Posted on 01/03/2012 8:14:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Since my New Year’s prediction that Obama would select Hillary Clinton for his running mate in 2012 (and Joe Biden would become Secretary of State), I’ve been swamped by requests for my GOP prediction. Here goes.
You can forget the caucuses and early primaries. Mitt Romney will be the nominee. Republicans may be stupid but the GOP isn’t about to commit suicide. The other candidates are all weighed down by enough baggage to keep a 747 on the tarmac indefinitely.
For his running mate, Romney will choose Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida. Why do I say this?
First, Romney will need a right-winger to calm and woo the Republican right. Tea Partiers are attracted to Rubio – an evangelical Christian committed to reducing taxes and shrinking government. Rubio’s meteoric rise in the Florida House before coming to Congress was based on a string of conservative stances on state issues.
Rubio is also a proven campaigner, handily winning four House elections starting in 2002, and then beating popular incumbent Republican governor Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary — with the help of Tea Partiers.
Moreover, he’s only 40, thereby giving the GOP ticket some youthful vigor.
And he’s Hispanic – a Cuban-American – at a time when the GOP needs to court the Hispanic vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Flap doodle. ????? Meaning what? you agree it was a pile of _____ or did you mean my comment was a pile of ____.
Being concise in ones comments is laudable however in this instance it was over done.
That’s great- a pandering extablishment RINO trying to shore up ‘the mexican’ vote
Great...
(nothing against Rubio - i just don’t see all the fawning over him)
Stand up, Robert! Oh, you already are ...
Weren’t his parents born elswhere? (not citizens at the time of his birth - exact same situation as Obama, if Obama had not been born in Kenya)
There is no law and there has never been any judicial decision that speaks to anyone’s parents as a qualifier or dis-qualifier for any public office.
Based upon my research on this issue, it does NOT matter.
Eric you are so wrong, please do some research before further em-bare-ass-ing your self.
Apparently there are some people on FR who believe otherwise, despite there being no law or judicial decision which disqualifies a person born in the U.S. or any U.S. territory from being POTUS. Research into this is really not rocket science. But, some people are apparently too lazy.
With due respect, the research is needed to be done by yourself. Eric is correct.
The ONLY issue with respect to Obama that might have any merit is whether he was actually born in Hawaii, or if he was born in Kenya as some claim. If Obama was born in Hawaii (which has not been established to the satisfaction of many Conservatives), then he would be eligible to be POTUS, period. The fact that one of his parents was a British citizen bears no weight on eligibility, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.
Rubio is a bright attractive mediagenic youthful politician, just like Sarah Palin and Dan Quyale. In short the media will kill him for it. The GOP nominees for vice President and Prez must project gravitas. Youthful and attarctive candidates are something the Dems nominate with success.
The thinking of the Founders was profoundly influenced by 18th-century Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, who believed that any given society can only exist and “perpetuate itself” through the efforts of “natural-born citizens,” which he defined as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Vattel emphasized that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country.”
OK, your turn.
Uhh...not to defend Obama, but his mother was born in Kansas. Accuracy is a good thing.
I have done considerable research on this.
Why are we discussing this. Rubio is just a kid.give him a few years..
§ 212. Of the citizens and naturals.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This is the definition in the Constitution.
thanks for posting this. I first came across this term and definition whilst reviewing materials supplied by the I.N.S. for my US citizenship exam. I noted that unfortunately neither of my children were qualified to be President.
He could indeed, provided he'd been living here for the previous 14 years. You can't think of everything when you write a constitution. Sometimes you just have to depend on the voters' intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.