Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: DougMacG on February 07, 2013, 04:02:59 PM
-
Is Marco Rubio worthy of his own thread? We'll see what the host moderator says.) Marco Antonio Rubio, 'tea party' Republican Senator from Florida has become a leading spokesman for conservative, freedom loving principles. He could be a short lived phenomenon, but he has all the potential to become an important, transformative figure in a very positive way.
He is at the forefront of a number of key issues, most recently taking a controversial stand on immigration, and was chosen to give the Republican response next week to Pres. Obama's State of the Union message.
Time magazine chose him for their current cover story: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/07/immigrant-son/
WSJ columnist Dan Henninger critiques some past State of the Union responses and then says he expects Rubio to hit it out of the park.
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-marco-rubio-state-of-the-union-moment/11406B49-1CC3-4A3E-9C31-82790C90AD55.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_VideoModule_2#!11406B49-1CC3-4A3E-9C31-82790C90AD55
So much for keeping expectations low.
Noteworthy is that after rising to become Florida's Speaker of the House at a relatively young age, Rubio won a major, swing state, Senate race by a million votes. Since then he has been one of the leading, articulate and persuasive voices on conservative principles and how they apply to the issues today.
He declined to run in 2012 because he had barely started in the Senate.
Of Cuban descent, he will deliver the address in both English and Spanish. Some see that as pandering (or un-American?) but I assume the message will be exactly the same to both audiences. We can judge his message by its content soon enough.
-
I think he deserves his own thread.
-
Yup :-D
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-readies-republicans-response-obama_701127.html
Rubio Previews SOTU Response: Says He'll Push Contrast on Policy, Tone
He’ll be broad, upbeat—and preview the coming disaster.
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard (excerpt)
From the earliest days of Marco Rubio’s plucky campaign for the U.S. Senate, his diehard supporters spoke of the day that their man would have an opportunity to challenge Barack Obama – his policies, his vision, his rhetoric. They were certain that Rubio was so gifted an orator and possessed such a unique set of political skills that he would be able to make immediate and improbable leaps that most politicians could not execute. And it was obvious to them – this group the Rubio campaign hands called “three-percenters” because they were there in the days when their candidate was at just 3 percent in an early public poll – that the former Florida house speaker would belong on such an elevated platform.
He’s there now.
Rubio will deliver the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. It’s a difficult assignment – no one is actually on par with the president of the United States and several recent responders have struggled. But it’s one that certifies Rubio as one of the chief spokesmen for the Republican party – and for good reason. He is the best communicator in the GOP at a time when Republicans have struggled notably to sell their message.
In a thirty-minute interview in his Senate office late last week, I reminded Rubio that several of those who preceded him have failed. “Oh, thanks,” he says, laughing. “I haven’t thought about it that way. I guess if you don’t want the ball in your hands with the last thirty seconds in the game, you probably don’t belong in this game anyway.”
Rubio’s plan to “respond” to the president is rather straightforward. (He’s not actually responding to anything, of course, as his remarks are prepared well in advance of the president’s speech.) He will provide a contrast to the president in ways that are both obvious and subtle. Rubio says he intends to draw on his personal experiences growing up in Florida to explain to the country why Obama’s policies won’t work. The president has focused too much of our national discussion demonizing those who have had success, Rubio says, and paid too little attention to those trying to make it. He seeks to shift that emphasis with his remarks tonight – from a politics of class warfare to policies that elevate the middle class.
“The way I envisioned it is, I kind of went back to the people that I know [back] home,” Rubio explains, “whether it’s my friends from high school, or parents that I know from my kids’ school or kids’ teams, and if I had an opportunity to sit in front of them and if they gave me fifteen minutes to explain to them why it was that what the president wants to do is not a good idea and why what we want to do is a better idea – what would I say to them? And that’s how I’ve approached the speech – is to explain why it is that limited government, free enterprise is the best way to give people the opportunity to achieve a middle class lifestyle or more and leave their kids better off than themselves.”
To that end, Rubio will argue that there are costs to big government that may not seem evident in the lives of every day Americans. Among other things, he will focus on the president’s health care reform and the many failed promises that implementation of those policies will mean. It is not true, Rubio says, that those who want to keep their doctors and their insurance plans will be able to do so. And the tax dollars that are collected to fund Obamacare are dollars that will not be spent elsewhere in the economy. The challenges of Obamacare for business – particularly those small businesses with employees near the magic “50 employee” threshold for Obamacare regulations – will be extraordinary. The goal, Rubio says, is to make clear to Americans that Republicans opposed these policies and to preview the coming disaster.
“I wish we could avoid it,” he says. “But if we can’t, we have to at least have the credibility to say: ‘We told you this wouldn’t work; here’s a better alternative.’”
Rubio will also counter Obama’s anticipated proposals on energy, education, the economy, and debt – offering specific contrasts meant to provide a starkly different policy agenda from the one offered by the president. On debt, one of several areas in which Rubio believes the president is a failed leader, he wants to recast the familiar GOP argument. “The goal is growth,” he says, arguing that with pro-growth policies the federal government could generate an additional $4 trillion in revenues over the next decade, “more than any tax hike” under consideration. Rubio also wants to take arguments about debt from the theoretical and the long-term to the immediate and the short-term. “I think we have to link the debt to their lives. People understand that we have this debt and that their kids are going to get saddled with this in the future. And I think that’s a compelling argument. But I think an even more compelling argument, in conjunction with that one, is to explain to people how the debt is hurting them right now.”
“The debt has a direct impact on unemployment. Ever dollar that is being lent to the government is a dollar that is not being invested in our economy,” he says. “The immediate danger of the debt, and the one that speaks to people in the real world, is the fact that the debt is contributing to the fact that they don’t have a good job.”
Rubio, who has been in the news quite a bit lately talking up immigration reform, will raise the issue in the context of economic growth and opportunity. And while he will mention immigration this evening, it won’t dominate his appearance. Over the past several weeks, Rubio has run the conservative talk radio circuit in an attempt to sell that sizable chunk of the conservative movement on reform. While his principles for reform have been met with mixed reviews, with several pointing out a softening of the position he campaigned on three years ago, he’s mostly won praise even from those who don’t agree with him on the policy.
But Rubio’s remarks will likely provide a contrast to the president in other ways, too – particularly on tone. Rubio’s speech, expected to run between twelve and fifteen minutes, will be broad and upbeat. Leaks from the White House about Obama’s speech suggest it will be “combative” and “aggressive” and “specific.” Rubio’s response won’t be soft – he intends to lay out for the American people exactly how the president attacks his opponents and mischaracterizes their arguments. And Rubio will be blunt about how he views Obama’s idea of America. “On issue after issue – there is virtually no problem in America that he thinks doesn’t have a government answer, from concussions in football to the weather.”
Rubio’s remarks will be personal, sharing stories he’s heard from friends, relatives, and constituents to translate esoteric Washington policy debates into solutions for the day-to-day problems that Americans are having. Rubio will talk in some detail about the American dream – not as an ill-defined concept popular in modern political rhetoric, but in terms of what it means to the parent of a newborn who sees in his child the promise of a great country. He will attempt to speak to those Americans who are concerned about the current state of the union and despondent about its future. And even in a time of despair for his party, Rubio is determined to be optimistic – about the country, about its politics and even about the prospect of agreement with an increasingly intransigent president.
“We’re not just here to block everything the president’s for,” Rubio insists. “We’re not against everything the president’s for, we’re only against the bad ideas.”
-
My reaction is mixed. He hit the right notes but in a venue and situation where it is impossible to hit it out of the park. The main criticism seems to be that he paused a second to sip water once.
Good comments from Scott Conroy at Real Clear Politics:
"...Rubio's SOTU Response Was No Flop
...was a call for conservatives to govern by their principles and also an appeal to voters who have soured on the GOP in recent years, asking that they give the party another look.
Invoking the language and principles that infused Ronald Reagan’s conservative movement more than three decades ago, Rubio made a broad-based case for a small-government ethos.
“More government isn’t going to help you get ahead,” he said. “It’s going to hold you back. More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them. And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It’s going to create uncertainty.”
Even as he looked forward, Rubio also recycled many of the key arguments Republicans have leveled against Obama since before the 44th president took office in 2009. He accused Obama of believing the free enterprise system is “the cause of our problems” and charged that “his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.”
In responding to the emotional high point of Obama’s State of the Union address, Rubio acknowledged the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn., but added a defiant note that echoed boilerplate Republican language on proposed gun control measures.
“We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country,” he said. “But unconstitutionally undermining the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.”
-
Actually that last point is the one I disliked. There is NOT a rising tide of violence in the country-- quite the contrary. As I have cited here several times, over the last twenty years as gun ownership has gone up 35-50%, gun crime has gone down 50%. This is a simple and profound point that must be made again and again and again.
-
Crafty, Good point, he is wrong about the rise in violence. The rise is in media and public attention to it right now. There are two points to be made in gun control, the wisdom or utter lack of it in these policies, but also the point that stomping all over the constitution is not an acceptable way to approach problems it no matter the efficacy.
--------
Van Jones, extreme liberal, commenting on Marco Rubio:
"Marco Rubio is dangerous for Democrats. He is dangerous."
"This is a smart guy, Marco Rubio, but when he connects, that last 90 seconds, Marco Rubio, he's dangerous."
"He is dangerous for Democrats because he can connect in a way that other people with those ideas cannot."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/12/van_jones_marco_rubio_is_dangerous_for_democrats.html
----------------
Spanish language version of speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ec6HQKsIg
-
Marco Rubio has put his future on the line with the immigration bill deal. The debate and amendment process is next, so the details discussed are not necessarily the final details.
"Rubio’s television appearances Sunday mean he is in for the long haul. But Rubio hasn’t committed to voting with the Gang of Eight on every amendment that comes to the floor, underscoring the narrow line he will likely walk throughout the legislative process. Rubio said Sunday he would stand against poison pill amendments but would also walk away if the final bill violated his principles."
...
Rubio also used his Sunday media blitz to hone a conservative message for a party rebranding itself. “We are the party of upward mobility; we are not the party of the people who have made it,” he told “Meet the Press.” The GOP is the party “of people who are trying to make it.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/15/with_immigration_push_rubio_puts_a_lot_on_the_line-2.html#ixzz2QXjKSrmF
Conservatives pundits are already fuming at the stupidity:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/rubio-embraces-schumers-non-sequitur-or-is-it-the-other-way-around.php
-
This is good: "“We are the party of upward mobility"
I caught an appearance of Rubio on FOX and thought he made a number of politically astute points about how there would be no welfare, Obamacare, etc. for those in question, how the catch rate at the border would have to be X% (90% was it?) and similar points.
As for Doug's Powerlineblog piece, I get the logic, indeed I have posted here during the campaign in a similar vein. That said, the political decision has been made to "do something" in order to appeal to the latino vote.
-
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/04/17/if-rubios-amnesty-is-so-great-why-is-he-lying-n1571061/page/full/
If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?
---------------
All I see are the same arguments on both sides. Isn't she lying if she calls a plea bargain with a fine in the thousands of dollars 'amnesty'? If you did hard time for a crime and were released at the end of your sentence, is that amnesty?
This bill isn't tough enough for me and it may get worse in the amendment process before it gets a vote. We can argue out the provisions on the immigration thread. In the meantime, it would be better for the people supposedly on the same team to argue the merits of competing policies rather than name call and mud sling publicly. What is her plan? Self deport. How is that going? We ran that trial balloon politically with the Romney candidacy.
-
To mix my metaphors, Ann Coulter is a drive by spray and pray bomb thrower. It is what she does. When she hits the intended target she is great, when she misses she can do so spectacularly, and when she hits the wrong target, she is long gone.
-
To mix my metaphors, Ann Coulter is a drive by spray and pray bomb thrower. It is what she does. When she hits the intended target she is great, when she misses she can do so spectacularly, and when she hits the wrong target, she is long gone.
Agree. She is unfortunately erratic. She is thought of as far right, but then goes all out for Christy and then Romney. She can be brilliant with insights and biting humor. Let's say Rubio is all wrong on this. If so, he will pay a huge price. Scorching his intentions and his integrity is not the best way to advance her cause, or the cause of conservatism, or secure borders or anything else.
-
The details of how to re-write the Immigration bill can go on that thread. Here, I was wondering how Sen Rubio could take back his support for the current flawed bill and recover his reputation. He has been ripped by almost everyone on the right for this. I think he is handling it the best he can now under the circumstances. He acknowledges the validity of some of the criticism and is asking for help in writing the bill better and tighter. He admits this bill as written is the beginning, not the end-product, and admits it will not, as written, pass in the House. At the link he also comments on Syria and Benghazi.
Rubio interviewed yesterday by Hugh Hewitt: http://www.hughhewitt.com/marco-rubio-on-obamas-foreign-policy-press-conference-and-more-on-immigration-bill-concerns/
Selected excerpts regarding waivers, the fence, e-verify, family members, and unilateral actions by Pres. Obama:
HH: ...How about the argument there are too many waivers to make this bill work?
Sen. Rubio: Well, look, first of all, I think that’s a legitimate and valid point that we should look at. I mean, if there’s ways to tighten this up, we should. We certainly, I mean, I think we need to start accepting the notion that Janet Napolitano will not be secretary forever. I mean, this bill, for example, has a ten year implementation window before people can even apply for green cards. At best, she has three and a half years left there. So she won’t even be there when the first five years are completed. But that being said, I think if there are legitimate concerns out there about the number of waivers in the bill, we should tighten that. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t. And I’ve always been open to that. I’ve always said that I’m looking for ways to make the bill better. Some waivers, quite frankly, some, not all, but a few, might be justified. They’re not all created equal. I’ll give you an example. We have a work requirement. You know, when you go and apply for your temporary permit to be renewed, you have to have been required to be working. But if you got hit by a bus and you’ve been disabled for six months? There should be a waiver for someone that’s in a hardship like that. So the waiver is really for exceptional circumstances. It’s not for, you know, we don’t like the law, so we’re not going to apply it. So I’m, look, I’m open to tightening the bill and making sure that that and other legitimate concerns are addressed. I think one of the things that we have forgotten in Washington is that legislating is not a take it or leave it proposition. I mean, I know that that’s how the way has been done, and maybe that’s the big problem that we have. People come up with a bill, and then they feel like they have to protect any changes against it, because it wasn’t their idea. I don’t view it that way. I think our job is to come up with a starting point. And I’ve always and consistently said this, that now other people get a chance to look at it. If they find things that they think can be improved or that are wrong with it, let’s deal with it. And so for those that are serious about improving it, I’m all open to that, and I think that’s in important part of this process.
HH: I watched your floor statement on the point about bringing forward amendments from late last week, and so if an amendment is brought forward mandating construction of a double sided fence over a specified length, and I think it ought to be at least half the border, a thousand miles or so, would you support such an amendment, Senator Rubio, that mandates it?
Sen. Rubio: Let me tell you, I’m fine with that. I am fine, and by the way, I believe that the enforcement mechanisms in this bill, in order for the bill to pass in the House, will have to be strengthened. And so I don’t, now I’m going to tell you, the debate against the fencing, from our side, is going to be people that don’t believe that the fencing is the most effective way to deal with this, that there are other ways that are more effective. I personally, and I’ve consistently said this, I personally believe that double fencing is a very effective, not 100%, but a very, we’ve seen it be effective in the San Diego area and the Tijuana area, for example. So I personally am supportive of that. Others have different views about what would be more effective. But the point is, I could support that personally, and I would just say to you that I am, what I can tell you is that what is pretty clear here is that there is such a lack of confidence in this administration’s willingness to enforce the law, and in particular, in the federal government’s ability to enforce the law. We’re going to have to address that in order for this bill to be able to become law, because I think the goal here is not to pass this. For those of us who are interested in immigration reform, the goal is not to pass the Senate bill. The goal is to pass a law. And you’re not going to pass a law if those elements are not dealt with effectively.
HH: And the e-verify program? There are concerns that the e-verify program has a gap in this law. Can those be addressed by amendment?
Sen. Rubio: Well, I’ve read that concern. I actually don’t think that that’s true, that they’re talking about that e-verify will not be in effect for a certain number of years. That’s actually not accurate. It’s complicated to explain why, but we’re going to put something up on the web to explain it to people. But actually, that is not accurate. But what is more accurate is that the existing e-verify will be replaced with a more effective and more robust e-verify system.
HH: Senator, if an amendment comes forward that mandates construction of a double sided fence over, say, a thousand miles, as Charles Krauthammer said, from east to west, except for the mountains, would you vote for that amendment?
Sen. Rubio: Yeah, again, I mean, I don’t know if a thousand miles is the right number, but whatever that number is that wins people’s confidence, I’m for it. I have no problem with constructing fencing across the border. I’ve advocated for that. In fact, I advocated for a specific pot of money in the bill set aside just for fencing. ...And I’d be more than happy to expand it to be the effective ring. As you said, there are parts of the border that do not need fencing, because it’s high mountain or it’s a river, or what have you. I’ll leave that to experts and others. But I can say to you that I believe that double fencing in the right places has been highly effective, especially, for example, in the San Diego area where it’s really been effective.
HH: All right, well, the specifics, we’ll come back to. Eligibility for welfare, this has not actually concerned me, because I think the bill addresses it. But some of the conservative critiques out there are that immediately upon passage, millions of people will be eligible for welfare. How do you respond to that, Senator?
Sen. Rubio: That’s just not, I mean, there’s a specific provision that says they do not. Now if someone has found some sort of legal interpretation of it that needs to be tightened up, I’m open to it. But the clear intent of the bill is that they not qualify for federal benefits. They do not. And in fact, I saw some line somewhere, somebody had quoted in a report that one of my fellow senators came up with, they ignore the predicate to the entire paragraph, which is they specifically do not qualify for federal benefits, including Obamacare. That is the intent of the bill. I believe that is what the bill actually reflects. If someone has come up with a creative legal interpretation that someone can use to get around it, then we should close the loophole on that, because this bill will become unaffordable if that’s not the case. The reason why we want to prevent access to welfare benefits, by the way, and Obamacare and food stamps, is not because we’re trying to harsher than anybody else. It’s because the bill will become too expensive, and we will not be able to afford it if 11 million, 10 million, 9 million people become eligible for federal benefits. But I believe that the bill accurately accomplishes that. But if someone has a language they’d like to see included to double down and make sure that that doesn’t happen, I think everyone would be open to that.
