That is, assuming he gets the nomination, which is looking increasingly likely. No surprise for me, as I have often told Judson it is almost always the person with the most money winning the election.
They simply have more paid professional staff, better ability to organize and of course, advertising. For the lay person who does not follow politics every day and only knows what they see on a commercial while they watch Dancing With The Stars, they are more likely to see a Romney commercial than anyone else.
Even Newt said it is pretty likely Romney will get the delegates he needs to win the nomination. And trust me, that thought has not been taken well in this household.
However, if Romney wins the nomination, there is more and more speculation about who he would choose to be his Vice Presidential running mate.
Real Clear Politics has an article saying Romney needs a Latino and they go on to speculate who that Latino might be.
This year may be an exception, however, as some Republicans are whispering in Romney’s ear. What Democrats call “the Republican war on women” is mostly hype, but there is a constituency that the GOP primary season has given short shrift to -- and that constituency is Latinos.
Although it’s axiomatic that Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic group in this country, there is, of course, no bloc Latino vote anymore than Hispanics themselves are monolithic. But loose talk about building moats (stocked with alligators, no less) along the nation’s southern border, enforcing laws designed for ethnic profiling, and “self-deportation” -- this last (inane) formulation is Romney’s own -- has created a crying need for the Republican nominee to send a signal to 40 million Americans that they are not going to be marginalized by the Party of Lincoln.
But this need is also an opportunity for Mitt Romney: He can be the first nominee of a major political party to choose a Hispanic running mate.
So then the question becomes: Who should it be?
Four qualified candidates are apparently under some kind of consideration -- or, if not, should be. They are three governors and one U.S. senator: Govs. Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico, Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Susana Martinez of New Mexico. The senator is Marco Rubio of Florida.
Other than Sen. Rubio, I don't know that much about the others mentioned. Are they conservative? Are they moderate? Or, like Romney, are they a liberal Republican?
Does he really need a Latino running mate?
Instead of wasting time writing about what a great VP Rubio would make, do you suppose you or someone from Tea Party Nation could investigate whether or not he is even eligible to run?!? I have asked this question on similar websites MANY times - have even written my Representative for clarification - and STILL have not gotten an answer. This is very important! Imagine what a field day the dems would have with it. Could deliberately ignoring the question of Rubio's eligibility be a way of shutting up those pesky "birthers" who want hussein removed from office because he is an illegal president?
It has been investigated. His eligibility is questionable at best, experts believing only a congressional or supreme court ruling would clear him. Some say why worry since dimocrats have no objection to stand on given Obama's obvious ineligibility (not born of 2 citizen parents (father)). Principled Americans care, that is, those of us who respect our Constitution. Marco Rubio was born in the US, BUT, before his parents became US citizens. PERIOD.
Judson and I don't even agree on whether or not he's eligible. Judson says it's questionable and I say he is. I think it depends on your personal interpretation of what "Natural Born Citizen" means within the context of the Constitution.
I take it to mean someone who was legally born here; however, some believe it means you must be legally born here to two parents who are legal citizens who were born here.
IF OUR "SUPREME COURT" CANNOT DEFINE "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".....WE NEED TO FIRE THEM AND GET SOME GOOD CONSTITUIONAL LAWYERS THAT "OPINE BY THE FULL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BY THE POLTICAL PARTY THAT INSTALLED THEM ".
THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN GOOGLED MANY TIMES AND THEIR IS "FOUNDATION FOR WHERE THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TERM CAME AND THE DEFINITION".
ONE GOOD QUESTION IS WHY DID THE FOUNDERS, BORN IN THIS COUNTRY, HAVE TO "EXEMPT THEMSELVES FROM THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT...IF THEY HAD SATISFIED THE "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" REQUIREMENT BY BEING BORN IN THIS COUNTRY?
Answer: Because at that time, there were still a majority of people whose parents were born in some other country since we were not a 'country' yet.
Just when do you think we became a "country?" Where is the data showing most people's parents were born somewhere else?
Well Sherry, the constitution and prime source documents pertinent to this make it clear a higher threshold was created for the presidency to protect against foreign mischief. According to all those source documents Marco Rubio is NOT eligible. I am surprised and disappointed you and Judson can't understand this.
A natural born citizen is a person who is born in the US from 2 US citizens or is born in to 2 US naturalized (people who have sworn allegiance to the US) citizens. Our forefathers knew the dangers involved when giving the highest office of the land to someone who had dual citizenship. That is why O is not eligible. His father was a British citizen. And even though his mother was a US citizen, at 18 could not confer her citizenship to O, nor was his father ever naturalized. In fact, he was a foreign student & was asked to leave the US when he overstayed his visa. O is a dual citizen, and is not eligible to be president.
If you believe the suject is up to "personal interpretation," I hope you better educate yourself on the subject. There is no interpretation - you are either a natural born US citizen (I am. My family has been in the US since the 1700's) or not (I don't have a father born in Eqypt and an American mother; nor do i have 2 parents born in another country).
This quote is from the following link:
"Vattel, in his masterpiece legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature, in Book I, Chapter XIX, analyzed citizenship and related topics. The Founders knew that Vattel defined a "citizen" simply as any member of society. They also knew from reading Vattel that a "natural born Citizen" had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation). That is the definition of a "natural born Citizen," as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military."
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY "CLEANED ALL THIS UP...LONGTIME AGO" ! SEEMS THAT "THEY ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED (IN THE PROPER MANNER OF ASKING)" !
THEY DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION, BECAUSE BY DOING SO, THEY CAN CONTINUE TO "PROCEED TO DO AS THEY WISH".
THIS IS THE METHOD OF "THE LEFT" AND SORRY TO SAY ALSO OF "THE RIGHT".
TO CHANGE "THE LAW" WITHOUT "DUE PROCESS" ALL ONE MUST DO IS NOT "ABIDE BY THE LAW " AND "NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION....OF WHY".
THIS IS "EXACTLY" WHY "WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" ! NO ONE WILL SAY..."WE ARE NOT ABIDING BY THE CONSTITUTION", THEREFORE "OUR ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT BY-LAW".
THERE IS A "METHOD TO THIS MADNESS" AND THE "FRATERNITY" IN WASHINGTON, DeCeipt of 545 , INCORPORATED ARE "PROFESSIONALS AT CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTTUTIONAL "REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT".
Rubio is NOT eligible.
No, he would not need a Latino running mate. He needs a conservative candidate who visibly honors the US Constitution.