Inside scoop.... Marco Rubio will be VP choice

reply to post by FlyersFan


Paul Ryan would be an interesting choice, but he would not do well with the aging population.

The whole killing medicare and medicaid is bound to come back up during the general election if the Dems are smart.

They would hammer him on his budget policies and I don't think Romney wants to be compared to that just yet.

~Tenth

The party was over when Dr Paul died.....There is nobody else......
These arguments are becomming moot simply because it like talking about if Lockheed martin wins or if Boeing wins....the corporate shills these guys are will simply turn to enriching themselves and their cronies at our expense.....
O freakin Bama is no better.....The Dems have stuck their hands deeply into the cookie jar as well.....
If you ask me, id say Americans have NO choice but to revolt......peacefully or the other way, whatever works.....
Maybe the people could upset the applecart by having one of those "Coloured movements...." Like the orange revolution of the magenta movement.....
Kidding aside, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and get these bloated weasels out.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Hey ya' tothetenthpower.

I didn't say he'd do well. I just said that I think he's in the running. I think those are the top four - from what has been out in the internet. Romney himself said that Chris Christie is 'on everyone's short list'. Rubio brings in Florida and a good chunk of hispanic vote. Jindal has a very good resume and is obviously a 'republican team player' (his early endorsement of Rick Perry proves that).

All were born on US soil and have authentic records stating such so there is no issue with place of birth.

All have their school records and other 'personal' info in the open. No strange spring break trips to Pakistan during a war and when the US Gov't said 'no trips'. Nothing like that. No problem there.

All four have very good resumes. More full than Obama when he ran for POTUS.

All four are Catholic which will turn off the WASP bigots in the south but not as much as Obama turns them off.

Of course the internet chatter could be all wrong ... but those four do seem to be the 'biggies' for Romney.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

There is probably a lot of jockeying going on with factions within the Republican party.
Everyone wants their favorite guy to be named VP.
So they 'leak' info saying their guy is the front runner.

My guess - it'll be Christy, Jindal, Rubio, or Paul Ryan.

Yes, we know other sources say it's Jindal now, or Christie, or even Ryan.

But you have it exactly backwards.

They are "leaking" red-herrings so the Dems have to spend time on them. The later they can make it official, the more resources the Dems must use preparing for other contingencies. According to the person I talked with at length, it was already decided in early March that Rubio is their choice. This is not a "faction' of the campaign jockeying for position.

The same source gave told me Palin was going to be the VP candidate in 2008 before anybody ever heard of Palin. He said they learned their lesson in 2008, and their #1 criteria this time around is "no SNL" material. Seriously. Otherwise they would have picked Christie.

They are going to bait the Dems into attacking, and then use those attacks against them. That's their game plan.

Just FYI I have no horse in this race.

Him and Romney both want war with Iran.

If these bastards get in office I will say farewell because WW3 would be upon us.

I just don't see how Rubio, Christie or Jindal will add anything to the ticket. They all come off to me as robots, with all the talk of enthusiasm I just don't see it with oneof those added to the ticket. In anycase I think Romney will pull out a wild card these elections, it does no good when the media has already predicted who your VP will be, it destroys the element of surprise, and it prepares people to expect too much....

I'm still thinking Rand or Ron Paul. Either that or some other vocal libertarian.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Rubio is the Dan Quail of our time.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


I'm still thinking Rand or Ron Paul. Either that or some other vocal libertarian.

Did Rand and Ron switch parties. I thought they were Republicans.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I've seen you promote the rand or Ron theory before, but it's a pretty weak argument. Ron Paul has spent hsi entire career railing against the policies Romney supports and represents.

It is VERY rare to have a veep which is a complete political opposite of you. It is FAR more established to have a weak, boring veep who will not contradict or overshadow you.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
reply to post by Frankenchrist

 

+1. I'm Spanish American from new Mexico and we hate when ignorant Anglos try to lump us together with mexicans under the "Hispanic" umbrella term.

I hate that term myself, it's a word that really needs to be done away with.

With that said however, I don't hate successful "Hispanics"

Word! I'm with you on this. I myself am a Spanish Jew from NM. I don't hate the successful ones either.

But you know what I'm saying. It's like when the darker complected ones are successful, the other dark ones dog on them and say "oh he's just trying to be a gavacho."

505!