HH: Another argument, …is that chain migration is not actually dealt with, and that the 11 million will instantly be able to bring in relatives up to 30 or 40 million people. What’s your…
Sen. Rubio: Quite frankly, I don’t know what they base that on. Again, if someone has found some creative interpretation that allows that, I’d like to see it, because we’ll address it. But I don’t think that’s true. And in fact, I know it isn’t. These folks, once they get temporary status, the only thing they qualify for under temporary status is the right to work and pay taxes and travel. They do not, you cannot, in fact, non-immigrant visa holders today under existing law cannot claim relatives to come to the United States. Beyond that, we have tightened the categories moving forward. So one of the categories that people used to use to bring up a bunch of relatives over was you were able to bring your siblings, et cetera. You won’t be able to do that anymore under the new modernized legal immigration system. That, in addition to only limiting it to minor children and spouses, will also weigh more towards the skills and job offers and the merits that you bring to the country. So again, that’s just not accurate.
HH: ...one of the things I don’t like, is I think kicking a border fencing plan to DHS to come up with, and then taking it to this commission, is a huge hole. I believe in just writing mandates in. I think he wants to do the same thing on biometrics. And it comes back to a crisis of confidence in the DHS. Nobody really trusts them and the enforcement mechanism.
Sen. Rubio: Well, that’s a big problem. Yeah, that’s the big problem we’re facing here. I mean, the number one obstacle we have faced here, quite frankly, is not people who don’t want to deal with the 11 million. It’s people that say look, we understand what you’re trying to do, but we don’t trust the government, and we don’t trust Republicans or Democrats in the government to make sure that this happens. And if we don’t do it right, we’re going to be right back here again in the future. And my answer to that is I think that we’ve come up with a pretty good starting point to make sure it happens. The law specifically says they must do these things. If there is a way to tighten it up, if there is a way to make it better, if there is a way to assure that it happens in a better language, or additions we can make to the bill, I’ll certainly be open to that, because I think that’s critical to see it happen. But again, that’s why, that’s the way the legislative process is supposed to work. You’re supposed to offer a bill, and then other people are supposed to offer ideas about how to improve it. That’s why we have hearings, that’s why we have what they call markups, that’s why there’s such a thing as amendments. And I think people should fully participate in that. If they are serious about solving this problem, that’s what I want to see happen. Otherwise, we’re going to get stuck with the status quo. And what we have now is even worse.
HH: ... this President does not inspire much confidence, and he didn’t like the law, so he just chained it on the DREAMers when you were prepared to bring in law to keep the DREAMers in status. How does anyone trust him on anything?
Sen. Rubio: Well, and that’s exactly why I’m involved in this bill, because here’s the problem, that what the President did for the DREAMers, he can do for everybody else. He can use the exact same authority to decide you know what? Everyone over a certain age who passes a background check and has been here for three years or more, I’m going to grant them the same thing I gave the DREAMers. He can do that right now, the same way as he did it for the DREAMers, but you won’t have e-verify, you won’t have border security, you won’t have any of those other things. And so what I’m saying is let’s not let that happen. Let’s get ahead of that by passing a bill that does e-verify, that does the border security stuff. If we want to improve the border security stuff, let’s improve it by passing an entry/exit tracking system, by prohibiting being able to get Obamacare and welfare and all these sorts of things. I think if we don’t do anything, that’s precisely what he can do right now.
-
Sen. Jeff Sessions chides Marco Rubio: "Marco, there is somebody on television pretending to be you!"
The gang of 8 on immigration (including Rubio) is voting against amendments to fix the bill, because they believe amendments will kill it. Rubio thinks it should pass and then get fixed in committee. Again, why will he have more leverage later? I wish not to attack Rubio personally but I question this bill and his strategy.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/18/Sessions-chides-Rubio-on-immigration-Marco-there-s-somebody-on-the-television-pretending-to-be-you
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) poked fun at the notion that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be publicly saying the Senate immigration bill needs stronger security provisions, while saying in TV ads that the bill has the best border security provisions in history. Sessions has previously called on Rubio and his ally Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to withdraw the advertisements because of their inaccuracies.
Andrea Tantaros asked Sessions on her radio show to respond to reports that Rubio has not been seen with the Gang of Eight in public in over two months. “That’s odd,” Sessions said. “He is the one that’s in everybody’s homes running the ads. Makes you want to say ‘Marco, there’s somebody on the television pretending to be you, saying vote for the bill that you recently said shouldn’t pass in its current form.’”
Earlier in the interview, Tantaros said she thinks Rubio’s comments this weekend that 95 percent of the Gang of Eight bill is “in perfect shape” are not accurate.
“I don’t think 95 percent of it is perfect,” Tantaros said. “I’m looking at some of things that it allows for. I mean, if you commit identity theft twice but not three times you can still get amnesty. If you break the law twice but not three times, you can stay in this country. Let’s see, what else here. If you beat your wife twice but not three times you can still stay in this country. It doesn’t seem very strict on criminals."
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351807/marco-rubio-we-hardly-knew-ye-jonathan-strong
-
What program, no matter how bad, ever got stopped after it was up and running? Why is congress funding the "administration...spending Americans’ tax dollars on advertisements promoting this failed policy, ...sending out celebrities and other allies to convince Americans that ObamaCare is a good thing." The American people opposed Obamacare when it passed and oppose it more now. The one thing Chief Justice Roberts got right is that the Supreme Court was not the only place where this program could get cancelled. The one question that Karl Rove and the go along to get along wing of the Republican party cannot answer is that is you fund it now, when will you stop it and how? The answer is you won't, so take a stand now. Marco Rubio has this right.
-------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/marcorubio/2013/09/17/defund-obamacare-before-its-too-late-n1701860/page/full
Defund Obamacare Before It's Too Late
Marco Rubio | Sep 17, 2013
Over the next two weeks, the sad spectacle that is Washington will be on full display as Congress and President Obama debate yet another short-term spending plan, also known as a continuing resolution (CR).
Early in my Senate term, I realized these short-term CR's were a miserable way to run the federal government and decided I would not go along with this budgetary charade again. I came to the Senate to solve real problems and eliminate the biggest threats standing in the way of the 21st century being another exceptional American century. The people of Florida who I work for didn't send me here to keep postponing hard choices and leave our problems unsolved for future generations to deal with.
And that's exactly what these short-term budgets do. Rather than prioritize government's proper role in American society or fundamentally end the way Washington borrows and misspends money, CR's mostly continue the broken Washington status quo.
With all that said, the CR that Congress will soon consider to keep our dysfunctional government open past September 30 is actually a major opportunity to save our people from the job-killing disaster that is ObamaCare. Because a major piece of its implementation begins on October 1, this short-term budget represents our last chance to stop it by defunding it.
Short-term budgets are a terrible way to run a government, but if we can pass one that defunds ObamaCare, we will be doing America's workers and job creators a huge service that will be worth it.
From the imperfect CR process, defunding ObamaCare would produce a clear-cut victory for American workers and families. Settling for anything less would be devastating to them.
The evidence of ObamaCare's failures is everywhere, and it is staggering. For example, in just the past week, several employers like SeaWorld announced they will be cutting their part-time workers' hours to deal with ObamaCare's tax penalties. The unions that have been the President's staunchest allies, and who were instrumental to passing ObamaCare in the first place, are now condemning it and pleading with the White House to be exempted from it. During the August recess, I repeatedly heard from working class Floridians about how this law would result in reduced hours, reduced pay and the loss of health insurance plans and doctors they currently have.
Despite all the warning signs of failure, what is the President doing? His administration is doubling down by spending Americans’ tax dollars on advertisements promoting this failed policy, and it's sending out celebrities and other allies to convince Americans that ObamaCare is a good thing.
We need to stop this. All of it. And over the next two weeks, we have our last chance to stop ObamaCare by defunding it in the CR.
There is a better way forward to help more Americans obtain affordable and quality health insurance, without sacrificing their jobs, income, current health plans and doctors they're happy with. But stopping ObamaCare by defunding it is the first and most immediate step we need to take.
Time is running out to do it, but not the necessity of doing so.
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/marco-rubio-obamacare-cancel-policy/2013/10/30/id/533984?ns_mail_uid=32379927&ns_mail_job=1544018_10312013&promo_code=1565D-1
-
Extended segment, Sen. Marco Rubio takes questions from Bret Baier and the "Special Report" panel composed of George Will, Steve Hayes, and Juan Williams.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/09/special_report_online_sen_marco_rubio_answers_questions_from_the_panel.html
-
Keeping up with the Senator who won swing state Florida by more than a million votes. Like Abraham Lincoln (and Barack Obama), he has no executive experience.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee, shakes hand with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe before their talks in Tokyo, Jan. 21, 2014 (today). http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/01/21/rubio-offers-abe-reprieve-from-u-s-diplomacy-woes/
http://topics.wsj.com/person/R/Marco-Rubio/6882
Sen. Rubio Proposes Consolidating Poverty Funding
January 8, 2014
Sen. Marco Rubio, considered a leading GOP presidential candidate in 2016, called for the federal government to consolidate all of its antipoverty funding into one agency, which would then direct money to states so that its use can be tailored for local needs.
Rubio PAC Jumps In Big to Aid Tom Cotton in Arkansas
December 4, 2013
Sen. Marco Rubio plans to come to the aid of a House Republican colleague this week with an oversized TV ad buy in Arkansas supporting the Senate campaign of Rep. Tom Cotton.
Rubio Says He'll Oppose Yellen to Head the Fed
November 21, 2013
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) said he will oppose Janet Yellen, President Obama's nominee to lead the Federal
The Florida Republican and potential 2016 presidential candidate criticized the economic effects of the Fed’s recent stimulus efforts, which have been supported by Ms. Yellen, currently the vice chairwoman of its Board of Governors.
“Altogether, she has championed policies that have diminished people’s purchasing power by weakening the dollar, made long-term savings less attractive by diminishing returns on this important behavior, and put the U.S. economy at increased risk of higher inflation and another future boom-bust,” Mr. Rubio wrote in a statement Thursday. “I don’t have the confidence that she is the best choice to lead this independent institution in the years to come.”
Marco Rubio: No Bailouts for ObamaCare
November 18, 2013
The health-care law's 'risk corridors' could result in a huge taxpayer burden.
Rubio: "It is a damning indictment of ObamaCare's viability when the president's only response to people losing their health insurance plans entails putting them on the hook for bailing out insurance companies. The American people are already being directly hurt by ObamaCare's early failures, and it is unconscionable that they be expected to bail out companies when more failures emerge."
-
I find this to sound quite appealing and worthy of further consideration-- both on policy grounds and political ones-- this might be "sound bite-able".
-
John Hinderacker of Powerline: Marco Rubio has been in the doghouse with lots of conservatives because of his endorsement of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. But he is solid on virtually every other issue, and is one of the most talented politicians on either side of the aisle. Yesterday he reminded us how great he can be, when he rose to respond to Tom Harkin’s paean to the wonders of socialist Cuba. For twelve minutes or so, Rubio ripped into the corrupt socialist governments of Cuba and Venezuela, and their enablers here in the U.S. It was a brilliant, impassioned defense of freedom and human rights. Rubio’s speech has rightly attracted a lot of attention; if you haven’t already watched it, you should:
A big mention of the atrocities in Venezuela as well. "This is what the Castro regime supports. Always on the side of tyrants."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFQWijd_hg#t=34[/youtube]
-
Some real fire in the belly there! He needs more of this!
From a political point of view, this could play well too.
-
Some real fire in the belly there! He needs more of this!
From a political point of view, this could play well too.
Peggy Noonan picked up on this as well. Interesting to know that this is not teleprompter material from speechwriters. The Harkin Cuba talk he is addressing was made on the Senate floor just prior to Rubio. His notes were regarding the Venezuelan atrocities. He expresses the moral side of freedom, at home and abroad.
Do you think he could hold his own with Joe Biden or Hillary, Hickenlooper, Schweitzer?
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2014/02/25/viva-rubio/
February 25, 2014, 4:28 PM
Viva Rubio, (by Peggy Noonan
What a great, myth-destroying statement from Marco Rubio, on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday afternoon, on the facts about Cuba and their connection to events in Venezuela.
We have pressed in these parts for American political figures to speak clearly and with moral confidence about American sympathies in various international disputes. Rubio’s speech is honest political indignation successfully deployed.
Late last month Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa came back from a week-long trip to Cuba full of the wonders he’d seen. In a meeting with reporters he spouted inanities that were clichés a quarter-century ago: Cuba has fabulous health services, everyone can read. Yesterday Harkin decided to haul his inanities onto the floor of the Senate. Rubio heard what he’d said and followed him on the floor soon after.
Rubio pointed out Cuba has fabulous health services only if you believe a totalitarian government’s health statistics, its people can read only what that government allows them to read. They are an abused people in an oppressed culture.
What Rubio was speaking of is the moral meaning of things and the need for America to recognize and address the moral meaning of things. America should not stand mute when presented with political dramas in other nations, particularly when they occur in our own hemisphere. We have a voice. We should use it. If we don’t show our sympathies, who will? If we do not articulate our values and beliefs, who will?
What to do in the future about Cuba—what relations to have with it and policies to adopt toward it—is the subject of legitimate debate. How to approach and respond to what is happening in Venezuela is a matter of debate. But you can’t begin that debate with fan fiction. You begin it with facts and go from there.
If you don’t get the facts right, you’ll never get the policy right. And it does the world no good to see a great power fallen into relentless, mealy-mouthed obfuscation. That only adds to the slump-shouldered, depressed feeling that a lack of clarity always brings.
Rubio’s statement may make a bigger impression on the Republican base than he perhaps expected, and the pundit class may start to see him again as a 2016 force. An observation: Everyone in national politics worries about getting the right speech text, the right words. But Rubio got the words and meaning right through notes and pictures, not a prepared text. Cesar Conda, Rubio’s chief of staff, said the senator had intended to speak that day on Venezuela, but included Cuba because he wanted “to set the record straight.”
-
I suppose this could go in the Ukraine thread but I post it here; it would appear Rubio is willing to speak specifically in timely manner while Baraq is still busy at the Democratic Happy Hour
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/8-things-obama-must-do-about-ukraine-104128.html#.UxJ55IWwVEN
-
Some real fire in the belly there! He needs more of this!
Sen. Marco Rubi read Crafty's post and has agreed to step up his game.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ITBac4ytyc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ITBac4ytyc
On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference attendees with a fiery speech focused on redefining America’s approach to foreign affairs. He defined the threats he warned that the United States will face in the near future and defined current and long-term America’s economic challenges in terms relating to the preservation of free trade guaranteed by American military and diplomatic strength.
“We are right on the verge, if we make a few right decisions, of a new American century,” Rubio began. He took a populist approach to arguing against “big government” by saying that large corporations are able to “deal with big government,” while other smaller firms are not able to compete. He added that Democratic politicians are creating “disunity” in the country by focusing on addressing “inequality” rather than expanding access to opportunity.
“This notion that we’re going to pit Americans against each other on issue after issue is something that we should never accept as a people, because it’s never been who we are and it isn’t who we are right now,” Rubio said.
He pivoted to foreign policy, defining the threats faced by the United States. He said that China is threatening to take parts of the South China Sea which would limit trade and threaten America’s allies, a nuclear North Korea is testing missiles, Venezuela is slaughtering protesters, and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship. He added that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and regional hegemony and Russia is attempting to “reconstitute” the former Soviet Union.
“And by the way, what do all these countries have in common?” he asked. “These are totalitarian governments.”
“There is only one nation on earth capable of rallying and bringing together the free people on this planet to stand up to the spread of totalitarianism,” Rubio said. “The United Nations cannot do this. In fact, they cannot do anything.”
“We cannot ignore that the flawed foreign policy of the last few years has brought us to this stage, because we have a president who believed but by the sheer force of his personality he would be able to shape global events,” Rubio asserted. “We do not have the luxury of seeing the world the way we hope it would be. We have to see the world the way it is. And we have to address these issues before they grow unmanageable, and they threaten, not just our freedoms, but our economy.”
“[Ronald] Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons and he wanted peace, but he never accepted the Soviet Union,” he declared. He said went on to outline how the behavior of the Iranian government should be unacceptable to the American public and regarded as illegitimate.
“If you think high taxes and regulations are bad for our economy, so is global instability and the spread of totalitarianism,” Rubio added. “What we have in America is the exception, not the rule, in human history. Almost everyone who has ever lived on this planet didn’t’ get to choose their leaders, and they didn’t get to choose their life either.”
“Every time I talk about how special America is, some commentator or whoever it may be will roll their eyes and say, ‘Well, that’s just something Americans tell each other to make themselves feel good,’” Rubio said. “You have the right to believe that. I don’t have that option, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”
-
For some years now I have been posting here about the lack of a coherent American foreign policy. Certqinly the libertqriqn wing of the Reps offers one, but IMHO it contains some serious flaws. Rubio begins to threaten to offer a vision. This beqrs watching.
-
For some years now I have been posting here about the lack of a coherent American foreign policy. Certqinly the libertqriqn wing of the Reps offers one, but IMHO it contains some serious flaws. Rubio begins to threaten to offer a vision. This beqrs watching.
Libertarians have a foreign policy beyond "me and my shotgun on my front porch"?
Really? Do tell.
-
For some years now I have been posting here about the lack of a coherent American foreign policy. Certainly the libertarian wing of the Reps offers one, but IMHO it contains some serious flaws. Rubio begins to threaten to offer a vision. This bears watching.
I don't know if anyone has a complete foreign policy 2014 answer, but at least Rubio understands the reality of the global threat situation. He also gets the political and practical aspects of it: "that doesn't mean were going to be involved in 15 wars." He gets the role of energy dependence in it. He gets the moral case, and he is able to express it!
He calls out liberals on their lame tactics, "that we are going to pit Americans against each other on issue after issue is something we should never accept as a people".
Best of all, he demonstrates a rare ability to express a populist case against big intrusive government regulations and taxation:
"If you are a big corporation or multi-billionaire, you may not like big government but you can afford to deal with big government. You can hire lawyers and lobbyists and try to influence that regulation and navigate it. If you are trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, probably a violation of the zoning code, but if you are trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you can't deal with runaway regulations and complicated laws. And that's why we're not getting the investment and innovation this country so desperately needs."
'American corporations have more cash sitting on the sidelines than the size of the entire German economy.' Are Hillary et al going to point that out, make a speech like this or make a compelling case of how to get things going again? No. They can't.
Barack Obama received the black vote, but he didn't change minds - on anything. Marco Rubio may have very little in common with Mexican-Americans or many other Hispanics in America, but he can make this same case in equally articulate Spanish. No liberal can do that. Not because of language, but because we already know their policies lead to failure.
We don't need a candidate to eek out a win on the electoral map in 2016. We need to permanently change a few hearts and minds.
