There goes my exploratory committee

Curse you and your English origins, father!  If you’d been born in the United States like all right-thinking people, I might still have a shot at the presidency.

Via Andrew Sullivan, I bring you the latest updates from the right-wing cannibalism beat:

Are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?

It’s a simple question, but the answer may not be so easy.

While the Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen,” there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.

The next national election is less than 18 months away, and both rising Republican stars have been touted as potential contenders for either the No. 1 or No. 2 spot on a presidential ticket.

But their eligibility is in doubt since both men’s parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their future political children were born, WND can reveal. That factor is important because the Constitution mandates a presidential candidate to be a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement that has dogged President Barack Obama since the 2008 campaign.

Also, both Jindal and Rubio have a wee bit more melanin in their skin than the Founding Fathers.  But I’m sure that has nothing (nothing!) to do with any Birther resistance to their potential campaigns.

All of this is a shame, really.  Were it not for my father’s benighted country of origin, I could have had a shot with the hair-splitting, xenophobic, nativistic constitutional originalist crowd.  Doubtless they’ve been clamoring for a sarcastic homosexual who routinely prescribes contraception to adolescents, and I could have been that guy.

Russell Saunders

Russell Saunders is the ridiculously flimsy pseudonym of a pediatrician in New England. He has a husband, three sons, daughter, cat and dog, though not in that order. He enjoys reading, running and cooking. He can be contacted at blindeddoc using his Gmail account. Twitter types can follow him @russellsaunder1.


  1. I always wonder how much of the birther thing is false-flag operation. After all, it’s very convenient when you can respond to accusations of poor performance with “BIRTHERS LOL”.

    • From Russell’s link, the fakers have infiltrated WorldNutDaily.

  2. Don’t give up yet. If things stay on the vector they’re on, whomever is president after Obama is likely to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    The election will therefore be a two-fer.

    • If things stay on the vector they’re on, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to whomever kicks the most prominent member of the Bush administration in the shins. (Y’know… in an appropriately peaceful manner.) Similarly, the Nobel Prize in Literature is most likely going to go to the most aggressively obscure and un-read writer on the planet, preferably one who writes in a language utterly divorced from English. (My guess for this year? Lao.)

      • I’m missing something. Of the past ten prizes in Literature, four have gone to writers of English, two German, and one each of French and Spanish, nor would I call Naipul, Pinter, Lessing , Coetzee, or Vargas Llosa obscure.

        Also, if someone managed to put Cheney and Yoo in prison for conspiracy to institute a system of torture, he’d be a first-rate Peace prize recipient.

        • Well, fine. If you want to get technical about it. I swear, if a man can’t forth about his vague impressions without recourse to tedious, contradictory facts, what good is his own personal blog, I ask ya?

          As for the Peace Prize, I am no fan of Yoo, Addington, etc. War criminals, the lot of them. And I would genuinely salute someone who called them to actual account for what they did. That said, the Peace Prize has of late gone to a couple of people whose primary reason for receiving it seemed to be that their wins would deeply annoy the most recent past POTUS. (For what it’s worth, I think Obama would have preferred NOT to have won when he did, but I don’t think he had much choice.)

          • I thought you had a particular writer in mind, but couldn’t figure out who. And about the other, no real disagreement here.

          • For what it’s worth, I think Obama would have preferred NOT to have won when he did, but I don’t think he had much choice.

            Do you think he would have preferred to win it after he started bombing Libya?

          • After Henry Kissinger, it just stopped mattering.

  3. After Henry Kissinger, it just stopped mattering.


    And I did have a couple of writers in mind, but there were more diffusely dispersed than I recalled, and thus attributing their wins to any kind of recent vector was a wee bit inaccurate.

Comments are closed.