GOP VP?

[SubGod22]

Would Ryan accept it? He seems to be the favorite according to this.

Rubio has said he's not interested. Would he change his mind if asked?

I've seen Santorum mentioned before. I could see that possibly working as he does have a decent conservative following.

Christie is often mentioned by people, but I don't see it happening. Would love to see that VP debate with Biden though.

Those seem to be the four I've seen the most. The article mentiones that Nikki Haley would decline. Jindal is mentioned as well and has been someone who we haven't heard much from lately. Also mentioned are John Thune, Tim Pawlenty and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Ryan would be a personal favorite and probably packs the most punch. He knows his stuff and is one of the few who will talk about certain aspects of the budget in detail. A very strong candidate who Obama is already attacking. Not effectively, but attacking none the less.

Rubio is solid and a definite up and comer in the GOP. Would help pull the Hispanic vote as well as Florida.

Christie isn't going to happen, but he'd be a lot of fun. He'll tell you how it is.

Santorum is interesting. He's obviously the closest to Romney in the polling and has a pretty strong following. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Newt backed out a long time ago. I still think Romney would win, but Santorum would have been closer.

The others named I haven't heard as much about.

[wu_shizzle]

Rand Paul has said he would be honored if asked. Ron Paul does seem to go easy on Romney for some reason.

[SubGod22]

That's a name I haven't heard anyone mention. I do believe Romney has struggled in the South during the primaries, so having a Southerner as VP could help. In that case though, I think Rubio would be the prime target.

[60Shock]

I don't believe that Rubio and his backers have ever seriously considered the VP position from the start. Believe their strategy is to wait out this year's election and gear up for 2016 or 2020, if Romney wins. Of course, 2016 could always be a consideration for Rubio either way. Just depends on Romney's popularity in 2016 if he manages to beat out Obama this year.

We still are far from being out of this repression/depression and who knows what the situation is going to be in four years.

The winner of this year's election may be facting one of the worst possible financial situations any US President has ever found themselves in. Major Government programs are likely going to have to be cut and taxes increased. Two recipes for disaster in the polls, and re-election if you are Romney.

[Wu du Nord]

Rubio is out with a torn ACL.

The winner of this year's election may be facting one of the worst possible financial situations any US President has ever found themselves in.

You mean since 2008?

[pinstripers]

I think he means, EVER.

[Kung Wu]

I don't believe Rubio qualifies to be Veep. The qualification is clear: Both parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth, and his parents weren't granted citizenship until several years after his birth.

[pinstripers]

Obama-like?

[Kung Wu]

Yes, the exact same problem Obama has in fact. Ignoring the fact that Obama is illegally holding office doesn't make it okay for Rubio or anyone else in my opinion.

[SB Shock]

I don't believe Rubio qualifies to be Veep. The qualification is clear: Both parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth, and his parents weren't granted citizenship until several years after his birth.

Rubio was born in the U.S. so he is eligible I believe. The requirement for two parents being U.S. citizens is only required when the child is born abroad.

[60Shock]

Rubio is out with a torn ACL.



You mean since 2008?

No, Pin was right. I did mean EVER.

I don't like gloom and doom forecasts any better than the next guy. But with our national debt continuing to mount and the likelihood that we may have to continually raise the debt at least once, if not twice a twice a year, for who knows how long, there are going to be some very tough and extremely unpopular choices that are going to have to be made.

Obviously, virtually every President has been faced with difficult choices over the years, but unless we really get the financial straights we are in under control in a hurry, we are going to be facing some extremely difficult times ahead. How much longer can we continue to borrow money (or print it) and add to our national debt, which we do not have the slightest chance in hell of paying off?

From what I have seen, neither Obama's or Ryan's proposed budgets even come close to being balanced. We need to be trimming a trillion dollars, or perhaps close to two out of the annual budget and not just the hundreds of billions that they are talking about.

That is just my opinion and I certainly hope I am wrong.

[Wu du Nord]

Regardless of who the president is, I suspect it's unlikely that any 'very tough and extremely unpopular choices' will be made and implemented.

Even tough but popular decisions are having problems getting though the system these days.

Screw austerity. Tell me more about Casey Anthony, missing blonde girls in Aruba, suicidal sexual deviants, hoodies, and birth certificates.

Never mind, did you hear that Sarah Palin was on GMA?

I love clicking on stories about her, and telegraphing to news organizations that this is want interests me, and will get me to look at their advertising!

~~~~ Romney / Palin 2012 ~~~~


SQUIRREL!

[SubGod22]

Santorum has officially suspended his campaign. I'm kind of surprised he didn't wait a little longer. But could this be a step he's taking to become the VP. He can now get behind Romney and see what the public makes of his endorsement...

[DUShock]

Strangely absolutely no mention of Romney in his speech or press releases today. Santy as VP seems a possibility but I suspect Romney will go for someone with more GOP gravitas such as a Rubio or a Christie. Both of whom have endorsed Romney.

[Kung Wu]

Rubio was born in the U.S. so he is eligible I believe. The requirement for two parents being U.S. citizens is only required when the child is born abroad.

I believe that the term "natural-born citizen" is often confused with "citizen", and they are two different things. The former is more specific than the latter. What you are referring to is the qualification to be a "citizen", which has different qualifications than being a "natural-born citizen".

The constitution specifically and intentionally uses the term "natural-born citizen" as a qualification for the Presidency. The question then becomes: "What does the term natural-born citizen mean since it's not defined in the constitution?" The reason it wasn't defined is because it was very well known at the time -- and also well known to be a tighter requirement than simply "citizen". A more official answer can be found in a Supreme Court ruling in 1875, Minor vs Happersett.

I'll cut to the chase in that long document and only dump the pertinent points, but it's an interesting read regarding "citizenship" in general so click in and read up.

It says about "natural-born citizens":

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Therefore, if your parents are citizens and you are born here, you are a "natural-born citizen". Two requirements: Born here and parents that are citizens. Note that the parents do NOT have to be natural-born citizens only citizens, for reasons that are obvious yet this is still important.

Next it says about "natural-born citizens":

... the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

Which reaffirms that both parents must be citizens for a child to be considered a "natural-born citizen".

The reason the framers specifically chose "natural-born citizen" and not "citizen" as a qualification is because they feared that an extremely wealthy foreigner could come here one day while still having allegiances to his country of citizenship, have a child that would automatically be a U.S. citizen by birth right (but NOT a natural-born citizen), and that child could become President while inheriting his father's foreign allegiance. They specifically wanted to guard against that.

If you use Obama as an example, there is no doubt what-so-ever that he is a US citizen. That's never been in dispute -- well it actually may be by birthers but that's a distraction. He is not, however, a natural-born citizen as his own birth certificate plays that out. The same holds for Rubio. Citizen by birth right, but not a natural-born citizen.