Objections to Marco Rubio: He is too young and inexperienced. Same age roughly as Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, and Barack Obama at this point of the 2008 cycle. Same age as the median voter. And Rubio has economic and foreign policy credentials.
The immigration reform fiasco. He tried sincere negotiations with people who aren't. Probably learned something! His effort on this angered conservatives but likely made him more electable, which helps conservatism.
Executive experience. He could go back and serve as Florida Governor for two terms. (He already was Speaker of the Florida House.) But where will America be if we wait until 2026 for a perfectly credentialed candidate? We need to turn this ship around now.
-
"Certainly the libertarian wing of the Reps offers one, but IMHO it contains some serious flaws."
"Libertarians have a foreign policy beyond 'me and my shotgun on my front porch'? Really? Do tell."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't that they have an answer for the growing threats around the world. It is that in the context of American war fatigue from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam(?), their policy of 'do nothing, this isn't America's problem' is quite popular and tempting. Rubio is acknowledging that. He or any other candidate will have to unite the two sides (or lose). Rand Paul has also moved at least his rhetoric to the middle from his father's blame America first, hands off, stay home approach. This will be interesting to watch.
Rubio's approach is more likely to lead to peace, through strength and deterrence while the appeasers approach always seems to just embolden enemies and lead to even more trouble. Case in point, Barack Hussein Obama: how are those Berlin 2008 speeches and Cairo 2009 speeches working out for us? Can't we all just get along?
I like to remind isolationist libertarians that we had a little foreign assistance securing our liberties! As Rubio points out, living without oppression is the exception in human history.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/11/Exclusive-Rubio-Warns-Democrats-Angling-For-Single-Payer-Healthcare?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+March+12%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20140312_m119530964_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+March+12%2C+2014&utm_term=More
-
Just don't let the Clintons steal your ideas and pretend they've been saying it all along:
http://news.yahoo.com/in-the-age-of-reality-politics--rubio-finds-his-voice-102128536.html
-
Coming Education Debate an Opportunity
By Marco Rubio
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2014/05/08/coming_education_debate_an_opportunity_967.html
Growing up, my parents taught me that hard work and education were the keys to achieve a life better than their own.
Unfortunately, they didn't make enough money to save for my college tuition, nor did I qualify for academic scholarships. Instead, I had to rely on Pell grants and student loans to pay for my undergraduate and legal education. Without these financial assistance programs, I never would have been able to afford a higher education. But even with them, I racked up over $100,000 in student loans, which I only finished paying off a couple years ago.
My story is not unique. Over 70 percent of new graduates last year had student loan debt. Making this worse is the fact that our economy is failing to provide these graduates with enough middle and higher-income job opportunities.
According to reports this week, soon the U.S. Senate will consider ways to help students obtain higher education without crushing them with loan debt. My hope is that, unlike most things in Washington these days, it won't be another political show - with the Democrats in power offering a take-it-or-leave it proposition that inevitably requires more government spending. I and others have some ideas that can make a real difference for students, and I hope we'll get a chance to consider those too.
Part of dealing with the current situation begins with recognizing how much things have changed since I and other policy makers graduated. For example, information technology, automation and globalization have dramatically changed the workplace, eliminating many labor-intensive jobs and replacing them new higher-skilled positions.
These jobs, unfortunately, are not readily available to just anyone. As many have found, finding a good job means you need a good education. And as many recent graduates have found, getting an education isn't always enough - it has to be the right degree at the right price from the right institution in order to pay off.
Today, our higher education system is too expensive and too inflexible, forcing many Americans to choose between spending four-years on a campus or receiving no higher education at all. And many online programs offered by traditional institutions come with the same high tuition rates as degrees earned on campus, so Americans who wish to earn a degree from home are still restricted. And too many alternative methods of learning a trade remain unaccredited and unrecognized as viable education options.
This year, I've proposed several reforms to fix each of these shortcomings. I proposed ways to open additional pathways to earning a degree or vocational certification, as well as ways to increase employment opportunities for those with non-traditional educations. I've introduced an alternative to traditional student loans that would make it easier for private investors to finance students' educations with the promise of paying back a share of their future earnings. I introduced reforms specifically aimed at helping the single parents and others who do not have the time or resources to spend four years on a traditional college campus.
But in order to expand access to higher education, we also need to help young students succeed on the front end of their education journey. We need to make it abundantly clear to all children that a high school diploma is an important step toward financial success, but that it is no longer sufficient on its own. We also to encourage student access to the many innovative ways that exist to help them pursue post-secondary education.
Across our communities, there are flourishing examples everywhere of schools, non-profits and charities coming together to make a difference in the lives of young people. Recently, I visited Booker T. Washington Senior High in Miami's Overtown area, and saw examples of how students are being empowered with community support. The school has an infusion of City Year members - a trained team of young people serving full time for a year as tutors, mentors, and role models.
When my wife Jeanette and I arrived at the school, we could feel the tremendous energy of these mentors. They serve as coaches who support students' academic goals, collaborate with teachers and administrators, and provide research-based interventions to at-risk students. The results are compelling, showing that a majority of students served by these City Year mentors see a spike in their reading and math scores. And by getting these students on the right track early on in their education careers, we increase their chances of success and not having to play catch-up later. We need to make more people aware of these types of successes, and we need to encourage more charitable giving and participation to these efforts.
There are other local examples of programs in place to help high school students learn skills that lead directly to good-paying work after graduation. For instance, in South Florida, the local school district has partnered with a car dealership to create an innovative approach to career education.
The students in this program attend traditional high school classes each morning, then go to auto dealerships where they are trained to be certified technicians. When they finish high school, they graduate not just with a high school diploma but also with a job-ready industry certification from an automobile manufacturer.
Communities all across America would benefit from programs and partnerships like these. By combining these sorts of community-based initiatives with a reformed and modernized higher education system, a century of extraordinary opportunity can be opened to our people.
The time to act is now. With the changes our economy has undergone, more Americans are experiencing extraordinary economic insecurity. Now more than ever, our people need skills, knowledge and credentials to capitalize on their potential - and on the potential of this new era. When the issue is considered again in Congress, I hope this important issue that impacts so many of our young people won't fall prey to politics as usual in Washington.
Marco Rubio is the junior United States Senator from Florida, serving since January 2011. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives from 2007 to 2009. His committee assignments currently include Commerce, Science and Transportation; Foreign Relations; Intelligence; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. He and his wife, Jeanette, have four young children and live in West Miami.
-
Eliana Johnson writes about Rubio at National Review today:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377743/rubios-resurgence-eliana-johnson
At the time of my reading this, I noticed that all the comments on Rubio are ruthlessly negative because of the immigration fiasco. Same with commenters on sites like free republic, (and here?). That is probably the only way Dems can win this time around, if Republicans eat all their own.
------------------------------------------------------
Rubio’s Resurgence
Tea-party hero Marco Rubio is gaining credibility with the GOP establishment.
By Eliana Johnson
Marco Rubio is flashing across a lot of television sets in Colorado right now. On Wednesday, the Chamber of Commerce began airing ads in the state in both English and Spanish in which Rubio makes the case for Republican representative Cory Gardner, who is challenging incumbent Democratic senator Mark Udall in the November election. Early polls suggest that the race will be among the most competitive of the cycle.
The Chamber is pleased with the results. “We are getting phenomenal feedback at the local level,” says Scott Reed, the organization’s senior political strategist. “We think this is a real incubator for a message and a messenger to appeal to Hispanic voters all over the country, even with a fast-talking Cuban.”
That reaction — and praise from the Chamber that is directly challenging the Tea Party in some races — is one sign of Rubio’s rising stock in the Republican political establishment. Look also to New Hampshire, where Rubio headlined three fundraisers on Friday and where the state’s representative to the Republican National Committee told the Associated Press that Rubio, who rode to office in the tea-party wave of 2010, “comes across as a serious and thoughtful mainstream conservative.”
Rubio seems to have no doubt, telling ABC’s This Week on Sunday — citing his nearly 15 years as a public officeholder — that, yes, he is ready to be president.
Remarks like these are one indication of how Rubio is apt to profit in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes if things continue to break his way – that is, if New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who six months ago was considered the potential frontrunner for the Republican nomination, does not bounce back from Bridgegate, and if Jeb Bush decides not to run. In that case, Rubio is the most likely to become the establishment favorite for the nomination, although he will have competition, especially from candidates who are governors.
“The so-called establishment wants to make sure they have folks that can win,” says Republican strategist Kevin Madden. “Rubio clearly has a profile that is very attractive as a national candidate. He can also attract a growing part of the electorate with Hispanic voters and also some moderate to conservative Democrats.”
At the same time, Rubio has far more reach into the tea-party world than do Christie and Bush, the candidates the establishment has already courted — and been spurned by — this campaign season. Christie has long battled skepticism from the Right, which remains scornful about his embrace of President Obama days before the 2012 election; he finished dead last in a February poll of tea-party activists. Bush finished second to last in the same poll. Among the party’s most conservative voters, the former Florida governor is handicapped by his support for immigration reform and for the Common Core educational standards, against which the tea-party base is waging a vocal revolt; Bush lacks the conservative bona fides that would help conservatives overlook his own support for a sweeping immigration overhaul.
In fact, Rubio’s first supporters at the national level were insurgents. The former Florida house speaker came to national political fame as a hero of the tea-party movement. In 2010, former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of the Heritage Foundation, hailed then-candidate Rubio’s “articulate and passionate support for conservative principles” and lamented that he was “being overlooked by some in the Republican party at a time when his leadership is needed most.” Rubio’s insurgent candidacy, which drove former Florida governor Charlie Crist from the Republican party, was endorsed by both the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth.
Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, endorsed Rubio in 2010 and still considers him an insurgent force. “It’s ironic to call Rubio an establishment figure, given where he started his Senate race, which is very anti-establishment,” Chocola says. Four years into Rubio’s Senate term, Chocola calls the decision to support his candidacy a “great” one and says he’s “proud to have an association” with Rubio. “We think he’s done a great job,” he adds. “If he did run for president, he’s got a record that would be appealing to many conservatives.”
His rating with the American Conservative Union, which ACU chairman Al Cardenas, a Rubio pal, calls the “gold standard to determine whether you’re a true conservative,” suggests as much. Rubio has consistently scored in the top 10 percent and, in 2013, was one of six senators who scored a perfect 100.
-
If not Marco Rubio, then someone needs to do the heavy lifting, of making positive proposals for the future that will connect free market ideas with a government dependent electorate. Nice article here by Peter Wehner at Commentary magazine for context, then read the speech: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=7ce7531f-be09-4688-a320-fccb49a16c76
or view the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-99LyfZa6s (54 minutes with intro and questions at the end)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/01/rubios-effort-to-modernize-the-gop/
Rubio’s Effort to Modernize the GOP
Peter Wehner
07.01.2014
In an earlier post I asked who on the right, in the wake of the ruins of the Obama presidency, will step up and seize the opportunity. Among those who are is Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
Last week Senator Rubio gave a policy address, which elicited favorable comments from Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jim Pethokoukis, and Reihan Salam. Like these four, I found Senator Rubio’s speech, co-hosted by Hillsdale College and the YG Network, to be quite impressive. The Florida senator offered ideas on how to reform our entitlement programs, tax code, higher education, health care, and our social safety net. In doing so, he spoke about single mothers and working class families, wage stagnation, student debt and retirement security, and the effects of globalization and automation. And like Representative Paul Ryan, Rubio understands the need for structural changes in programs, which is quite different, and rather more important than, simply reducing spending.
In making his case, Senator Rubio presented himself as an advocate for modernization rather than moderation (in this instance meaning nudging the GOP in a more liberal direction). He spoke about the need for a policy agenda designed for the 21st century and adjusting to the realities of this new era. Mr. Rubio clearly wants the GOP to be both conservative and constructive, opposing the president’s agenda but also willing to offer alternatives to it. The left, he says, is offering ideas that are old, tired and stale; a conservative agenda, as Rubio has laid it out, is innovative, responsive, and “applies the principles of our founding to the challenges and the opportunities facing Americans in their daily lives.” That strikes me as a pretty intelligent way to frame things, particularly given that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are thought to be the two leading figures for the Democratic Party in a post-Obama world.
What also strikes me about Senator Rubio is that unlike some others, whose main ability is to bring hard-core supporters to their feet, he seems eager and capable of persuading those who are not on his side yet who may be amenable to his point of view. A friend of mine says he gets the sense from Rubio that he hasn’t spent his life in a political echo chamber, only hanging around like-minded individuals. He has the capacity, I think, to reach people who aren’t members of the NRA or the Federalist Society, the Tea Party or the American Conservative Union. The ability to find connection with people who aren’t already supporters is a fairly valuable skill in politics–and for a party that is regularly losing presidential elections, a necessary one.
The governing agenda Marco Rubio sketched out last week will hardly be the final word, but it is a very good starting point for discussion. Its aim is to broaden the appeal of the GOP without violating the party’s core principles. Other Republicans, particularly those thinking about running for president in 2016, will attempt to occupy this space as well. That’s all to the good, since the GOP has a formidable task: to reconnect with a middle America that looks different than it once did.
I’ve pointed out before that during the GOP nomination contest in 2012—involving dozens of state Republican primaries, more than 20 debates, and tens of millions of dollars in ads—issues such as upward mobility, education, middle-class concerns, poverty, strong communities and safe streets, corporate welfare, cultural renewal, and immigration either were hardly mentioned or were discussed in the most disaffecting way possible. There was more talk about electrified fences and self-deportation than there was about higher education reform, social and economic opportunity, or the modernization of our governing institutions.
Marco Rubio wants to change that. So do other talented and ambitious Republicans. More power to them.
-
Senator Marco Rubio: Obama Needs to Dig In for a Fight in Iraq
Marco Rubio Aug. 8, 2014
http://time.com/3093021/marco-rubio-obama-isis-iraq/
WASHINGTON, DC - June 28: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., during the Senate Foreign Relations markup of legislation (S J Res 20) that would authorize limited U.S. military force in support of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) humanitarian intervention in Libya.
Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups continue to threaten Israel. The United States and its allies have been forced to close their diplomatic missions in Libya because of fighting between secular militias and al Qaeda-affiliated groups. The Taliban is going on the offensive in Afghanistan as the United States and coalition partners continue to draw down.
ISIS, an extreme Sunni militant group that emerged from al Qaeda, has been occupying and razing churches across Iraq, pulling down crosses, destroying religious documents and holy sites, and forcing Christians and other non-Sunni Iraqis to convert or face death. It is capturing young girls and the widows of men they have executed for their own unmarried fighters. It has seized bridges, dams and other infrastructure that Iraqi towns and communities rely on for subsistence.
The United States is right to intervene in Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance to persecuted religious minorities—including the Yazidis currently surrounded by ISIS forces in northern Iraq and Iraqi Christians, who have been brutalized as ISIS has swept through their villages, massacring thousands and conducting forced conversions of those they do not kill.
But America’s security interests extend well beyond the fate of Iraq’s religious minorities. Because ISIS, with thousands of foreign fighters, many of them from the West, will not rest once it has taken Erbil or Baghdad. Its expansionist ideology will lead it to attack U.S. allies in the region and eventually Europe and the United States.
We have seen time and again in recent decades that terrorist groups, once established, use safe havens to launch attacks on the United States and our interests. We ignore this history at our own peril.
Instead of confronting this challenge head on, President Obama has until now avoided taking decisive action. He has let the civil war in Syria simmer for years, creating the space for this jihadist threat to grow and letting instability spread to Syria’s neighbors. Even after ISIS captured Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, in June, the President was hesitant in his response, sending several hundred military advisors but not confronting ISIS directly even as it made military gains. Now, we are rightfully providing food and water to people who face slaughter from extremists who have pledged to kill them.
Given the threat that ISIS poses to not just the central Iraqi government in Baghdad, but also to our Kurdish partners in northern Iraq, the President was right to begin to strike ISIS targets. We also need to strike supply routes from Syria, leadership, and frontline military units from the air. We should target the oil refinery in Syria they are using to fund their operations. And we should go after other assets and funding networks to deny them the financing they need to carry out their operations.
We need to significantly increase our military and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi government, as well as the Kurdistan Regional Government. Baghdad has in recent days taken action to assist the Kurds with air support, providing some hope that a political settlement that unites all Iraqi political factions remains possible.
The Kurds in particular need urgent U.S. assistance, including weaponry and training for their peshmerga forces that are now facing an adversary equipped with more advanced weaponry, some of it of U.S. origin stolen from the Iraqi military. The Kurds are also hosting more than a million refugees from other parts of Iraq and Syria that have fled their villages in the face of ISIS’s advance. Due to ongoing disputes between Erbil and Baghdad, the Kurdish government has limited resources to continue to provide for these refugees and for their own people.
President Obama rightly stated that he decided to use military force to protect U.S. diplomats and military personnel in Iraq. But this should not be our only goal.
ISIS’s continued rise is not just a problem for Iraq or its neighbors. If we do not continue to take decisive action against ISIS now, it will be not just Iraqis or Syrians who continue to suffer, it will likely be Americans, as a result of a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on our personnel overseas. America was faced with the same choice President Clinton faced in the 1990s during the emergence of al Qaeda: take action now, or we will be forced to take action in the future.
It is time to begin reversing this unprecedented tide of jihadist victories. America’s security and the safety of the American people are at stake.
Marco Rubio, who represents Florida in the U.S. Senate, is a member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations and Select Intelligence Committees.
-
This man expresses love for country more eloquently than the current occupant of the White House...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387897/our-star-spangled-banner-marco-rubio
SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM
Our Star-Spangled Banner
Two hundred years after the Battle of Baltimore, the flag still gives us chills.
By Marco Rubio
My father took me to my first Miami Dolphins game in 1977, and I remember looking up at him as we stood to sing “The Star Spangled Banner.” Just as it is today, Miami back then was a city of enormous diversity, with many people like my father who had come from other nations and had their lives changed by America.
In that crowd, you could have found some people who loved salsa and merengue and others who preferred R&B. I’m sure some were even (inexplicably, I might add) fans of the Bee Gees and other disco acts of the ’70s. But in that moment, all of us there, representing every background imaginable, were united by our appreciation and respect for our national anthem. Through this song, we became “out of many, one.”
I’ve been to numerous sporting events since then — from the NFL to the MLB to peewee football — where our national anthem is sung before the competition begins. I’ve also watched on TV some of the most unforgettable renditions, including Whitney Houston’s powerful Super Bowl performance in 1991 and Marvin Gaye’s famous version at the NBA All-Star Game in 1983. And every time, as I look around the audience and see Americans standing with their caps removed, it still gives me chills.
