Possible VP choice

[qui_est_ce]

I think Rubio might be a better choice than Santorum because if Santorum is chosen as the VP the MSM would go crazy for his comments about birth control and that could scare independents whereas Rubio it would be harder, though not impossible.

I could be wrong!

I agree. I would like to see Santorum. It would be good experience for him. But his comments will be totally taken out of context. His run was a good thing for Americans, especially Catholics. It woke up the nation’s religious. We had talks about bringing one’s faith into the public square. I’m not sure independents are ready for such an overtly religious transformation yet.

I like Paul Ryan. He’s smart and he can get to the point. I’d love to see a debate between the Catholic Ryan and the Catholic Biden.

No matter who Romney picks, they’re going to be smeared.

This morning on NPR they repeated the MSM talking point that the “American Bishops” spoke to the morality of the Ryan budget. To be fair, they brought up the issue of subsidiarity. I think most Americans don’t know what subsidiarity is.

With Ryan running as VP, we have a chance to have a real conversation about what government should be doing vs what it is doing and failing at. It will address the “conservatives are mean and greedy” (And they step on kitten tails).

 

[ndalum]

I’ve always wondered what is the big deal? VP has zero powers, no duties other than breaking a tie in the senate…is it based on who will campaign the best?

Often the VP choice is the front-runner for the next selection process, especially if he or she is young.

 

[ndalum]

A good speech by Rubio:

youtube.com/watch?v=9Hb31bEa0mg

 

[KateKimmer]

I was under the impression that Geo. Pataki was pro-life, but i could be wrong.

no, he was definitely pro choice. I also believe he supported gay marriage.

 

[RACJ]

Love Santorum, but Rubio’s the one who can wrest the most votes from the Arrogant One. It’s a no-brainer. Rob

 

[HailStarofSea]

Love Santorum, but Rubio’s the one who can wrest the most votes from the Arrogant One. It’s a no-brainer. Rob

Not sure who would vote for Romney because of Rubio. All polls show that Romney becomes less popular with Rubio as VP, not more popular.

Romney should focus #1 on the economy. Catholics may vote for him because he is pro-life enough, which is appropriate. However, the swing voters who will vote for him will be swayed if they realize that the economy has not recovered and our economy will collapse without necessary reforms. We need someone who will work with the Catholic hierarchy to cut the deficit. There are many ways to cut the deficit, some better than others. Surely, some sort of shared sacrifice can exist without tax increases. There are agribusiness subsidies, wage freezes, etc.

Picking someone who is strong on the deficit would further distinguish Romney and Obama on issues of the economy. We see that the more voters focus on the economy, the more they favor Romney. The more the focus on social issues, the more they favor Obama. Choosing as a VP someone who bolsters Romney’s economic argument should increase the intensity of this gap. Then hammering Obama on the economy, i.e. diverting the topic of the conversation to Greece and asking if we want to be Greece in a few years, should increase the number of people who are focusing on the economy over the number who are focusing on social issues.

Seriously considering Tim Pawlenty (or any others that haven’t come to the national spotlight yet but are very good on the deficit).

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty was elected in 2002 on a platform of balancing the state’s budget without raising taxes. He emphasized his campaign and first term with the Taxpayers League of Minnesota slogan “no new taxes.”[30] His governorship was characterized by a historically low rate of spending growth. According to the Minnesota Management and Budget Department, general-fund expenditures from 2004 to 2011 increased an average of 3.5 percent per two-year term, compared to an average of 21.1 percent from 1960 to 2003 (these numbers, however, are not inflation-adjusted).[31][32][33] University of Minnesota political science professor Larry Jacobs said that slowing down state spending and opposing tax increases were the “signature issue” of Pawlenty’s governorship.[34]

In his first year as governor, Pawlenty inherited a projected two-year budget deficit of $4.3 billion, the largest in Minnesota’s history.[35] After a contentious budget session with a Democrat-controlled Senate, he signed a package of fee increases, spending reductions, and government reorganization which eliminated the deficit. The budget reduced the rate of funding increases for state services, including transportation, social services, and welfare. It also enacted a perennial proposal to restructure city aid based on immediate need, rather than historical factors. In negotiations the governor agreed to several compromises, abandoning a desired public employee wage freeze and property tax restrictions.[35]

During his second term, Pawlenty erased a $2.7 billion deficit by cutting spending, shifting payments, and using one-time federal stimulus money[36] His final budget (2010–2011) was the state’s first two-year period since 1960 in which net government expenditures decreased. Pawlenty has claimed this as “the first time in 150 years” that spending has been cut, but fact-checkers have disputed this claim as no public budget records prior to 1960 are known to exist.[33][37]

