHWTXGODY Alan

    I agree with Mark Levin that this will be a huge mistake if he chooses Condi Rice. She’s a great lady and very intelligent, but she’s very progressive and most likely voted for Obama.

    This will kill Mitt. At least the conservatives still have Tampa to make their decision.

  • PolitiJim

    Condi is a danger much like Justice Roberts was. Here was my analysis when the RINO’s floated this last fall – http://www.politijim.com/2011/12/condi-rice-conservative-vp-no.html

    She is pro-choice (her book) and Dick Cheney claims she’s very moderate in foreign policy – the ONE thing you would think would be her strength. She never had the guts to run for politics meaning – she has never learned skills of how to LISTEN to the people.

    As I close my article – “thanks for your service Condi, but maybe we can help you to unseat Roger Goodell instead.

  • aZjimbo

    I don’t get it. I’d like Paul Ryan number 1. Then maybe rubio.

  • http://teapartyreaganconservative.blogspot.com/ TeaPartyReaganConservative

    Sec of State Condoleezza Rice would give Romney an aire of conservative credibility, not to mention passion and energy, just like Gov Palin did with that Progressive Republicrat RINO McCain..

    But I foresee Romney never picking Ms. Condeleezza Rice for the VP slot, for she is more intelligent, articulate, experienced, and conservative than Romney will ever be, and as such, Romney’s progressive self ego will never allow someone to overshadow him. He is not that smart, humble, enlightened, and intelligent..

    I foresee Romney probably picking someone like Christie, a sidekick to do his bidding, and not someone who would over shadow him in the important area’s that matter, which he lacks, like Sec of State Rice does.

  • MLCBLOG

    BUT WHO IS SHE? This seems like a token black pick. Awful.

  • MLCBLOG

    Keyes doesn’t translate. Far too intellectual. Loses people in the discussions. They nod off, whereas Allen West keeps people’s attention while he gets his great points across. He articulates circles around Mr. Keyes.

    This was a response to somebody.

  • http://twitter.com/cookingstormm JaeDee L.

    She might very well be the VP. There is a prophecy that says that there will be a woman in the White House. That’s it. It doesn’t say who, when, or the exact position, as God often likes to keep us in the dark. I think most people think it would be Sarah Palin, but it could very well be Condi Rice as the VP. Who knows! We shall see how things will unfold.

  • TheRedWriter

    If he’s looking at Condi, it’s because he’s trying to play their game of winning over voters based on race or gender. It’s possible the campaign is still worried about that “war on women” crap along with all the race baiting. If a black woman is your vp, you kill two birds with one stone.