In those moments, no one cares whether the people to their left or right are Republicans or Democrats, immigrants or native-born. No one even minds if they’re fans of the opposing team.
Instead, we’re reminded that we’re all Americans. We’re all proud of our heritage, grateful to those who died to ensure our freedom, and forever indebted to those who continue that fight today.
Our national anthem is a stirring reminder of our solidarity as a people. So as we mark the 200th anniversary of Francis Scott Key’s penning of “The Star Spangled Banner,” let us take this chance to reflect on the history and promise of our nation — on how the things that divide us as individuals will never be more powerful that what unites us as Americans.
-
Rubio makes argument for robust military
3249
18
By Jesse Byrnes - 09/17/14 05:49 PM EDT
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called Wednesday for the United States to return to a Reagan-era U.S. military by greatly increasing its spending at the Pentagon.
Rubio said that the U.S. spends more than double on Social Security and Medicare benefits than it does on defense, and called for lawmakers to address those spending issues so that more money can be funneled to the nation’s defense.
ADVERTISEMENT
The possible 2016 White House contender sharply criticized President Obama’s defense and foreign affairs policies, noting that defense spending has fallen 21 percent since 2010 when adjusted for inflation, and 12 percent if the troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered.
Drawing from recommendations by the National Defense Panel, Rubio called for the U.S. to up the Navy’s current 289 ships to 323, support the Air Force's F-35 program, reverse the plan reducing the Army and Marine Corps to pre-9/11 levels, rebuild intelligence capabilities and tackle veteran health care, personnel recruitment and military pension reform.
“The world needs American strength just as much as our people and our economy do,” Rubio said in a Washington address. “No other nation can deter global conflict by its presence alone.
“We must be prepared for threats wherever they arise, because our nation is never isolated from the world,” added Rubio, who in a Washington Post op-ed last week argued the “isolationism” of Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, another possible 2016 contender, put American lives at risk.
“Waiting for our adversaries to unclench their fists so we can shake their hands has not proven a responsible or effective strategy,” said Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence panels.
The event was hosted by the John Hay Initiative along with Concerned Veterans for America and the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute's Project for the Common Defense.
The increased focus on danger posed by fighters with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as the dynamics of the upcoming 2016 presidential elections, offer good political timing for Rubio's speech, said former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a member of the defense project.
Aside from maybe Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who has talked about foreign policy for a long time, Rubio, if he decided to run, leads the pack of 2016 Republican contenders in terms of foreign policy, Talent told The Hill.
-
I don't know if it is a political winner or not, but he is right.
-
See WSJ today, someone please post.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/09/23/from-two-republican-senators-a-new-kind-of-tax-reform/
From two Republican senators, a new kind of tax reform
By Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
Part of the GOP’s time warp problem — it’s always 1981 — has been making tax reform synonymous with lowering marginal tax rates. But as conservative reformer Robert Stein puts it, “Too often, advocates of comprehensive tax reform have focused on the particular means of Reagan’s plan — the lowering of marginal income-tax rates — rather than on its more general ends: correcting economic distortions caused by government policy, lightening the tax burden on American families, and encouraging more work and investment.” He continues: “Lowering tax rates today could still enhance the incentives to invest, particularly in the corporate sector. But the distortions caused by marginal tax rates are not nearly as great as they were in 1980. And attempts to solve other problems caused by the tax code itself — like the biases in favor of consumption over saving, or home building over business investment — could never in themselves garner the public support necessary for a major overhaul.” Moreover, this tends to underestimate the impact of other reforms in generating economic growth — immigration, regulatory reform, trade policy and energy policy.
Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have adopted a new conservative tax approach, one that is more ambitious but also focused on wider social goals. They write that “it bears remembering that the end goal of economic policy isn’t simply growth, but freedom—clearing the obstacles from each American’s unique pursuit of happiness.” In other words, it aims to increase family income, lessen the cost of parenting, promote work and spur growth.
It’s basic components include an enhanced child tax credit of $2500, expansion and reform of the earned income tax credit and corporate tax reform to promote investment and growth in the U.S.:
On the business side, we would cut the current 35% corporate tax rate to make it competitive in the global economy. The exact rate will be determined as we continue to shape the legislation, but it must be low enough to end the problem of corporate inversions and the loss of American jobs to other nations. We will also allow companies large and small to deduct their expenses and capital investments while integrating all forms of business taxation into a consolidated, single-layer tax. . . .
We will also propose that businesses only be taxed in the country where income is actually earned, rather than double-taxed when the money is brought back home. The way to reverse corporate inversions and bring capital in off the sidelines isn’t to punish companies for obeying outmoded laws, but to change those laws to make America once again the best place in the world to pursue happiness and earn success.
The senators also want to go after “cronyist giveaways” in the tax code.
Reform conservatives have tended to be too defensive about the family-friendly provision. The senators are right: It’s good social policy; not every tax change has to be about cutting rates. (Minus the Obamacare tax add-on the top marginal rate would go back to 35 percent.) There are ample pro-growth items to satisfy supply-siders and address real problems of American uncompetitiveness.
A senior aide to Lee concedes it has not yet been scored for revenue neutrality and not all specifics are finalized, but this is a policy proposal, not a bill. He does confirm that most deductions on both individual and business side will either be gone or reformed. Lee’s individual side reform gets rid of all of the individual deductions except charitable giving and a capped mortgage interest deduction. That is certainly consistent with a broader tax base at a modest rate. Backers of the concept like Stein estimate that “under the proposal, a married couple with two children earning $70,000 would get a tax cut of roughly $5,000 per year compared to current law. ” That is better policy and better politics than say a flat-tax, which would almost certainly be more regressive than the current code.
The plan is conservative in the best sense of the word. It tries to accommodate competing aims, not zealously strive for one goal at the expense of others. It protects the most important elements of civil society (thereby insuring modest government and vibrant voluntary associations) — the family and charitable entities. It reduces cronyism and other barriers to free market success. And it strengthens the work ethic and upward mobility.
It is a serious plan worth studying and a challenge both to Democrats whose idea of tax reform is simply raising taxes on the rich and to single-minded supply siders whose ideas don’t attract much support outside staunch conservative bastions and Big Business. If you are going to change the image and focus of the party, this would sure be one way to do it.
-
Being labeled Neocon and having former Bush officials advise you has high political risk for both the primary and the general election, but I don't believe his views are politically motivated. Not just interventions, but preparedness is going to be a big issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389598/neocons-return-eliana-johnson
The neocons are back. That is, at least in Marco Rubio’s world. The Florida senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate has, since his election in 2010, regularly consulted with and sought the advice of top neoconservative writers and policymakers, several of whom served in the administration of George W. Bush.
His loose circle of advisers includes former national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, former deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, Brookings Institution scholar and former Reagan-administration aide Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, and former Missouri senator Jim Talent.
To this group, beating back the rising tide of non-interventionism in the Republican party is a top priority, and they consider Rubio a candidate, if not the candidate, capable of doing so. “I think it’s very important that any isolationist arguments be defeated well and be defeated early,” says a neoconservative foreign-policy expert who talks with Rubio frequently.
Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, a war in Israel, and the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have in the course of a few months made the American public, and especially Republican-primary voters, more hawkish. Some argue that these events have dimmed the prospects that Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who has carved out a niche for himself as the leading non-interventionist in the Republican party, could seize the nomination. Unquestionably, the crises have boosted Rubio’s stock.
“We’re in an international crisis of really significant proportions, the likes of which we haven’t seen in decades,” says the Brookings Institution’s Kagan. “We’ve all been very sympathetic to people worried about going crosswise with the Republican base, but I really think we’re past that. From my perspective, I’m only going to be interested in people who are willing to say the hard things.” For Kagan, that includes arguing for an increase in the defense budget and being frank both about the need to use force when necessary and about America’s role as the world’s preeminent power.
But it’s not just current events that have drawn serious foreign-policy thinkers to Rubio. Since his election four years ago, the first-term senator has consistently articulated a robust internationalist position closest to that of George W. Bush. His outside advisers say he impressed them from the beginning as somebody who took foreign affairs seriously; since then he has built up a record of accomplishment during his four years in the Senate, where he serves on the foreign-relations and intelligence committees.
The experts I spoke with made it clear they have not signed up with Rubio, and nearly all speak with, and speak highly of, other potential candidates. But it is Rubio who garners their highest praise.
“From very early on he was clearly someone who was deciding to take foreign policy seriously,” says Kagan, “I thought he spoke remarkably intelligently.”
Elliott Abrams first spoke with Rubio when he was running for the Senate in 2010. “We had a mutual friend who said to me, ‘He has no experience in the Middle East, but obviously it’s a big issue in Florida, would you be willing to talk to him?’” Abrams says. “We got on the phone, and he said, ‘Let’s do it this way: Let me tell you what I think about the Middle East, and then you tell me what I’ve left out that’s important and what I’ve got wrong.’” Rubio, Abrams says, didn’t have anything wrong. “I was really impressed,” he tells me. “I don’t think there are very many state politicians who could have, off the cuff, done a six-or-seven minute riff on the Middle East.”
Rubio’s disciplined and methodical approach to foreign policy — he has articulated his views over the past two years in several speeches around the world — presents a stark contrast, say multiple foreign-policy experts, to that of his tea-party colleague Ted Cruz. A Cruz adviser last week told National Journal that the Texas senator will almost certainly mount a presidential bid in 2016 and plans to run on a “foreign-policy platform.”
“Whereas Rubio clearly has some views that he has considered and articulated, my sense of Cruz is that he is much less formed by conviction,” says one foreign-policy expert who has met with both potential candidates. “His background was really more on the domestic side.”
Cruz has repeatedly said he embraces a Reaganite foreign policy. He made headlines in recent weeks for walking out of an event when a group of Arab Christians booed his vocal defense of Israel, and he has used his seat on the Armed Services Committee to travel abroad during his time in office. But those I spoke with were, across the board, unimpressed. They universally characterized his worldview as shallow, opportunistic, and ever shifting to where he perceives the base of the party to be.
A former senior Bush administration defense official criticized the Texas senator in particular for his failure, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to advocate for raising the defense budget. “He’s basically not done anything that I’m aware of to put an end to the hemorrhaging in the Defense Department, so it rings a little hollow,” he says. “It’s one thing to posture, it’s another thing to have a consistent policy. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t develop one. I don’t want to write him up as a lost cause, but he has a long way to go before he could be considered on the same bar as Rubio, considered to have a coherent world view.”
Over the summer, Rubio was briefed on the findings of the National Defense Panel, led by former Missouri senator Jim Talent and former undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman, and the senator used a major speech last month to sound the alarm about the recent cuts to the defense budget and argue for ramping it back up.
Kagan — the preeminent neoconservative scholar and author who made headlines when President Obama improbably cited his article on “The Myth of American Decline,” and again when his cover story for The New Republic critiquing Obama’s foreign policy zipped through the West Wing — has had a major influence on Rubio’s worldview.
The former adviser to politicians from Jack Kemp to Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton says he spoke with Rubio on and off during his first two years in office, and Rubio cited Kagan’s 2012 book The World America Made in his remarks at the Brookings Institution later that year. In the book, Kagan argues that world orders are transient, and that the world order that has been shaped by the United States since the end of World War II — defined by freedom, democracy, and capitalism — will crumble if American power wanes. But he also posits that the modern world order rests not on America’s cherished ideals — respect for individual rights and human dignity — but on economic and military power, and that its preservation requires bolstering America’s hard power.
Rubio has echoed that view over the past two years. “We should start by acknowledging the fact that a strong and engaged America has been a force of tremendous good in the world,” Rubio said in Washington, D.C., last year. “This can be done easily by imagining the sort of world we would live in today had America sat out the 20th century.” He pushed back in December last year, in a speech he gave in London about the lasting importance of the transatlantic alliance, on those he described as “weary from decades of global engagement.” In Seoul, South Korea, a month later, he lamented that many in Congress are “increasingly skeptical about why America needs to remain so active in international affairs.”
Rubio’s views are strikingly similar to those that guided George W. Bush as he began navigating the post-9/11 world. “Foreign policy is domestic policy,” Rubio told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in November of last year. “When liberty is denied and economic desperation take root, it affects us here at home. It breeds radicalism and terror. It drives illegal immigration. It leads to humanitarian crises that we are compelled to address.” It was Bush who in his 2002 National Security Strategy argued that “the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is increasingly diminishing,” because “events beyond America’s borders have a greater impact inside them.”
The key difference, according to Kagan, is that Bush, who campaigned in 2000 on a platform of scaling back American involvement in the world, “had a revelation after September 11,” whereas Rubio comes by his position more organically.
However unfairly, Bush’s approach to foreign affairs has become inextricably associated with the invasion of Iraq, and few Republicans are willing to stand wholeheartedly behind it anymore. I asked a Rubio aide if the senator fears associating himself too closely with the Bush clan or with Bush’s foreign policy, and whether Rubio might be making himself vulnerable to an attack that a Rubio presidency would be George W. Bush’s third term. No, the aide replies, adding that “a lot of the foreign-policy issues that the next president is going to deal with are different than they were 20 years ago.”
Regardless, Rubio may indeed become vulnerable to the charge that he is another neocon like Bush, surrounded by some of the same people and informed by essentially the same views.
The day when Republican-primary voters go to the polls is still a long way off, but it feels as if a number of conservative foreign-policy thinkers have already cast their vote.
— Eliana Johnson is Washington editor of National Review.
-
Rubio is in an unusual position where he has to not seek reelection to the Senate if he wants to pursue the Presidency. Control of the Senate may rest on the Florida race for his seat, so he can't leave it until spring 2016 to announce if he is out. He has perhaps a one in twelve chance of winning just the nomination at this point. Many would handicap it lower than that. I think he will be either the next President or Vice President. But I only get one vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/03/rubios_2016_choice_rife_with_complications_uncertainty__124829.html
-
National Journal Presidential Power Rankings:
(See link below for full list.)
2. Marco Rubio
The senator from Florida has the highest upside of anyone on this list. His combination of biography, demographic profile, and rhetorical skill had convinced many Republicans in the wake of his 2010 Senate victory that he was the future of the Republican Party. He still could be. Rubio has assembled a top-notch political team and is planning a major media blitz in mid-January to promote his new book, American Dreams. These would seem to be surefire signs of an imminent presidential campaign. But Rubio's future suddenly looks uncertain now that Bush has entered the race and is threatening to suck Florida's donor community dry.
We're still betting that Rubio will jump in. He's too talented—and too ambitious—to pass up a race that could define the GOP for a generation. Still, a Rubio run isn't the sure thing we thought it would be a few months ago. And although we think he's the candidate with the most potential if he does run, the sudden doubt over whether he will bumps him to No. 2 for now.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hotline-s-gop-presidential-power-rankings-bush-and-rubio-have-early-lead-20150104
-
I think he strikes many as simply "too young" but a good showing could get him the VP nominee slot.
-
I think he strikes many as simply "too young" but a good showing could get him the VP nominee slot.
Too young in quotes probably means maturity level, projected and real, also perhaps too new to the national stage and federal issues. I agree, these are question marks. The larger deficiency for me is the lack of executive experience (for a lot of these contenders, not just Rubio). Also his experience with immigration reform set him back a few miles, though that may turn into a positive.
Rubio is older than the median voter and winning the mature vote is something he has done, winning Florida by 20 points and more than a million votes. Part of the argument being made against this being a Bush v. Clinton contest is generational. Relating to and motivating young people is also a necessity. The youthfulness of Marco Rubio is partly a plus.
Noted by Crafty: if he makes a good showing. We will see if his performance in debates matches my high expectations. Seems to me he is extremely committed to being informed and ready. I didn't like that he got dragged into a contest with Rand Paul on Cuba. Most say Rubio won that exchange, but heated battles within the same team can do damage.
"...could get him the VP nominee slot." We aren't very far apart. The qualifications for VP nominee: ready and qualified to be a great President and brings energy, persuasion and electability to the ticket. That is pretty close to the qualifications needed for the top slot!
I could see him as a good VP pick IF the top slot is filled with someone very like minded in direction, as well as very experienced as an executive and carrying and projecting all the maturity and gravitas needed. I think he would be a lousy VP pick if his strengths are seen as qualities the nominee lacks. For example, Dole putting Kemp on the ticket did not make Bob Dole more like Jack Kemp and Palin did not make McCain any younger, cuter or more conservative.
Perhaps if someone like Mike Pence won the nomination with an agenda is nearly identical to Rubio's, then Rubio might make a great addition to the ticket as a second salesman. But Gov. Pence (or Walker or whoever) will not be the nominee if they are deficient at building excitement for the agenda. More traditionally, the VP nominee is the hatchet person who brings the opponent down a notch, leaving the top of the ticket more free to stay positive and on-message.
The very best spokesman for the cause needs to be at the top of the ticket (IMHO), selling freedom, strength, security and limited government principles at every stop. If there is someone better than Marco Rubio at doing that, please point him or her out... SOON!
Other qualities like competence, experience, and maturity are essential too, but I see this election cycle as a choice and change of direction. We need foremost an articulate, charismatic and tireless leader with a superb sense of direction.
-
People might remember that it was Katie Couric who tripped up newcomer Sarah Palin in 2008. So who did Marco Rubio choose for his first book interview this week? None other than Katie Couric. She came at him hard, in her own snitty, snippy, snotty sort of way, and he handled it quite well IMHO. Here is a link to it:http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-interviews-senator-marco-rubio-on-cuba-and-2016-presidential-election-033914562.html
-
I watched the full 32 minutes of the interview. I agree, he handled things very well. Not only that, but he impressed me as having more heft than I previously had seen. He definitely moved up in my opinion.
-
I watched the full 32 minutes of the interview. I agree, he handled things very well. Not only that, but he impressed me as having more heft than I previously had seen. He definitely moved up in my opinion.
Moving up in the polls - with support from women!
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-rubio-surges-to-second-just-3-points-behind-romney/article/2559163
-
They had a betting game on the panel on Bret Baier tonight and Charles Krauthammer put $40 of his $100 on Rubio, and Steve Hayes put $30 of his $100 on Rubio.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDcFgvbodpQ
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/rubios-short-course-on-iran.php
Please watch the video.
Interestingly, of all the allegations of facts and analyses, the Deputy Sec of State is able to correct or counter none of them.
Has anyone ever heard Hillary or Jeb or or Mitt or Huck or ... ever dive in with this level of depth and clarity?
-
Very good article with balance about Rubio.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-ryanization-of-rubio-20150130
-
Thanks Doug. I look forward to hearing more from Rubio's idea machine.