Pawlenty has been criticized by some for providing a short-term budget solution but coming up short in his long-term strategy as Governor. The state department of Management and Budget reports that the two-year budget starting in July 2011 is projected to come up $4.4 billion short.[36] Former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson, a Republican, criticized Pawlenty’s budget strategy: he borrowed more than $1 billion from the tobacco settlement (money set aside for heath care), borrowed more than $1.4 billion from K-12 education funding, borrowed more than $400 [million][38] from the Health Care Access Fund for low-income families, among other short-term shifts in accounting. The result was a $5 billion deficit, the seventh largest in the United States.[39] Minnesota property taxes rose $2.5 billion, more than the previous 16 years combined, and Moody’s lowered the state’s bond rating.[40] Carlson told Time, “I don’t think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than he [Pawlenty] has.” Pawlenty responded “My friend governor Arne Carlson is, of course, now an Obama and John Kerry supporter”.[41]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty

Rubio is not a strong candidate for work on the deficit, having recently faced foreclosure on his Tallahassee home, being investigated by the IRS for credit card problems, not paying student loans and his mortgage, and using the GOP credit card inappropriately. Choosing him will focus on the GOP’s diversity problem and strongly weaken Romney’s economic argument so Romney’s win becomes a huge gamble. McCain gambled with Sarah Palin when he might have actually won if he had been more knowledgeable on the economy, not saying that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” before Lehmann Brothers crashed. The certainly aren’t!

 

[7_Sorrows]

i keep hearing rubio might have elligibility problems.

 

[oldcelt]

i keep hearing rubio might have elligibility problems.

What’s the old expression, be careful what you wish for…you just might get it. I’m certain that the senator can prove is eligibility to the satisfaction of the left.

Good luck,

John

---

 

[_Abyssinia]

i keep hearing rubio might have elligibility problems.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...eligible-to-be-mitt-romney-vp/latest_articles

How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.

For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of 35 with 14 years of residence can be President of the United States.

…

Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!

The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.

The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was 14 years old.

John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.

 

[_Abyssinia]

i keep hearing rubio might have elligibility problems.

Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, and Eligible to Be Mitt Romney VP

How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.

For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of 35 with 14 years of residence can be President of the United States.

…

Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!

The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.

The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was 14 years old.

John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, and Eligible to Be Mitt Romney VP

How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.

For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of 35 with 14 years of residence can be President of the United States.

…

Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!

The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.

The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was 14 years old.

John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.

thanks for clarifying that. i like mark rubio a lot. i think he would be a great VP. i know the left don’t want to engage in rumors about the eligibility of obama, but they don’t seem to have a problem with the eligibility of republicans like john mccain. so i didn’t know if he was worried about the left making any issue of eligibility for him. i know he is an up and coming bright light in the republican party. does anyone know when they generally announce the VP pick?

 

[CaptFun]

I think there are a few too many sour grapes from the campaign for Santorum to make the list. It was painful to watch him the other night when Piers Morgan was trying to figure out whether he was endorsing Romney or not…it was pretty obvious there is some serious baggage there (who can blame him?) and to think of him going out in public to be Romney’s cheerleader might almost seem like a betrayal to the social conservatives he wanted to represent.

I’m not particularly fascinated with any of the potential VP picks. Romney is Romney and I don’t see how picking a conservative VP candidate will change anything about him or his style of governance, if elected.

Actually I take that back…I’d stand up and take notice if Romney picked Ron Paul as his running mate, or took a public vow to put him in charge of the Fed.

Santorum did run hard against Romney. His main attacks were on Romneycare which he said would rob the GOP of a perceived advantage in the “Health Care” issue.

But for that reason Romney’s “convincing a tough critic to support him” makes Santorum viable. Rick could be the ticket’s “attack dog” on that - while Romney approves, regaining him those votes.

Santorum rightly should defer at this time. He only recently was running as the “non-Mitt” and there are still candidates running. Santorum coming out for Mitt now adds little.
The still to be held primaries, as they are held, should put Romney over the needed votes.
If somehow they DIDN’T - in Gingrich or Paul upsets(!?!) - Santorum would look prudent for awaiting “the will of the people”.

Once Romney reaches the total (or dramatically at the Republican Convention) Santorum
will almost certainly endorse Romney, do the unity photo op, and help the ticket.

There are other good VP choices of course. But I think if it was offered, Rick would take it.