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.
From RCP:
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?
Permalink Reply by anne mourning on sorry but is this the tea party page? Romney is everything we are not. Santorum distanced himslf from the tea party. The only one that stood tall with the tea party was Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and yet everyone just forgot about Newt and his courage to back the Tea Party. What happened to the fight. Romney are you kidding? Where is the Tea party today all scattered around not uniform choosing candidates that dont stand by the tea party rules. I am really sick of the Romney and Santurom support look at their records!!! My gosh stand up and fight for our rights and stop talking about Romney its unthinkable. He only wins if you let him. There are 21 states left and delegates are not bound yet and you are talking about Romneys VP who cares. I thought this was a party of princiiples and high taxes and morals. You have let me down.
When are you people going to realize the Rubio is not eligible to be the VP. He is NOT, I repeat NOT a natural born citizen. We already have an ineligible in the oval office. So all of you want to make the natural born rule ineffective by nominating someone who doesn't meet the qualifications? Let's give in to the dhimmicrats and tell them the constitution doesn't mean anything to us either. You know the establishment wants to help their friends hold on to the feeding trough, don't you?
Ron
Permalink Reply by anne mourning on OMG Ron the conversation has been going on all day. Romney will probably pick another Morman to run with him. no offense to Mormans. It doesnt matter who picks he cant win half the country knows hes a liberal in sheeps clothing
Permalink Reply by anne mourning on Its so good to know that we get to choose the lesser of the two evils. wow that makes me feel American. If Romney loses in the general because lamebrains voted for him, I would say I would laugh, but its pretty serious.
Permalink Reply by Twila Fern Le Page on Yes he does. And I vote for Rubio. The Republican party has to connect with the Hispanics as they are a large block now. And to do so a Latino, preferably fairly conservative would be best. He needs that to offset his more moderate stance. Actually Latino values more closely resemble Republicans, as they are family oriented and mostly Catholics or evangelical Christians,but they have been fed a bill of goods by the Demos who actually only care about their vote and nothing else.
Permalink Reply by Wordwaryor on Marco Rubio is not eligible. And I really LIKE Rubio and his politics. However, the Constitution is the Constitution. The founders sought to insure NO foreign influence or the possibility of it upon any President. Therefore they changed the original draft wording of the eligibility requirement from "citizen" to the more restrictive "natural born citizen".
The word "natural" here is the ultimate important modifier and requirement. A "natural" born citizen becomes a citizen "naturally" due to the citizenship of its parents. The "naturalization" of a child born to two citizen parents is unequivocal and immediate, even regardless of place of birth.
Furthermore, the "Exclusion" statement in Article 2 Section 1, clarifies their intent lucidly. "Except for citizens alive at the signing of the Constitution ........ NO person except a natural born citizen .... (can be President) ! This effectively EXCLUDES persons who are mere citizens ( ie. naturalized or 14th Amendment citizens) because they are NOT "natural born citizens" ....... ie their parents were not citizens.
The founders were thinking of their future progeny ..... who would be children born to citizen parents. And they understood natural born citizen to be a child born a citizen according to natural law or the "nature" of its birth......acquiring the citizenship of its parents.
And the 14th Amendment's portion related to citizenship was expressly written to patriate the slaves, via "naturalization". Hence the words "all persons born or naturalized ...... shall be citizens .... etc" Why ? and why did it not declare them "natural born citizens' ?
The reason was ...... all the slaves before the 14th Amendment were NOT citizens of the USA. This means that the parents of the living slaves were NOT citizens of the USA..... therefore, their children as living slaves could NOT be declared to be "natural born citizens".
Senator John A. Bingham who helped write the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states clearly on the floor of Congress that " ..... all persons born of parents owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty are in the language of your Constitution itself .... natural born citizens." Note that he knew the difference and distinction of a natural born citizen ...... parents owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty would be by definition "citizens" of the USA.
No one can be DECLARED a natural born citizen , nor can anyone become one by law. You either ARE a natural born citizen via citizenship of your parents when you are born ..... or you are NOT an NBC, and can NEVER become one.
Thus, No matter how hard we wish or try ..... Marco Rubio can NOT become a natural born citizen..... when his birth to two non-citizen parents deny him that status.
Permalink Reply by Wordwaryor on Also we must remember that even in the time of the Founders writing the new Constitution of the USA ..... there were still English sympathizers afoot in America ......... We even had to fight the 2nd War of Independence not many years after the writng of the Constitution, ..... the War of 1812.