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


I'm still thinking Rand or Ron Paul. Either that or some other vocal libertarian.

Did Rand and Ron switch parties. I thought they were Republicans.

You can be libertarian and a Republican, libertarianism is an ideology, The Republican party is a political party. Are you saying that Ron Paul does not view himself as a Libertarian, politically?

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


LoL get lost bangs mcgee

reply to post by Southern Guardian


He has little-l libertarian ideas. He is not a Big L Libertarian,which is a political party.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


I'm still thinking Rand or Ron Paul. Either that or some other vocal libertarian.

Did Rand and Ron switch parties. I thought they were Republicans.

You can be libertarian and a Republican, libertarianism is an ideology, The Republican party is a political party. Are you saying that Ron Paul does not view himself as a Libertarian, politically?

Actually there is a Libertarian Party

www.lp.org...

That's what I was referring to

I thought you might have "sources" like UltimateSkeptic.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


All those reasons are stellar! But why would Rubio accept it? That is the real question.

Rubio is already immensely popular, and he is already looking ahead to 2016. If he doesn't take the VP slot, he can still participate in the campaign, take leadership roles in the party, and also keep his Tea Party connections and an arm's length relationship with Romney in case Romney flops.

As VP, Rubio loses some of the limelight, and he is tied to Romney's politics. If Romney loses now, or if Romney wins and flops as Prez, then Rubio is tainted.

IMHO, Rubio would be a fool to accept the VP slot. It neuters him and sets him up in a risky relationship. Rubio should hold out for 2016.

Originally posted by olaru12
Actually there is a Libertarian Party

www.lp.org...

I never said there wasn't a Libertarian party.

What you fail to understand is that I was not necessarily talking about a Libertarian party candidate, rather somebody on the ticket who is ideologically libertarian, like Ron Paul or Rand Paul. You do not have to be part of the Libertarian party to be a libertarian, you can be part of the GOP and libertarian, as Ron Paul demonstrates rather clearly.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The distinction which has already been highlighted for you twice is that you used a big L to describe Paul's little l libertarianism. "Libertarian" is a Party. 'libertarianism' is a philosophical concept.

Also, in many ways, Paul is NOT a 'libertarian'. He holds many views that affirm the State's rights to regulate people's actions. True Libertarians and libertarians do no hold such beliefs. He's more of a Constitutionalists.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

 

All those reasons are stellar! But why would Rubio accept it? That is the real question.

Rubio is already immensely popular, and he is already looking ahead to 2016. If he doesn't take the VP slot, he can still participate in the campaign, take leadership roles in the party, and also keep his Tea Party connections and an arm's length relationship with Romney in case Romney flops.

As VP, Rubio loses some of the limelight, and he is tied to Romney's politics. If Romney loses now, or if Romney wins and flops as Prez, then Rubio is tainted.

IMHO, Rubio would be a fool to accept the VP slot. It neuters him and sets him up in a risky relationship. Rubio should hold out for 2016.

I agree Rubio or really anyone else who wants to run for President is going to stay far away from this election. If you think you will be strong candidate down the road you do not attach yourself to a weak one now. He has said multiple times he was not interested in a Pres or VP spot for 2012. Of course he has not mentioned 2016.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The distinction which has already been highlighted for you twice is that you used a big L to describe Paul's little l libertarianism. "Libertarian" is a Party. 'libertarianism' is a philosophical concept.

Your distinction has been highlighted, I'm not fimiliar with your distinction, not everybody will follow by your personal definitions. I was clearly talking about libertarians in the ideological form, not the party form. I also stated libertarian without the capital "L":

I'm still thinking Rand or Ron Paul. Either that or some other vocal libertarian.

You know what I think? I think you're getting uptight at the fact I dare consider Ron Paul as a second to Romney, because this is what the vice presidential position is. Well I'm sorry, we don't all see Ron Paul in the same level as you do.

Also, in many ways, Paul is NOT a 'libertarian'. He holds many views that affirm the State's rights to regulate people's actions. True Libertarians and libertarians do no hold such beliefs. He's more of a Constitutionalists.

And many Ron Paul supporters would disagree with you on that. They see little distinction between libertarianism and constitutionalism.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Well, it doesn't really matter anymore as both Ron and Rand have caved in and are supporting Mitt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So much for conviction to a libertarian ideal...