I am displeased with the immigration issue. We cannot cave to this.
-
Thanks Doug. I look forward to hearing more from Rubio's idea machine.
I am displeased with the immigration issue. We cannot cave to this.
Politifact: Rubio admits that was the wrong route and instead proposes a piecemeal approach to immigration reform. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/14/fact-checking-marco-rubios-book/
That experience should keep him from peaking too early in the polls. ) He lost his own supporters there. It was a valuable lesson for him to work with and then get backstabbed by the likes of Shumer and Durbin. In his defense, he knew the so-called final Senate bill would still go to negotiations with the Republican House. Now he can articulate both sides along with middle ground on that tricky issue perhaps better than anyone. Others with a harder line will be more popular with conservatives early in the race, and Jeb has a lock on the pro-amnesty vote. Rubio's efforts there make him less scary to some general election voters. One of the biggest questions late in the primaries will be which conservative can win.
-
I wonder what Rubio needs an New Hampshire operative for if he is just selling a book. :wink:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/09/rubio-nabs-key-former-romney-aide/
-
In the early 2016 Republican presidential jockeying—as the field of potential candidates grows, and as Jeb Bush , Mitt Romney , Scott Walker and Rand Paul grab the recent headlines—an interesting development is unfolding just beyond the limelight: In the eyes of many in the party, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has quietly moved into the upper tier of that long list of potential candidates.
He gave a well-reviewed performance at a recent gathering of donors organized by the conservative Koch brothers. He has raised eyebrows by securing the services of Jim Merrill, who directed both of Mitt Romney’s presidential runs in New Hampshire, and the support of George Seay, a Texas financier who raised money for then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry last time around. He has laid a substantive groundwork with a series of detailed policy speeches over the past year.
More intriguing, perhaps, there is little indication that the likely entry of Mr. Bush, the man seen as Mr. Rubio’s political mentor, is going to deter him from proceeding. Over the weekend, Mr. Rubio happened to be in Iowa, home of the nation’s initial nominating caucuses, signing copies of what looks an awful lot like a campaign book of policy ideas. In the next week he’s off to the early-primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to do the same. A springtime presidential announcement seems likely.
All of which raises the question: In a field populated with other senators and an even bigger figure from the state of Florida, what is the case for Marco Rubio?
It starts with the obvious: Mr. Rubio is a bright and articulate politician with the kind of broadly conservative credentials required in the Republican Party circa 2016. And his ability to break out in fluent Spanish in a news conference or a Telemundo interview gives him a chance to reach a Hispanic audience that keeps slipping away from the GOP.
Still, those attributes aren’t sufficient. For Mr. Rubio, success also depends on the magic of political timing—that is, the chance that he has arrived offering precisely what the market happens to be demanding.
On that front, his case rests heavily on two predicates. The first is that Republicans, sufficiently disillusioned with the political establishment, are ready to break tradition by trying somebody who is newer and younger—and who hasn’t waited his turn.
This, of course, is what the Democrats did in picking Barack Obama in 2008. But it isn’t what Republicans tend to do. The GOP normally picks the candidate whose turn has come, and usually the one around whom the party’s establishment has coalesced. In 2012, Mr. Romney was the obvious establishment choice, and one who had paid his dues by running once before. George W. Bush was the establishment choice in 2000. Bob Dole , George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon all had been around the block by mounting serious prior candidacies before the party turned the reins over to them.
The Rubio candidacy rests in part on an assumption that the party, like the country more broadly, now has grown ever more disillusioned with the political establishment in recent years. Certainly some strong new forces are coursing through the party. More than half the Republicans in the House have been elected since 2008. A tea-party insurrection has been roiling the GOP since 2009.
And when Mr. Romney raised the possibility that he might return for a third presidential run in 2016, the idea of turning again to such a paragon of the establishment didn’t exactly ignite a wildfire of enthusiasm. Such signs give hope to Rubio forces.
Mr. Rubio’s second asset is the work he has done in the past couple of years developing a voice and a track record on foreign policy. As the economy appears to be improving and global conditions are deteriorating, the premium attached to the ability to maneuver on this front is rising. That’s an area of advantage for Mr. Rubio over governors—say, for example, New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, both of whom had their problems while dipping their toes in foreign waters on recent trips to London.
Those advantages are offset by two significant problems. First, Mr. Rubio’s profile as a 43-year-old with just four years of experience in the Senate is awfully reminiscent of Mr. Obama’s in 2008. Some in the GOP will argue against repeating that experience.
And second, Mr. Rubio will continue to get grief among some in the party for having sponsored a comprehensive immigration reform plan that envisioned an eventual path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.
Those aren’t small obstacles. The question for Mr. Rubio is whether they are trumped by the advantage of good timing.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
-
I agree in part with Gerald F. Seib, WSJ.
Taking the last points first. It is certainly true that Rubio's effort on immigration reform hurt his current standing with conservatives. Offsetting that in part is that the same effort softens his image with the center making him more electable, if nominated. It also deepened and broadened his knowledge of an issue that isn't going away, and it gave him behind the scenes, face to face experience dealing with the Democratic core of congress, people like Dick Durbin and Chuck Shumer. Rubio's effort there was an error and a failure by his own admission, but one hell of a learning experience that would have been entirely missed by being just one voting Senator sitting on the sidelines.
To note the similarities in age and background of Rubio to Obama is to miss the essence of both of these people and their past experiences. Seib answers that; one voted present and one served with increasing responsibilities of leadership. One spoke in cliches and wanted to tear down the country and one is spelling out how exactly to bring its greatness. Also one state, Illinois, ended up in failure and one, Florida, in success.
I find the 'establishment candidate' argument empty this time around. Who is the establishment right now? Reince Priebus, a 42 year old from Wisconsin? Not Chris Christy, he is his own maverick. Romney is out. Scott Walker is the opposite of establishment; no one like a Karl Rove would have advised him to take on those entrenched interests. J.E.B. might seek 'establishment' money but he also dances only to the beat of his own drum. Who is the proven winner in this crowd. None of them. Christy is back to a 37% approval in his own state. Walker untested on this stage. And Jeb has been out of politics by choice for quite a long time. Rubio enters the contest even up on that score, IMHO.
Will any of these candidates including Rubio rise in the campaign and the debates to be seen as Presidential? I don't know. Rubio has become fluent in foreign policy issues; does that translate into being seen as a credible and responsible Commander in Chief? I don't know. What I know is that this is a wide open primary and it will come down to a number of factors. Who connects? Who will do right on foreign policy in a troubled world? And my central point here: Who (taking Stephen Hayes description of Rubio) is the most talented communicator that makes the case for limited government and American greatness better than anyone in the Republican field? If someone other than Rubio, can do that better than Rubio, and has executive experience and foreign policy credibility, Presidential temperament, clean background and all the rest, then good for us, let's take him or her. Maybe Mike pence on paper, but I don't see a better communicator out there, and that is what we need right now if we want anything for the American future beyond a gridlock that leaves all liberal, leftist programs fully in place.
Rubio's ability to speak fluent Spanish at this point in time in our nation's history could prove instrumental. Add cute wife and kids to it and Hillary for an opponent and this starts to look a little like 1960, JFK vs. Nixon. Funny that JFK turned out to be the supply-sider with a tilt toward individual responsibility, and Nixon became the big government statist.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/20/this-marco-rubio-statement-on-rudy-giuliani-is-about-perfect/
-
"Yes, there are some on the right who will not like that Rubio said Obama loves America, but these were not voters Rubio was going to win"
Well I am on the right and I don't like it. Isn't obvious he doesn't love America?
He is using his position and power to push a one world government dream of the left.
Rubio may or may not win my vote.
-
Is this really a sword to die on?
He is running to be President of ALL the people, no point in needlessly persuading low and middle info voters that he has a visceral attitude against a man they regard as pleasant and his platitudes as plausible.
-
We make a stand or cave?
We are already dying if you ask me. What you say Obama does not have a visceral dislike of America? Why ignore it?
-
The point can still be made without hitching his wagon to defending Rudy.
-
One has to have the temperament of iron I suppose. Can't say the truth to the "left". Just can't. They come after you like a brick s..t-house.
Look at the way they are going after Gulliani even though he states the obvious. Everything he said he backs with facts. So he can't voice his opinion?
I could almost but not quite let Rubio off with the "I believe [Obama] loves American. I have a harder time doing that when he essentially calls Gulliani's remark "embarrassing".
We all have our opinions and those are mine. I am not embarrassed. I am more embarrassed by the cave ins on the right.
-
Did Marco really need to get tied up in this meaningless kerfuffle? http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/20/giulianis-biographer-destroys-him-in-scathing-op-ed-on-how-rudy-loves-america/
I think he made the right choice in not getting tied up with it and instead to talk about his vision for America.
-
Did Marco really need to get tied up in this meaningless kerfuffle? http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/20/giulianis-biographer-destroys-him-in-scathing-op-ed-on-how-rudy-loves-america/
I think he made the right choice in not getting tied up with it and instead to talk about his vision for America.
I agree. There is a real skill to staying on-message without putting down your questioner. Reagan had about 3 things he wanted to accomplish as President. For Rubio, I would say, a similar challenge. He has his vision, agenda, campaign and book - all about growing peace and prosperity, and the MSM has this shiny object, a quote they find controversial and irresistible. He needed it to go away; he isn't running against Obama - or Rudy.
Stephen Hayes (2016 thread): "When I sat in on Rubio’s debate-prep sessions for a profile I wrote in 2010, I was blown away by his ability to think on his feet. Rubio routinely came up with memorable one-liners that other candidates would pay consultants thousands of dollars to imagine."
Wash Post blog, Crafty's link: "In one fell swoop, Rubio gets in a dig at the media, bring in another regular gaffer in Biden, places himself above the fray, says Obama loves America, and criticizes Obama in a very blunt way."
More than that, he ends with, "I think his ideas are bad." The follow up question, if there was one, puts him right back on message: Here's why I think his ideas are wrong and here's how I think we should do it differently...
Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press, said of Rubio's response, "that’s how you do this."
http://www.hughhewitt.com/chuck-todd-on-the-presidents-very-rough-week/
Hillary's managers couldn't answer a similar question in months, and she couldn't do it without a script and a rehearsal. Crafty said of Ben Carson, no electoral experience. (I point this out once in a while, but) Rubio won Florida by a million votes. Key Democrats are looking to jump into the Florida Senate race only if Rubio doesn't. Not too many other so-called tea party Senators representing swing states evoke that kind of fear or respect.
-
Marco Rubio began his race for the Republican presidential nomination with a bang by snagging Jim Merrill, Mitt Romney's top campaign aide in both of his presidential bids. Though the cat's out of the bag, Rubio's not expected to formally announce until April.
In joining the first-term senator from Florida, Merrill declared, "What Mitt [Romney] said is right. It's time for the next generation of Republican leadership." Merrill called Rubio the "most exciting candidate in the field." He continued, "I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think he could win. He knows ... [how to] engage voters, do town halls, run personal door-to-door campaigns. I've never seen a more talented guy."
Rubio, the son of naturalized Cuban immigrants, would be the first Latino Republican candidate. That in itself should warm the cockles of establishment-type GOP hearts. And make no mistake -- Republicans must improve with minorities.
Bright, articulate and energetic, Rubio served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives, eventually being elected speaker in 2006. In 2009, he ran against Charlie Crist in the Florida senatorial primary. Beginning as an underdog, Rubio climbed the polls quickly and won the primary. Crist then ran as an independent, but Rubio beat him again in a three-way race.
In his first term as a U.S. senator, Rubio has authored, introduced or co-sponsored more bills than many of his senior colleagues, and he's established himself as a substantial cultural and fiscal conservative.
Rubio's major obstacle in his quest for the nomination may be fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, the man rallying GOP elites. With the establishment behind the former Sunshine State governor and with his own family's connections, Bush has many wealthy donors already committed to him.
By comparison, Rubio has so far won the backing of George Seay, a Texas financier who supported Gov. Rick Perry in 2012, and Norman Braman, a car dealer billionaire and philanthropist. He was well received at a gathering of donors the Koch brothers put together and will likely win yet more support. But he's still David to Bush's Goliath.
His pitch is that he's the right messenger (an eloquent, young, Cuban-American who can appeal to a diverse array of voters) with the right message (an optimistic plan for American exceptionalism, born of his personal story) for the 21st century.
Rubio espouses conservative cultural and fiscal conservative values -- he's pro-life, pro-religious freedom and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage and recreational marijuana use. He wants to limit the growth of federal spending via a balanced budget amendment and to restore George W. Bush's tax cuts. He favors helping small business through tax cuts, including capital gains, and promoting research and development in science and technology, including bringing the moribund space program back to life.
In his senatorial race, Rubio was the Tea Party candidate, and he probably can still expect substantial Tea Party support, even with several candidates competing for that backing.
Some pundits compare Rubio to Barack Obama's running against a party favorite. Virtually no one knew Obama, so running against Hillary Clinton was risible. She was so far ahead in the polls that his candidacy seemed quixotic. But despite Hillary's seeming popularity, many Democrats didn't want a Clinton dynasty. Obama knew it, and he was able to out-charisma Hillary for the nomination.
In most respects, there's no similarity between Rubio and Obama, but the comparison stands up on one point. Like Obama, Rubio is young and has a popular message, so with a few dozen stump speeches the polls could begin to swing. And average Republicans are leery of a Bush dynasty. Then again, this analogy discounts the several other candidates who have their own sizable followings -- something Obama did not face.
Rubio presents himself and his family as being winners because of American exceptionalism -- a word conservatives ache to hear again from their president. Unlike the current Oval Office occupant, Rubio exudes patriotism. His parents came from Cuba, escaping poverty and seeking opportunity, and they found it in America. We need a leader who can show us that this great nation will revive economically, will destroy ISIL and will begin to reverse its cultural decline. Maybe Rubio can do it.
-
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324558-3/senator-marco-rubio-rfl-remarks-cpac-2015
-
Elizabeth Warren isn't going to like this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rubio-previews-tax-reform-plan-at-donor-meet-115626.html
-
One pundit said that people like Rubio can overcome the cash disadvantage they have compared to establishment candidates by taking interviews like this one with a television station in New Hampshire and staying until the last question is answered. No handlers, no script, no podium, this didn't cost him anything except a trip to the studio. It ran on NH tv and was covered by a Florida newspaper.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-ap-rubio-close-to-2016-decision-20150302-story.html
-
Washngton Post, The Fix:
Nobody can match Marco Rubio’s upside
Although Rubio hasn't been at the top of GOP primary polls for many months, the new poll shows he's the guy most Republicans could see themselves voting for.
More at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/16/marco-rubio-the-gops-upside-candidate/
-----------------------
And a BIG negative story yesterday on Rubio at Politico - contains nothing that wasn't vetted in 2010 and nothing in it comes close to landing a punch. It could even be Rubio people making sure this story is forever old news.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/marco-rubios-house-of-horrors-116075.html
Marco Rubio’s house of horrors
A Tallahassee home co-owned by a scandal-plagued ex-congressman is the locus of questions about the senator’s finances and judgment.
By Marc Caputo 3/16/15
The friend's money problems had to do with the lobby expanding gambling in Florida and Rubio opposed that. He paid the bills when the friend didn't. Used his RNC credit cards a couple of times and reimbursed them.
His tenant at the "House of Horrors":
The tenant declined to speak with POLITICO, but she said in a written statement that Rubio and his wife “have been very gracious and understanding of my circumstances.” She called them “extraordinary landlords” and expressed her “deep appreciation … for all that you’ve done.”
Try getting a tenant to give their landlord a great reference. It's not that easy!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdMWbqZsyuM
Israel should have this friend in the White House.
-
Agreed. Watch for Hillary come out to secure the Democratic Jewish vote with strong remarks for Israel.
If she doesn't I would be very surprised.
And I wouldn't count on the Democratic party to lose the liberal Jewish vote either way though. Maybe they would sit out the election but it seems hard to believe any of them would be willing to vote for a Republican. To them Repubs are worse than Nazis. :cry:
-
Agreed. Watch for Hillary come out to secure the Democratic Jewish vote with strong remarks for Israel.
If she doesn't I would be very surprised.
And I wouldn't count on the Democratic party to lose the liberal Jewish vote either way though. Maybe they would sit out the election but it seems hard to believe any of them would be willing to vote for a Republican. To them Repubs are worse than Nazis. :cry:
That's right. No R is going to win the liberal Jewish vote. But most of my Jewish friends are traditional Democrats, CFOs and small business owners, who are conflicted with what they see happening. They are successful and see firsthand the policies of attacking success. Not just federal, but we have some new state taxes here worse than Calif! They see over a prolonged period that it is Republicans (and Christians) who want to protect the Jewish state of Israel, and it is liberals and Democrats who keep siding with the terrorists who attack Israel and committed to its destruction. At some point you stop pulling that lever.
Meanwhile, the Dem coalition has Muslims, gays and Jews all playing on the same team. And they think WE have problems! Chipping away at the support of core Democrat demographic constituencies is exactly what we need. If the black vote for Obama at 98% drops to maybe 88% with weaker enthusiasm and if the Dems hold on Jews that already dropped 21% in 8 years (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/are-democrats-losing-the-jews/382665/) falls even further, and if gains are made with Hispanics... trends like that can change the direction of the country.
-
Where the Rubio Tax Plan Falls Short
The child credits and new rates pit groups against one another in a way that across-the-board rate cuts do not.
Sen. Marco Rubio at the Capitol Hill announcement of a tax-reform plan drawn up with Sen. Mike Lee, March 4. ENLARGE
Sen. Marco Rubio at the Capitol Hill announcement of a tax-reform plan drawn up with Sen. Mike Lee, March 4. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
By
Amity Shlaes And
Matthew Denhart
April 2, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
87 COMMENTS
Can a technical debate over tax plans trigger an identity crisis in the Republican Party? Apparently, yes. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah recently launched their “Economic Growth and Family Fairness Tax Reform Plan.” Within a few days former presidential candidate Steve Forbes fired back with a flat-tax plan. In policy circles the big question is whether Jeb Bush and Scott Walker will back “Rubio-Lee” or “flat tax.”
The Rubio-Lee plan takes a different approach in the name of achieving the old Republican goal of growth. But the approach is so different that it can hurt the viability of the Republican Party and even set in train changes that may slow future growth.
Signaling opportunity throughout the tax code has long been the basis of the philosophy known as supply-side economics, or “Reaganomics.” Reaganomics treats even individual wage earners as entrepreneurs. The marginal rate to which a worker is subject under the progressive tax schedule is crucial.