The Founders sought to prevent children of English (non USA) citizens ( or any other country) from EVER becoming President.
And to the Founders, a child born on U.S. soil to foreign citizen parents ..... was a foreign child, or would have the potential of strong influence of foreign parents upon him. And such a child, in their well known terminology, was NOT a natural born citizen.
If, as the Founders intended, a child born in the USA to foreign citizen parents ...... was NOT a natural born citizen ..... he / she could never be President.
That is precisely WHY they used the restrictive term .... "natural born" ... meaning citizenship acquired naturally through the citizenship of parents who were already citizens of the USA.
If born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or to one foreign parent and one native U.S citizen parent ...... the child would be a "citizen" of the USA via the 14th Amendment or USC 1401........ but according to the Constitution a "citizen" cannot be President .... only a "natural born" citizen can.
Sorry for Rubio .... and those of us who like him. But WE should NOT trash the Constitution, even if the Democrats HAVE already done so.
First of all, we need to come to grips with the issue of "Natural Born Citizen." Rubio is that. There remain questions that Obama was not actually born on American soil. That's a completely different argument. But Rubio was and, in my opinion, that ends it!
The second factor rests with Romney's electability. Currently it's looking like a loss. Howard Dean bragged yesterday that the "Democrats will retain Virginia, Florida and Ohio." A sweep would be a longshot. If Rubio is on the ticket, Florida will be off the board for Dems. But the greater question comes with "can we convince Romney to withdraw?" Odds are, we can't! Still, with the right kind of persuasion, especially if opposition stooped to the level that he has in negative advertising, you never know! I honestly would be more comfortable with ANY Republican other than Romney as nominee. This includes Ron Paul!
Romney is the perfect opponent for Obama's "class warfare" campaign strategy. There is too much anger and resentment for a candidate to visibly flaunt his wealth as Romney does! The fact that he is a religious minority doesn't help. In fact, by nominating Mitt Romney, Republicans will forfeit hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of Evangelical votes. True, they should get out and vote "anybody but Obama" but they won't! My biggest single concern is that Romney's biggest backers are also contributing to the Obama campaign. They are truly playing the rest of us for "chumps."
Permalink Reply by James R. Norris on Ok, now I finally figured it out. Hispanics vote for hispanics because they are hispanic , negros vote for negros because they are negros , and caucasians vote for mongolians, negros, jews, hispanics, ex-cons, idiots, or lawyers to prove that they are not prejudice against any race or ethnic group. Of course Romney needs a hispanic running mate. If none are appealing, there is always West (speak now and vote the other way later) or Cain (no need to audit the honorable Feds) who meet the qualification of proof of tolerance. I like Zimmerman. He meets the qualification if we can get him to switch partys.
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on James:
Dats right brother....ain't we smart ?
Ron
Permalink Reply by thomas conn on Here we all are, worring about which idoit to vote for and all the while obummer and his band of socialists idoits pass laws that are directly forbidden by the Constitution..................and no one does jack squat???????????????
Are all you people out there dumb or just plain stupid. ALL OF WASHINGTON (ALL THREE BRANCHES) NEED TO BE FIRED, IMPEACHED, AND IMPRISONED FOR TREASON. And all we conservatives can talk about is how stuoid Romney (RINOmney) and the rest are...........GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK.
READ BELOW:
Congress is now passing LAWS in direct violation of our Constitution.HB 347 passed overwhelmingly by both parties and signed into law gives Secret Service the ability to establish "no free speech" zones and insulates our officials from public protest. The penalty is over 1 year in federal prison. Please watch the video. Hey folks, this works for either party - But Obama signed it.... (in secret)WATCH VIDEOPass this on. It must be challenged in the Supreme Court!By the way, it was over whelmingly supported by both Dems and Repubs???????Be careful what and where you say anything in this country now
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on Thomas:
THANKS FOR THE HUMOR THIS MORNING......DO WE SUPPORT "THE BLACK DUNCE OR THE WHITE DUNCE"?? BOTH ARE "ELIETIST" THAT ARE ARROGANT CONTROL FREAKS AND BELIEVE THEY ARE GOD'S BLESSING TO WOMEN.....AND MEN ALIKE (OR ILIKE) !
Semper Fi,
Ron
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