A higher rate on the next dollar a worker earns discourages him from working more. The highest tax bracket is especially important as top earners produce the most and innovate the most. Incentivized by a low top rate, they will increase earnings more than those further down the income scale. That top marginal rate also functions as a symbol of how society rewards enterprise.
Of course, Republicans have also long routinely backed targeted tax devices for groups: the child credit, education credits and so on. But such mini-entitlements were add-ons to build political coalitions that could support the main cause: dramatic across-the-board rate reductions.
Broadly speaking, the evidence from the Reagan years supports the traditional Republican emphasis on the top marginal rate. A stream of revenues stronger than the Treasury had predicted, $11 billion more, followed Reagan’s 1981 cut in the top rate to 50% from 70%.
The topmost earners responded especially vigorously, working and earning more. As economist Lawrence Lindsey pointed out years ago (Journal of Public Economics, 1987), about 40% of the extra revenue collected came from the top taxpayer group. As Mr. Lindsey noted in his 1991 book, “The Growth Experiment,” the top 0.1% of taxpayers paid 14% of the taxes in 1986, compared with only 7% in 1981.
The Rubio-Lee plan lowers the marginal rate on the corporate income tax significantly, to 25% from 35%. But on the personal side their proposal drops the top marginal rate on individual income by a puny 4.6 percentage points, to 35% from 39.6%.
By comparison the top rate in the 1986 tax law was 28% (down from 50%); 33% in George W. Bush’s 2000 proposal, and 28% in Mitt Romney’s 2012 proposal. Mr. Forbes’s flat tax is 17%.
What’s more, Rubio-Lee lowers tax thresholds drastically. Singles with taxable income as low as $75,000 find themselves entering the 35% top bracket; for couples the top rate applies after $150,000. Currently, individuals don’t hit the 35% bracket until $411,501, and the same holds for couples. The very top current rate, 39.6%, doesn’t set in for individuals until $413,201 and for couples until $464,851 in taxable income. It is no wonder that Democratic and liberal strategists have singled out the Rubio-Lee plan for praise.
Rubio-Lee also raises the child credit to an unusually generous $2,500 per child, available even to wealthy families. Current child credits feature restrictions on use, and income limits. In short, the senators are flipping traditional GOP priorities. Add-ons for groups trump pro-growth cuts.
Since Rubio-Lee taxes income below the $75,000 and $150,000 thresholds at a low 15%, it is unclear how many Americans would end up paying more in taxes overall than they do at present. But the plan pits groups against one another in a way that across-the-board cuts do not. Couples with several children who live in low-tax states with lower-cost housing are entitled to breaks. Couples who live in high-tax states and are childless are not. Businesses enjoy lower rates than wage earners.
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently estimated that Rubio-Lee would increase economic growth so that by 2025 the economy would be 15% larger than otherwise, almost entirely due to business tax cuts. The effect of the child credit on growth is reckoned at zero. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute notes that if Rubio-Lee dropped all the preferences it contains, old and new, the plan could drop its top income-tax rate to 20% or lower.
Growth fueled by corporate tax cuts may suffice to offset costly items like the child credit on paper. But the Tax Foundation’s scoring doesn’t capture the cost of resentment between groups, or that of a tax code that emphasizes families over individuals. Rubio-Lee does not make enough effort to encourage that group of top income earners to strive.
A Republican plan that emphasizes “fairness” to this extent risks establishing a trend. Rubio-Lee sets the stage for greater tax gifts to particular groups in the future, with eventual hikes to the top marginal rate. If the self-styled party of enterprise does not emphasize the individual, no one will.
The overall seriousness of the Rubio-Lee plan is commendable. But to make the plan worth endorsing requires a major change: scrapping the child credit and replicating the business side cuts on the individual side.
Miss Shlaes is the author of “Coolidge” (HarperCollins, 2013). Mr. Denhart is the executive director of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation.
Popular on WSJ
-
Good analysis here. I held off commenting on the Rubio (and Mike Lee) tax reform plan because I also found it a little bit lacking.
Schlaes skips over a major point, the Rubio-Lee plan eliminates all taxes on capital gains. That is a big deal, a windfall to me, good economic growth policy, but not a good political calculation as I see it. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation using the same cost of living adjustment that social security uses. You can't, in this political environment, eliminate a basic tax associated mainly with 'the rich'. And you shouldn't, as she points out, lower the threshold for the top rate.
Ted Cruz was asked about the Rubio-Lee plan, and his own plan (there isn't one yet). He said he prefers the flat tax. I do too. But he also said (paraphrasing) that you make compromises and take every step you can get to lower the rates and simplify the code. In other words, all of these campaign plans are negotiating points for a future President. If the politics is played right, the plan can be written in a Republican congress, maybe by Paul Ryan, current Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
In 2012, we had WONDERFUL Republican candidate tax plans, from Herman Cain's 9-9-9, to Pawlenty's to even Huntsman's plan which was very pro-growth. Mitt Romney's plan would have doubled our growth rate.
But we lost and got none of those. We aren't looking for the best plan. We are looking for the best plan that will get implemented.
I hope that Rubio sharpens his pencil, lowers his rates and raises his income thresholds. We know that he doesn't want to tax people at 35%. I hope he realizes 35% federal is at least 45% combined in some states. Florida has no income tax. Whatever he does comes up with, he has to answer for in the debates and Meet the Press appearances, etc.
I've had my own tax plan concept in mind for a long time. When I finally took pen to paper I found out it is harder than it looks to set brackets and rates, raise all the money we supposedly need and appease all the political forces.
When the current tea party wave started in about 2010, it seemed to me that one of the main lessons of the previous ten years and unifying forces of the movement was that we need to cut spending first. To Rubio's credit, real entitlement reform is a main focus.
-
Certainly Rubio is aware of this editorial by the WSJ and I'm guessing he is giving it some thought.
-
Wash Post: In South Florida, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are forcing locals to pick sides
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-south-florida-jeb-bush-and-marco-rubio-are-forcing-locals-to-pick-sides/2015/04/09/331951a6-d3e3-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html
Odd to me the article is so positive. I thought most people don't like their local politicians.
--------------------------------------------------
Today's kickoff of the Rubio campaign steps on the Hillary rollout. Strange that she picked it that way.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/13/rubio_campaign_launch_aims_to_capitalize_on_clintons_126244.html
Rubio Campaign Launch Aims to Capitalize on Clinton's
By Caitlin Huey-Burns - April 13, 2015
Rubio Looks to Find His Opening in the 2016 GOP Field
By Julie Pace - April 13, 2015
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/13/rubio_looks_to_find_his_opening_in_the_2016_gop_field_126242.html
Rubio is about to step into a field that is shaping up to be crowded and competitive.
He won't be the only senator in the race.
He won't be the only tea party-aligned candidate.
He won't even be the only Floridian, the only Cuban-American or the only candidate claiming foreign policy expertise.
Some are better known - Bush, for one.
But it is early, and Rubio's advisers say they are playing a long game. "Campaigns are won at the end, not at the beginning," said Alex Conant, Rubio's spokesman.
-
The Rubio Run
The 43-year-old is strong on foreign policy, less so on taxes.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) announces his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday. ENLARGE
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) announces his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday. Photo: REUTERS/Joe Skipper
April 13, 2015 7:16 p.m. ET
34 COMMENTS
Marco Rubio on Monday joined Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the run for the Republican presidential nomination. It must be more than coincidence that the first three declared candidates are first-term members of the U.S. Senate. Aside from reducing the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body to a trampoline, the eager trio reflect the undercurrent of impatience these days in Republican politics—with the incumbent President, with Washington and with each other.
Like Ted Cruz, Senator Rubio is the son of Cuban-American immigrants. As a mere fact of biography, this speaks well of the American political system and the Republican Party that produced them.
Of the three, Senator Rubio has the most political experience. Despite his 43 years, he is essentially a lifetime politician, starting out as a city commissioner of West Miami and rising to become Speaker of the Florida House. Mr. Rubio gained his Senate seat in 2010 by defeating former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, one of the worst career politicians of the last generation.
To his credit, Mr. Rubio has used his Senate office as more than a planning headquarters for his presidential run. From his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Rubio, with Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, has become one of his party’s most visible and best-informed critics of President Obama’s foreign policy in Ukraine, Iran and a Middle East beset by Islamic State.
His opposition to Mr. Obama’s Cuba opening is well known, but as noteworthy has been his effort to keep in public view the Venezuelan government’s assaults on its democratic opposition.
More so than Senators Cruz and Paul, Mr. Rubio has shown a willingness to work with colleagues, notably the Senate’s immigration reform in 2013. Mr. Rubio showed a measure of political courage in grabbing that issue, though he became notably silent as the debate moved to the House, where reform died.
He has immersed himself in the details of the country’s fiscal and social problems and offers some thoughtful reforms, such as consolidating the myriad federal anti-poverty programs into a single grant sent to the states with fewer strings. It’s an idea that deserves discussion.
His recently announced tax-reform plan, introduced with Utah’s Senator Mike Lee, reflects the tensions inside the GOP. It proposes dropping the corporate rate to 25%, a consensus figure. But it proposes remarkably timid reductions in marginal tax rates for individuals, leaving the top rate at 35% on relatively modest incomes. Instead the plan’s centerpiece is a large, new tax credit—$2,500 per child.
With this proposal, Senator Rubio makes himself the party’s most visible ally of the “new” Republican idea that the Reagan tax-cutting agenda is a political dead end, and that the party now must redistribute revenue directly to middle-class families. It’s not clear how Candidate Rubio would hope to win a tax-credit bidding war with Hillary Clinton, who’d see and raise on the size of the credit and make it refundable to non-taxpayers. The Rubio tax credit looks like an obvious political gambit with no economic growth payoff.
The Senator nonetheless has the rhetorical gifts to make a compelling case for himself. His message is aspirational, and he offers a generational contrast with Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Rubio’s biggest challenge will be convincing primary voters that this precocious energy adds up to something better than voting for one of the successful Republican Governors with a record of real accomplishments.
Popular on WSJ
-
I disagree with Morris here; I thought Rubio's announcement speech yesterday was quite good.
http://www.dickmorris.com/rubio-announces-whats-different-about-him-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
You think Team Rubio is euphoric about the way Drudge handled his campaign kick-off?
That’s Rubio in the middle, with his parents. No, no, I kid. I really like the guy and was writing about him back in August 2009, when he was a little-known long-shot in the Senate primary. I’m just saying I wouldn’t send Rubio to buy beer without his ID.
Stephen Miller with a pretty good observation: “His other strength is none of the potential GOP candidates have had the practice to run against someone like Clinton. Marco Rubio has, having dispensed limousine loving, ventriloquist dummy Charlie Crist to the political ash heap. Crist and Clinton are cut from the exact same elitist cloth, believing themselves entitled and destined, the voters be damned. Both of them have gotten creamed in elections staking out that position by someone an electorate found more charismatic and in tune with every day values.”
You can argue that Scott Walker ran against and beat a larger collective opponent in his recall election and, perhaps, his 2014 reelection bid. Ted Cruz might argue he was as big a long-shot when he began against David Dewhurst in the Texas Senate primary. Bobby Jindal’s early 20-point lead helped drive then–Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to not seek reelection, but she was seriously damaged goods after her bumbling response to Hurricane Katrina. And the one other caveat is that Rubio beat Crist in a three-way race in 2010. Having said that, you could argue Rubio beat Crist twice, once by driving him to quit the GOP primary and declare himself an independent, then again on Election Day.
Over on NRO’s home page, I take a look at Marco Rubio’s two years spent as Speaker of the Florida House -- his management and leadership style, what he accomplished and what he left unfinished, and how he dealt with a thoroughly uncooperative Florida senate and the shamelessly demagogic, opportunistic Crist.
As Speaker and in earlier leadership positions in the Florida House, Rubio demonstrated a willingness to delegate to focus on his strengths, communicating and negotiating. The record suggests that a President Rubio would drive a hard bargain, and hold out until the eleventh hour, but rarely walk away from the table without a deal.
The Speaker of the Florida House is an important and powerful position, but one perhaps a bit easier to reach than comparable positions in other states. Representatives in Florida are limited to four two-year terms. The Speaker of the House is elected by his fellow representatives for a two-year term, and is usually in his final term -- meaning the Florida House is effectively led by a new speaker every two years.
Because of the term limits and constant turnover at the top, careers in the Florida state legislature accelerate quickly. The legislature works a brief, fast-paced schedule, a 60-day session starting in March, supplemented by occasional special sessions. The legislature is the GOP’s ballgame; Republicans have controlled the Florida House and Senate since 1996. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t often deep divisions; Rubio’s tenure as speaker exacerbated friction with the man who would later become his defeated Senate rival, then-governor Charlie Crist.
This is part of my new year’s resolution to attempt some actually useful campaign journalism by digging into chapters of the GOP contenders’ lives that haven’t been covered extensively yet. The first offering was looking at Ted Cruz’s work for the Federal Trade Commission from 2001 to 2003, where he earned a reputation as a passionate boss intent on tracking the success of the office’s efforts in granular detail.
I had some material that didn’t quite fit in the Rubio piece. If you’re not a fan of Rubio, curse the heavens, because his political career came close to ending quite early.
For starters, he nearly lost his first Florida House election, coming in second in the first round and winning the runoff by 64 votes.
In his early years in the state legislature, he was skyrocketing in stature -- he was named Majority Whip within his first nine months on the job -- but going through extreme financial difficulties.
He was making $72,000 as an often-unavailable land use and zoning attorney at the now-defunct law firm Ruden McClosky and made $28,608 as a state legislator. Money was so tight for the young lawmaker and his wife and then-one child that he sold his car and moved in with his mother-in-law. In his autobiography, An American Son, Rubio writes he strongly contemplated leaving politics to focus on earning enough money to support his growing family.
A new job offer came along before Rubio finalized his decision to quit politics; in 2001, Rubio moved to Becker & Poliakoff to expand the firm’s practice in Miami-Dade, making $93,000 per year. By 2004, when Rubio was the Speaker-in-waiting, the law firm Broad and Cassel hired him at $300,000 per year.
The Alleged Democratic Contender Everyone Forgot About
Yesterday I mentioned how Democrats and their allies can convince themselves that their candidate is the perfect to handle any situation. (Admittedly, Republicans do this as well.) I distinctly remember the night of Biden’s selection in 2008, some enthusiastic young Democratic talking head on CNN insisting that Biden was a foreign-policy “genius.” It was a good example of the Democrats’ need to not merely tout their candidates, but to whip themselves into a frothing frenzy of enthusiasm for the messiah-like choices of Obama.
Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, saw things differently, calling him “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
Asked to back up his harsh words Jan. 13, 2014, on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, Gates replied:
“Frankly, I believe it. The vice president, when he was a senator — a very new senator — voted against the aid package for South Vietnam, and that was part of the deal when we pulled out of South Vietnam to try and help them survive. He said that when the Shah fell in Iran in 1979 that that was a step forward for progress toward human rights in Iran. He opposed virtually every element of President Reagan’s defense build-up. He voted against the B-1, the B-2, the MX and so on. He voted against the first Gulf War. So on a number of these major issues, I just frankly, over a long period of time, felt that he had been wrong.”
For what it’s worth, it’s not clear Biden applauded the fall of the shah. He just offered to send the Mullahs a couple hundred million dollars shortly after 9/11, “no strings attached.”
Here we are today:
Vice President Joe Biden said he had not made a decision on whether he will run for president and sounded the alarm about Republican plans to cut estate taxes.
Biden made the statement in a roundtable discussion with reporters at the White House Monday including The Detroit News a day after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced her run for the Democratic nomination. He said he has plenty of time to decide.
“I haven’t made up my mind on that. I have plenty of time to do that, in my view,” Biden said. “If I am wrong, I’m dead wrong, but there’s a lot the president and I care about that has to get done in the next two, three months and when you run for president you’ve got to run for president — and I’m not ready to do that — if I am ever going to be ready to do that.”
Remember, Joe Biden isn’t a joke. Newsweek assured us of this:
-
First this, the case against Marco Rubio by Paul Mirengoff at Powerline. Even his biggest critic in conservative media says, "Marco Rubio is smart, likable, talented, and conservative". "We don’t know how Rubio will perform as a candidate over the long haul, but all indications are that he is a gifted politician."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-case-against-marco-rubio.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The money and votes will gravitate to whoever can win – if, that is, the person is somewhat ideologically acceptable to the rank and file."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/14/why-marco-rubio-is-the-gops-best-hope/
Why Marco Rubio Is Probably The GOP’s Best Hope
When it comes to raw political talent, it unlikely the Republicans can do better
By David Harsanyi
Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for presidency of the United States at the Freedom Tower in Miami on Monday, highlighting his family’s hardscrabble immigrant roots, embracing traditional values but also vowing to usher in a “new American century.”
As a matter of political pragmatism, is there any convincing reason Rubio shouldn’t be the Republican to take on Hillary Clinton in 2016? Because when it comes to natural political talent, it unlikely the GOP can do better.
For starters, Rubio is the most compelling speaker in the Republican field.
Sen. Mike Lee says Rubio “can bring grown men to tears with emotion.” This is something voters value. And judging from yesterday’s performance, Rubio’s speeches can be infused with an emotional quality that much of the prefabricated rhetoric we hear does not have. Not only do you sense that his belief in American exceptionalism is genuine, but that his populist sensibilities will allow him to credibly broach the subject of inequality – mostly, because he has a captivating family story to lean on.
Let’s face it, even if Rubio is overrated, he’s probably the kind of consensus candidate GOP primary voters are going to have to settle on, anyway.
Other than his futile shot at immigration reform, Rubio has been reliably conservative. The Jeb Bush candidacy, driven by oodles of cash but little popular support, makes Rubio seem more palatable, while the Cruz candidacy, almost exclusively propelled by the grassroots, makes him seem less severe. The money and votes will gravitate to whoever can win – if, that is, the person is somewhat ideologically acceptable to the rank and file.
As Politico points out:
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last month reflected that upside among the rank-and-file. More Republicans, 56 percent, said they could back Rubio than any other candidate, including Bush (49 percent). Only one-quarter in that survey said they could not back Rubio, compared to 42 percent for Bush.
Rand Paul? As appealing as libertarian-ish ideas probably are to a number of voters – and you hope that the GOP embraces some of these reforms – it seems unlikely that the entire party can undergo a historic ideological shift during a primary season. That is especially true on foreign policy. Rubio is a hawk, and world events insure that a hawk will win the GOP nomination.
After a temporary dovish turn, the Right has gotten more aggressive on foreign policy. Some of this is, no doubt, a reaction to President Obama’s polices on Iran, Russia, ISIS, and Israel. According to a Pew poll taken late last year, 54 percent of Americans overall believed that Obama’s approach on foreign policy was “not tough enough” – which includes a sizable majority of Republicans. Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is one of the more passionate advocates for a more aggressive United States in the world.
Now, it’s also true that Rubio is a first-term senator with no record of any tangible accomplishments other than working his way into a presidential run.
If you believe this is a disadvantage, you haven’t been paying attention to contemporary politics. If Americans were concerned with achievement, Barack Obama would never have been allowed near the presidency. What voters want is someone who makes them feel secure, someone who can empathize with their struggles, confirm their ideological worldview, and someone who will give them the soaring rhetoric that makes them feel that their politics matter.
So, for Rubio, a lack of a record may be helpful in a number of ways. Today, a record is an opportunity for others to mangle every decision you’ve made. A blank slate allows voters to imagine all the wondrous things you can provide them and allows the politician a malleable set of policy goals.
To be fair, as a member of a congressional minority, Rubio didn’t really have many opportunities to build a record. Still, in the primaries, GOP contenders (who aren’t senators) are going to have tough time accusing Rubio of being slacker. What will they say? He wasn’t obstinate enough in stopping Obama’s agenda in the Senate? To some extent, Obama has also inculcated Rubio from media attacks regarding his experience as a first-term senator running for president, for obvious reasons.
The Left’s reaction to Rubio’s announcement also tells us that the Florida senator is a formidable pick. There were far fewer histrionic hit pieces about a GOP candidate’s extremism than usual. If the most potent attack mocking a candidate is a single awkward water-bottle incident, then demonizing him won’t be easy. Whereas liberals quickly found distractions for nearly all other presidential announcements – Rand Paul is a misogynistic hothead with crazy ideas; Ted Cruz is nutty theocrat with crazy ideas – the Left was grasping for an effective line of attack.
Don’t get me wrong. In the end, no matter what Republican candidate offers, he will be cast as a thug looking to steal bread and condoms from the poorest single working moms in the country. So the most vital skill any candidate can have is the ability transcend coverage and make his or her case to voters. Setting aside reservations about policy, is there any other Republican who can do that more effectively than Rubio?
Of course someone – maybe Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Lindsay Graham, and who knows who else? – can change the dynamics of the race. Perhaps someone will surprise us. Although, it seems unlikely any of them could be the kind of compromise candidate that the establishment and the rank-and-file could agree on. And none of them will be able to contrast themselves with a tedious and creaky Hillary rollout the way Rubio just did.
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/04/15/how-good-were-you-with-math-glenn-confronts-mike-lee-on-his-controversial-tax-plan/
-
http://theantimedia.org/marco-rubio-is-being-funded-by-private-for-profit-prisons/
Obviously a lefty site, but I confess to not being familiar with the various arguments on this issue.
-
http://theantimedia.org/marco-rubio-is-being-funded-by-private-for-profit-prisons/
Obviously a lefty site, but I confess to not being familiar with the various arguments on this issue.
http://www.vice.com/read/whos-getting-rich-off-the-prison-industrial-complex
Lots of private prison money donated to dems.
-
Charlie Rose asked Marco Rubio about Raul Castro’s comment that he likes Pope Francis so much he might rejoin the church, Mr. Rubio shot back, “That’s gonna be a pretty long confession.”
-
“That’s gonna be a pretty long confession.”
What a great answer! :-D
Reagan would have had this kind of quip!
-
A great answer indeed :-D
=======================
By
Peggy Noonan
May 14, 2015 7:23 p.m. ET
218 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton continues her silent glide toward the White House. The Republican candidates make themselves available almost every day, get pressed, grilled and occasionally cuffed around. Since announcing a month ago Mrs. Clinton has not had a single news conference or formal interview. NPR’s Tamara Keith counted 13 questions to which she has responded in that time. The answers include “I’m having a great time,” “It is fabulous” in Iowa, she wants to be “the champion of Americans,” and “I want to hear people.” Wednesday she embarked on a listening tour of Manhattan billionaires.
This is not just a dynamic of the campaign of 2016, it is a scandal of 2016. Democratic operatives think candidates don’t lose support for stiffing the press. I don’t know. Campaigns, like candidates, get reputations. This is less like a campaign than a silent movie with mad organ music.
Marco Rubio, at the Council on Foreign Relations, this week unveiled what his aides call the Rubio Doctrine. Good for him: Candidates ought to be putting their stands into documents that can be inspected and pondered. His foreign-policy vision consists in three “pillars”: American strength, protection of the American business position in a global economy, and moral clarity regarding America’s core values.
The first pillar should be a unifying principle for all Republicans. The world and we are safer when America is stronger, period. We must be known to the world as the possessor of the mightiest military on earth. “Weakness is the friend of danger,” he said. It is. We must spend what we must, and modernize to meet future possible challenges, he argued. We do.
The second pillar is similarly sound. Everything we have comes from what we sell and make. As a nation we must see to our economic security, including supporting free trade and fighting unfair and destructive business practices.
The third pillar is more wobbly. Here Mr. Rubio took a pronounced neoconservative turn. He urged America to “think big,” to “advance the rights of the vulnerable” who are “persecuted.” “The American people hear their cries, see their suffering . . . and desire their freedom.” That sounds anodyne unless it’s not. Certainly our policies should not and cannot be detached from our values. But I would have liked to hear something more steely-eyed: The third pillar is not a statement but a question whose asking has served us well for more than two centuries. “What is in the interests of the American nation?” What actions or endeavors will serve to make us stronger, safer, more able to flourish in the 21st century?
In question-and-answer following the speech, moderator Charlie Rose quickly cut to the chase. “Should we be the world’s policeman?” Mr. Rubio: “I don’t think that’s necessarily the role that I would advocate.” He then pedaled back to the importance of diplomatic leadership.
Here is what is concerning: In our time “moral clarity,” has, as a former member of George H.W. Bush’s White House put it, “tended to stack the terms of a debate without having to address the merits of a policy.” “Moral clarity” tends to start with ringing cries and end with manipulations.
In making his case Mr. Rubio disparaged “nation building at home.” But it is not invalid to say that America needs to become more fully what we say we believe in, and put a priority not on projecting our values militarily but reflecting them more deeply at home. It is true that the world now has less respect for us as a moral actor in the world, but it is not only because of the bad leadership of the past seven or 15 years, take your pick. It is not only because the world knows of our economic problems and the dysfunction and corruption of our governing class. The world is less impressed by us because they’ve been here. Mr. Rubio referred to globalization as a force transforming the world, but it also means a lot of the people of the world—especially the political, military and business elites—have come here to visit, and looked around. They have a sense of our public schools, our culture, our infrastructure (they take Amtrak to Washington), our Fergusons, our fear that our next generation will have it worse.
They no longer see us as their fathers and grandfathers did, as the Great Example. It is not unpatriotic or sissified to want to emphasize strengthening and renewal at home while our foreign policy protects our position and advances our interests.
I wish every candidate who rightly lauds Ronald Reagan’s candor and moral clarity would then note: “And interestingly enough, he never invaded the Warsaw Pact countries.” He used words, diplomacy and other forms of muscle to change the world.
Also, is Mr. Rubio’s position really where GOP base voters are? I find them more hard-eyed than romantic.
That said, Mr. Rubio is an impressive figure in a way that isn’t captured by words like “smooth” and “articulate.” He has in his head a fact-horde, which is immediately accessible to him as he speaks. You get the impression no briefing has ever been wasted on him. And he’s quick. When Mr. Rose asked him about Raúl Castro’s comment that he likes Pope Francis so much he might rejoin the church, Mr. Rubio shot back, “That’s gonna be a pretty long confession.”
Intelligence isn’t judgment. But Mr. Rubio broke through in a new way this week.
Whereas Mr. Rubio was sharp, alive and in the game, Jeb Bush limped shruggingly along. I don’t understand his inability to deal with Iraq. It’s the one question he knew was coming, yet all week it seemed to take him aback. He seemed to see it as an unfair or trick question. He’s something new in politics, the defensive zealot. He can’t let go on certain controversial issues—Common Core, for instance—and is dodgy on inevitable ones. He goes from misunderstanding the question to saying he isn’t sure of the answer to let’s not make soldiers suffer by asking it to OK, I wouldn’t have gone in. He looked hunted when he said that.
He deserves credit for being out there and taking every question, but he’s running for president. His views on Iraq tell us something about his foreign policy predispositions and assumptions. I know he didn’t want to hurt the feelings of his brother, but I don’t care about the feelings of his brother. I know he didn’t want to bring discomfort to his family, but this is not about his family. This is about what is a wise foreign policy for America. It’s about what you’d do as president.
I’m already tired of everyone’s interlocking loyalties, their politesse, their worries about legacies. “Sure, she’s always playing the angles, but I’ve been with them a long time.” “I can’t be disloyal.” “It was a hugely consequential foreign-policy blunder but I can’t say.”
What is wrong with these people and this picture? It isn’t about them. It’s about America. Could someone be loyal to her?
Popular on WSJ
-
"I wish every candidate who rightly lauds Ronald Reagan’s candor and moral clarity would then note: “And interestingly enough, he never invaded the Warsaw Pact countries.” He used words, diplomacy and other forms of muscle to change the world."
A pillar of advance the rights of the persecuted in your foreign policy does not mean that you will invade the countries where you wish to foster change away from tyranny, as evidenced by her own summary of Reagan's tough foreign policy.
Also, the pillar of peace through strength says that as you rebuild economic, military, naval, defense, and leadership strengths you will have less actual need to fire weapons at enemies.
-
Thank you msm, though don't trust the source. This is what I have been talking about. Rubio is likable. She is not. Rubio can make a genuine appeal to Hispanic Americans based on a vision of the American Dream. She can parrot a single issue policy point on which she has flip-flopped. He is young and vibrant. She is ... well, judge for yourself. He rose on the merits of his own talents. She is some aberration of an old fashioned power broker, married for power, and plays off of that every time she gets stuck. Rubio has core convictions. She is calculating on every position. He is quick and steady on his feet and extremely articulate without notes or teleprompter. Would very likely eat her lunch in a debate. She is a stumbler without a focus group and team of writers. The more candid she is, the more she falls in it. Rubio is all-in, not even running for his Senate seat. She is legally in, announced via a video, made the fewest open appearance and takes the fewest questions imaginable. Still busy addressing her own latest scandals. She is keeping up the speaking income, the criminal, non-non-profit foundation and hedging on key issues. Rubio is scandal-free. She is synonymous with corruption. Rubio brings Florida with him. She has no state other than the states of corruption and confusion. Illinois, NY, Arkansas and DC are not in play and she has no special appeal in any of them anyway. Rubio has a beautiful, monogamous wife and adorable children. She has Bill and Chelsea, hopes her little grand-daughter can grow up in an entitled world and someday make million dollar, 20 minutes speeches too!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/us/politics/prospect-of-hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-matchup-unnerves-democrats.html?_r=0
Prospect of Hillary Clinton-Marco Rubio Matchup Unnerves Democrats
By JEREMY W. PETERS MAY 22, 2015
WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.
An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”
What is so unnerving to them at this early phase of the 2016 presidential campaign still seems, at worst, a distant danger: the prospect of a head-to-head general-election contest between Mr. Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Yet the worriers include some on Mrs. Clinton’s team. And even former President Bill Clinton is said to worry that Mr. Rubio could become the Republican nominee, whittle away at Mrs. Clinton’s support from Hispanics and jeopardize her chances of carrying Florida’s vital 29 electoral votes.
Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 less than two weeks before the election.
As her supporters recall, Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the 2008 elections after drawing similar contrasts himself.
Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for most of the 2008 contest, said Mr. Rubio “could have the ability to nip away at the numbers for the Democrats.”
Ms. Doyle, the first Hispanic woman to manage a presidential campaign, added that Mr. Rubio could allow Republicans to regain a “reasonable percentage” of the Hispanic vote, which hit a low of 27 percent in the 2012 presidential election.
“He is a powerful speaker,” she added. “He is young. He is very motivational. He has a powerful story.”
Recognizing how essential it is to win Hispanic support, Mrs. Clinton has gone further in laying out an immigration policy than she has on almost any other issue, saying that she would extend greater protections to halt deportations of people in the United States illegally. She has also hired a former undocumented immigrant to lead her Latino outreach efforts.
Her own strategists, their allies in the “super PACs” working on her behalf and the Democratic Party all say they see plenty of vulnerabilities in Mr. Rubio’s record and his views. And they are trying to shape the perception people have of him while polls show that he is still relatively unknown: Yes, the Democratic National Committee said in a recent memo, Mr. Rubio was a fresh face, but one “peddling a tired playbook of policies that endanger our country, hurt the middle class, and stifle the American dream.”
So far, Democrats who have combed over Mr. Rubio’s voting record in the Senate have seized on his opposition to legislation raising the minimum wage and to expanding college loan refinancing, trying to cast him as no different from other Republicans.
The subtext: He may be Hispanic, but he is not on the side of Hispanics when it comes to the issues they care about.
Democrats will try to use Mr. Rubio’s youth and four-year career in national politics against him, depicting him as green or naïve — a liability at a time when unrest abroad is a top concern. “A Dan Quayle without the experience,” suggested Christopher Lehane, a veteran strategist who has worked for the Clintons.
Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is of Mexican heritage, said Democrats would also make an issue of Mr. Rubio’s mixed record on how to overhaul the immigration system: He initially supported a Senate bill to grant people in the United States illegally a path to citizenship, but he later backed down.
Mr. Richardson said that would poison his chances with Hispanic voters. “His own Hispanic potential would defeat him,” he said.
It is also unclear how much Mr. Rubio would appeal to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and other voters with Latin American ancestry who may not feel much
cultural affinity with a Cuban.
Still, when many Democrats assess Mr. Rubio’s chances, as nearly a dozen of them did for this article, they put him in the top tier of candidates who concern them the most, along with former Gov. Jeb Bush, another Floridian who is courting Hispanics, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Mr. Rubio’s heritage and his youth could be particularly dangerous to Mrs. Clinton, they said. Each of those points could help neutralize one of her biggest strengths: the opportunity to help elect the first female president, and the experience Mrs. Clinton gained as secretary of state.
Mr. Rubio already appears to be pursuing that strategy. By calling himself a candidate of the “21st century, not the 20th,” he seeks both to turn Mrs. Clinton’s long career against her and to entice voters who may desire a change of direction.
In Florida, Democrats who have watched Mr. Rubio’s rise warn against playing down his strengths.
Former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost to Mr. Rubio in the Republican primary for the 2010 senatorial election but later switched parties, said he admired how Mr. Rubio told the story of his immigrant parents — his mother a maid, his father a bartender — and how they worked hard so that he could succeed. “It’s hard to get more compelling than that,” Mr. Crist said.
John Morgan, a major Democratic donor in Florida who will hold a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton next week, said he planned to raise the issue of Mr. Rubio’s strengths with her.
“Jim Messina talks about how elections are about where we want to go from here,” Mr. Morgan said, naming the strategist who helped President Obama win two national elections. What is problematic about Mr. Rubio, he said, is “his theme will be, ‘We don’t want to go back; we need to go forward.’ ”
“I think they do underestimate him,” Mr. Morgan added. “He’s energetic,
he’s photogenic, and he will say whatever you want him to say.”
Steve Schale, the Florida strategist who wrote the “Marco Rubio scares me” blog post, said that when he worked for the Democratic leader of the Florida House of Representatives, his boss, Dan Gelber, had a saying about Mr. Rubio’s effect on crowds, and about his sincerity: “Young women swoon, old women pass out, and toilets flush themselves.”
And Mr. Gelber himself recalled the day in Tallahassee, Fla., in 2008 when he and Mr. Rubio, then the speaker of the State House, gave their farewell speeches. He spoke first, followed by Mr. Rubio, as Mr. Gelber’s wife looked on.
“She’s sitting there weeping,” Mr. Gelber recalled, still incredulous. “And I look up, and I mouth, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ”
Mr. Gelber praised Mr. Rubio’s ability to use his family’s story to convey compassion for people marginalized by society, but he said he believed, as many Democrats do, that this was disingenuous.
“It’s a little maddening when his policies are so inconsistent with that,” Mr. Gelber said. “My head would explode.”
A Rubio-Clinton contest could ultimately come down to Florida. Republicans can ill afford to lose the state if they hope to win the White House. And bleeding Hispanic votes could make Mrs. Clinton’s path much harder.
“Losing a point among whites means winning Hispanics by about 5 percent more just to make up that loss,” Mr. Schale wrote in his memo on Florida’s election demographics. If Democrats continue to lose white voters, he added, Mr. Rubio’s place on the ballot would only complicate matters.
“He should be the one you don’t want to face,” Mr. Schale wrote.
-
Great, detailed story about the 3rd primary. If Rubio locks in South Carolina and then takes either Iowa, New Hampshire or both, it could be over early. Like Obama in 2008, it looks like Marco Rubio is running a 50 state race. Mentioned also is that all the candidates would like the endorsement of Sen. Tim Scott. Not that Rubio needs a Senator or general election help in SC, but maybe we should add him to our VP watch list.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/his-state-to-lose-20150522
Another good article: Can Marco Rubio Make Peace With Conservatives on Immigration?
(We have already covered these points here.)
http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/25/can-marco-rubio-make-peace-with-conservatives-on-immigration/
-
Rubio 1st in CNN poll (and 4th in ABC poll). Gained 7 points on Jeb Bush in one month, passing him by one, all within the margin of error. Walker and Huckabee also double digits. These early polls are all over the map but the averages and trend lines matter. Best position I think is to be top of the second tier, not at the very top too early where everyone needs to knock you down. As long as this stays 5 or 6-way close, the candidates need to audition for the general election rather than knock down each other.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/04/marco_rubio_expects_a_vibrant_spirited_primary_competition_will_drive_excellence.html
A good interview with the gals on Fox. I think they found him likable. Unlike the other side, he answered all their questions.
-
I think ccp already caught this. The NY Times went to Miami and other places to dig up dirt on Marco Rubio and found traffic tickets!
They went back to 1997 (pre-children BTW) and found that he had 4 and she had 13.
Meanwhile Hillary is at least a 3-time loser felon, 3 strikes and you're out. Also Hillary's spouse has to explain his RECENT travels with teenage prostitutes, whether he indulged or not.
The comparison between the Rubios and the Clintons takes us back to George H.W. Bush commenting on a grocery store scanner after spending 8 years in the shelter of the White House. Check my math on this but Hillary Clinton HAS NOT EITHER OWNED OR DRIVEN A CAR IN ALL OF THIS TIME. possibly never. They didn't even own a house for most of their adult life, she has said, going from the Governor's mansion to the White House, with drivers and pilots. How is that for relating to the problems of what they now call the "little people".
Here is the photo the NY Times ran with the traffic ticket expose'. This isn't going to hurt him...
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/06/05/us/politics/05firstdraft-rubio-and-wife/05firstdraft-rubio-and-wife-tmagArticle.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0
-
Rubio's pollster has written the road map to the Presidency that any succdessful Republican will need to follow.
http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/8428695-74/ayres-rubio-among#axzz3cVSlLNQ5
"For Republicans to become competitive again in presidential elections, Republican candidates must perform better among whites, especially in the overwhelmingly white states of the upper Midwest, and much better among minorities.”
Specifics on issues are included.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHFGU4_XIAAwENe.jpg)
Rubios' house and neighborhood above.
And Hillary's house below, away from the little people, with armed guards "protecting" the email server.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHFGVhCWoAALrLo.jpg)
Rubio revels in media attacks.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/244491-rubio-revels-in-being-target-of-media-attacks
Next up, Rubio's fishing boat next to John Kerry's yacht.
-
http://nypost.com/2015/06/16/why-marco-rubio-scares-all-other-presidential-candidates/
What makes Rubio so frightening to others is, simply, that he is a freakishly gifted politician — and a daring one.
He chose to challenge the sitting governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2009 when Crist was at 60 percent in the polls and he was at 3 — and not only knocked Crist out of the GOP race but then beat him by 20 points when Crist ran as an independent in the general election.
It was an unprecedented triumph, like a rookie pitcher winning 25 games, and only another politician knows just how seriously he must take a rival like that.
But here’s the real thing about Rubio. I’ve listened to him and watched him talk, both in private sessions and on the Senate floor in speeches you can see on YouTube.
He is, without question, the most naturally gifted off-the-cuff political speaker I have ever seen.
-
Marco Rubio has many strengths as a presidential candidate, not least a focus on restoring broad-based economic opportunity and the talent to communicate his ideas. Which is all the more reason to lament that he’s taken a major detour from pro-growth tax reform.
The proposal he’s developed with Utah Senator Mike Lee does have some strong pro-growth components for business and investment. It lowers the corporate rate to 25% from 35% and zeroes out the double taxation of dividends, capital gains and interest at the individual level. The plan also introduces full expensing for capital purchases (instead of arbitrary depreciation schedules) and the global norm of a territorial tax for corporate profits.
This would be real progress. In a March analysis, the Tax Foundation estimates that Rubio-Lee would juice GDP by 1.44% on average each year over the next decade, 15% in total. Because the incidence of the corporate tax is shared among workers, capital owners and customers, the study expects real hourly wages will soar by 12.5% on average.
***
The bad news, and it’s considerable, is that these gains are accompanied by a major increase in the child tax credit. This credit was created in 1997, and after a George W. Bush expansion it now provides $1,000 a year for each dependent under 17, phasing out between $75,000 to $95,000 for single filers and $110,000-$130,000 for families.
Opinion Journal Video
Committee to Unleash Prosperity Co-founder Steve Moore on the return of the Republican Party's 'Pat Buchanan' wing. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Rubio-Lee would raise the credit to $2,500 per head. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates this would forgo revenue of $1.576 trillion over a decade. The Tax Foundation estimate is in the same ballpark—notably, on both a static budget basis and using dynamic scoring.
The reason is that unlike the investment portions of Rubio-Lee, the child tax credit does nothing for economic growth. The only growth case for it is the Keynesian claim that it would boost consumer spending and aggregate demand, but by now we’ve seen how that doesn’t work.
The tax credit also harms incentives because it phases out as incomes rise and thus creates fearsome infra-marginal tax cliffs that make it harder to escape poverty. Rubio-Lee tries to avoid this problem in part by making the $2,500 credit universal, regardless of income. But the cost of the credit for affluent families will never withstand political vetting and so an income phaseout is likely to remain.
This fiscal baby shower means Messrs. Rubio and Lee don’t reduce the top individual income rate lower than 35%. Their individual tax simplification collapses the current seven tax brackets down to two, with the lower bound 15%. But here’s a major rub: To compensate for the cost of the child credit, their 35% rate reaches down the income ladder to start at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. The top statutory rate of 39.6%—43.4% counting the ObamaCare surtax—now kicks in at $464,851 for joint filers.
Marginal rates on income would fall “on net,” according to the Tax Foundation analysis, though only modestly and “those in the 10% bracket and some in higher brackets would see the tax rate on their last dollar of income increase.” The TPC estimates 62% of households would see a lower tax liability, with the most substantial benefits flowing to married couples and especially those with children.
Never mind, whisper supporters, the main appeal of the child credit is political: It polls well and it makes the income tax distributional tables look better, potentially mitigating some class-warfare opposition.
But there are also big political problems. One is that child subsidies concede the use of the tax code for social policy, and more political mediation over neutrality and individual decisions. By dumping the goal of a cleaner, more neutral code, Republicans will have less credibility to oppose liberal favoritism. Democrats can always outbid Republicans on this kind of policy, starting with the demand that the credit be “refundable,” or paid in a check to those who have no tax liability.
Mr. Rubio concedes that the credit has no growth impact but says he has been persuaded by Mr. Lee that it is needed to offset the costs of the societal good of raising children. As they see it, the next generation will finance pay-as-you-go Social Security and Medicare. Thus parents deserve the offset of the credit more than childless workers.
But by this logic the government should reclaim the credit for children who turn out to be net taxpayer liabilities. It would be better policy simply to cut payroll taxes rather than add another layer of tax-credit complexity—or better yet, restructure entitlements so they are less of a drag on young workers.
***
The larger political danger would arrive if Mr. Rubio became President. In the inevitable negotiations with Congress, his tax cuts on capital would surely be watered down while his giant tax credit would pass. What happens if the economy failed to respond?
The precedent here is George W. Bush. In the 2001 tax law he pared back his campaign proposal and agreed to delay his marginal rate cuts. But he accepted tax rebates in two installments as well as the larger child credit. The economy showed a GDP fillip but then quickly flagged.
Only when Mr. Bush pushed in 2003 to accelerate the rate reductions and slashed the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% did the economy take off and save his re-election. Another tax cut that fails to boost growth could tarnish tax reform for a generation.
Mr. Rubio has let himself be swayed by a coterie of non-economist conservatives who view the tax code as an engine of social policy. This crowd denigrates marginal-rate cuts as politically déclassé, but then the child credit is one of the hoariest forms of tax gimmickry, an echo of Jimmy Carter’s New Jobs credit, or Mr. Bush in 2001 and his Pelosi tax rebates in 2008.
After a decade of sub-3% growth and stagnant middle-class incomes, the highest priority for the next President should be accelerating economic growth. What a pity that Mr. Rubio is compromising his otherwise laudable case for economic revival with a new entitlement for some families.
Popular on WSJ
-
It's not a luxury yacht if you have to pee off the side.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/marco-rubio-money-luxury-boat-2016-election/index.html
-
http://patriotpost.us/articles/37058
-
508
335
How My Presidency Would Deal With China
Approaching Beijing on the basis of strength and example, not weakness and appeasement.
By Marco Rubio
Aug. 27, 2015 7:21 p.m. ET
Over the past week, we have been dealt a painful reminder of just how important U.S. policy toward China is in the 21st century. On Monday, due largely to a crash in China’s stock market, U.S. markets suffered their worst day in four years. Insecurity and anxiety about the future—already high for American families—climbed even higher. It was a jarring illustration of how globalization is changing the U.S. economy.
China presents both opportunities and challenges. Trade with its growing middle class has opened American businesses to hundreds of millions of new customers. But Beijing’s protectionist economic and trade policies increasingly endanger America’s financial well-being. China is also a rising threat to U.S. national security. Earlier this year, it was behind the largest cyberattack ever carried out against the United States.
President Obama has continued to appease China’s leaders despite their mounting aggression. In addition to his insufficient responses to economic and national-security concerns, he has ignored the Chinese government’s mass roundups of human-rights advocates, oppression of religious minorities, detention of political dissidents, ever-tightening controls on the Internet, and numerous other human-rights violations. He has hoped that being more friendly with China will make it more responsible. It hasn’t worked.
The U.S. must continue to pursue cooperation with China when possible, but we can no longer succumb to the illusion that more rounds of cordial dialogue with its rulers will effect a change of heart. That is why President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington next week should not be canceled, but rather downgraded to a working visit from a state visit. This is an opportunity to speak bluntly to this authoritarian ruler and achieve meaningful progress, not to treat him to a state dinner.
If elected U.S. president next fall, I will approach China on the basis of strength and example, not weakness and appeasement.
My first goal will be to restore America’s strategic advantage in the Pacific. China has increased its defense spending by 10% this year, continuing a 20-year trend. We cannot continue to allow our military readiness to atrophy while China’s strengthens. My presidency will begin with an end to defense sequestration and a restoration of the Pentagon’s budget to its appropriate level. This will allow us to neutralize China’s rapidly growing capabilities in every strategic realm, including air, sea, ground, cyber space and even outer space.
Restoring America’s strategic strength in Asia will also require reinforcing ties with allies in the region. Under my presidency, the U.S. will conduct joint freedom of navigation exercises with these nations to challenge any Chinese attempts to close off international waters or airspace. And if China continues to use military force to advance its illegitimate territorial claims, as it has in the South China Sea and elsewhere, I will not hesitate to take action. I will also promote collaboration among our allies, as America cannot and need not bear the full burden of counterbalancing China’s power.
My second goal is protecting the U.S. economy. For years, China has subsidized exports, devalued its currency, restricted imports and stolen technology on a massive scale. As president, I would respond not through aggressive retaliation, which would hurt the U.S. as much as China, but by greater commitment and firmer insistence on free markets and free trade. This means immediately moving forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements.
I will also recognize that in the 21st century, national and economic security both depend on cybersecurity. No longer will China hack U.S. corporate or government servers with ease and without consequence.
The third goal concerns not just what Americans do, but who we are. Under my presidency, Beijing will not receive a free pass on human rights. I will instruct all U.S. officials meeting with their Chinese counterparts to demand the unconditional release of political prisoners. I will impose visa bans on Chinese officials who violate human rights. I will do all I can to empower Chinese citizens to breach what has been called the Great Firewall of China, and gain accurate news and information online about their country and the world.
Despite the challenges China poses to the U.S., we must never forget that the opportunities are even greater. The ability to trade, travel and innovate through cooperation and competition is greater than it has ever been.
But to achieve a new era of productive relations between our nations, America must stand on the side of the Chinese people rather than their autocratic rulers. Americans must elect a president willing to lead with strength and by example. A strong America—militarily, economically and morally—is the only path to lasting peace and partnership between the U.S. and China.
Mr. Rubio, a Republican U.S. senator from Florida, is running for his party’s presidential nomination.
-
http://therightscoop.com/marco-rubio-nails-joe-biden-on-little-known-osama-bin-laden-decision/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423243/rubio-sugar-subsidies?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt08312015&utm_term=Jolt
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423243/rubio-sugar-subsidies?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt08312015&utm_term=Jolt
I'm not pleased with a couple of developments with Rubio lately. As pp says, don't look for purity over victory, but we are looking for direction.
As I understand it, South Florida grows 25% of US sugar, and foreign governments are subsidizing their sugar, screwing up the global market. He needs to get elected in order to make a difference and he needs to win Florida in order to win the nomination and the Presidency. Okay then. Step forward with a plan to right this wrong, not just tell us that two wrong make it right.
It's the Dem platform that calls for more of the same. We don't beat them by joining them.
-
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10153812493850579/
-
Here is a not so good article on Rubio, his aspirations, and his "monetary integrity".
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marco-rubio-tea-party-pretty-boy-6379200
From the article:
In December 2005, he bought a new, larger house a few blocks away on SW 13th Street for $550,000; he took out a $495,000 mortgage.
The fishy part: A month after Rubio purchased the home, U.S. Century Bank reappraised the house at $735,000 and then offered him a new $135,000 home equity loan that the speaker gladly accepted. U.S. Century's board of directors included Sergio Pino — a megadeveloper who allied with Rubio on a key vote against slot machines — as well as GOP lobbyist Rodney Barreto and consultant Jose Cancela. Essentially, a bank controlled by supporters printed Rubio $135K out of thin air.
"It's very unusual to get a new equity line so quickly," says Michael Cannon, managing director of Integra Realty Resources in Miami. "The average person would never get a deal like that. He got it, clearly, because of his connections."
Even worse, Rubio never disclosed the line of credit. Confronted about the error, he laughed and told a Herald reporter he couldn't understand why it was a story.
Now, I can speak to this part:
He bought the home for $550,000, putting 10% down. One month later he is give a Credit Line for $135k. Here is the reality....
Under lending guidelines, even in 2005, the home valuation at $735k would not have been accepted. The Purchase Price at $550k would have needed 6 months of "seasoning" before a new valuation would be accepted, especially since the property "increased" in value by 33%.
There are only two possible options on this:
1. A homeowner sold the home far under it value. Who would walk away from at least an additional $100k plus? Plus an appraisal would note that the actual value was higher than the purchase price and that would have raised red flags and lending concerns.
2. A fraudulent appraisal was done and the bank loaned on that appraisal, knowing full well that it was inflated. This was actually a pattern of practice of fraud that was quite common in that period of time.
Now, when you add in the accusations of campaign cash improprieties, it appears that Rubio is not the boy scout that he would have people believe.
-
Are they saying he may have bought a house for less than full value, then borrowed against the higher value?! And he made every payment on the mortgage and the equity line? (No one alleged otherwise.) Do they have any way of finding this guy and arresting him?
The article was July 22 2010. In November he won a US Senate seat in Florida, beat the incumbent governor by a million votes and the Democrat by a million and a half, more than a 2-1 margin. Did people not see how serious this is? (hint of sarcasm)
I was buying houses for 15 cents on the dollar of value. I hope they don't come after me next.
Following the pattern of attacking the source, I see the Miami New Times entertainment tabloid links directly to The Erotic Review for the reader's hooker booking convenience. Nice story about lesbians at a strip club too - they don't just do real estate transaction analysis.
From the article:
"It's no secret that Marco wants to be the first Cuban-American president," says Sen. Steve Geller, the top Democrat in the Florida Senate when Rubio was House Speaker. "He's smart, he's ambitious, and, candidly, I wouldn't want to be the guy that gets in his way. Because you'll regret it."
Sounds like of Trump describing Trump.
-
Doug,
First, the transaction occurred in Dec 2005 and not 2010. People were not picking up foreclosures at 15 cents on the dollar then.
Now, my background includes having originated loans, training underwriters, regulatory compliance, and FDIC/OCC regulatory review. And since 2007, it has been all loan evaluations as the primary source of income, including compliance, fraud, and may other things. Some of my work has supported DA's in putting loan officers and brokers in jail, and some have gone to the FBI as well as the CFPB.
Here is what would have happened with this loan. I will use two different scenarios to explain.
Scenario 1
Purchase Price of $550k
Appraised Value of $550k
Loan Amount $495k
The loan would have funded and recorded normally. There would be no issues raised.
Line of Equity for $135k one month later. Key points.
The home gained 33% value in one month.
Rubio had not yet made a payment.
Rubio pulled out cash.
This would be a summary of my report on the second mortgage.
1. There was no way that the 33% increase in value in one month could have occurred. Check for appraisal fraud.
2. Rubio had not made a payment on the first yet. This is a red flag showing the potential for fraud.
3. Lending practices required that on a Purchase Money loan, a second could not be taken for amounts above the purchase price for at least 6 months. Loan denial was the proper course.
4. The lender was a bank. It was subject to state and federal (FDIC) regulatory requirements. Funding a loan under these circumstances would have been found to be an unsafe practice at a minimum and triggered an audit. At best, this could lead to a Cease and Desist Order on this practice.
5. The board consisted of Republican Party members and people Rubio had worked with on different political issues. This would raise a huge flag when combined with the facts of the case. (I have seen bank officers fined, imprisoned or terminated for this type of action.)
IMO, the evidence and the underwriting practices combined with the "personal and political relationships" indicate a loan origination that should never have occurred at this time, and a referral to regulatory agencies be made for further investigation, including fraud.
Scenario 2
The difference in this scenario is that the home was appraised at $735k originally, but sold to Rubio at $550k. This poses a few different factors for consideration, along with some factors from Scenario 1.
The $735k value and $550k purchase price would have raised huge concerns. When the loan was first processed, only the purchase price would have been known, until the appraisal came in. Then:
1. The loan would immediately be placed into "suspense". Underwriting would stop until the transaction was fully understood.
2. Underwriting would have demanded a full explanation about what was going on. Why was the property being sold at a 25% discount of its value? Was it a non-ars length transaction where the seller was a family member helping another family member to own a home? If not, then why is an arms length transaction being conducted where there is a $185k loss of profit to the seller? Was a "silent second" present which was not recorded? (If so, this is fraud in and among themselves.) The loan would not be returned to processing until this was sorted out.
3. If the loan did go through, then the issues on the Line of Equity and lack of seasoning return. Additionally, there would be a restriction on any Line of Equity going above the purchase price for 6 months. After 6 months, the Line of Equity could be funded at the $135k price.
4. Now, what was the $135k used for? Was it the purchase of another home? This was the second home that Rubio purchased and owned. There was a third home that he purchased after this. Was the money used to fund that purchase?
Everything about this loan stinks of high hell. It violated prudent lending standards, regulatory policy, and reeks of "cronyism" with the Board.
I have reviewed four loans in somewhat similar circumstances, none with the Board connections that this loan had. On each one, I contacted the attorney representing the homeowner on the loan and we discussed the loan. then we held conference calls with the homeowner. In three cases, the homeowner suddenly decided to drop the foreclosure action during the call, no explanation given. On the fourth, the homeowner admitted the fraud and then dropped the action.
There have been FDIC and DOJ actions against homeowners, lenders and brokers for these types of actions throughout the crisis. In fact, I know of two myself in the Fed Pen based upon these types of scenarios.
Did Rubio do the same? I cannot say for certain without reviewing the entire loan file. But it does not pass the smell test.
-
"Doug, First, the transaction occurred in Dec 2005 and not 2010. People were not picking up foreclosures at 15 cents on the dollar then."
Yes. Busted on that. How did you know when I bought mine, lol. But in 2005 values were going nuts in the other direction. My home went up 8-fold from purchase price in those years, and appraisers for the mortgages around me that were driving the values and property taxes were all snake oil salesman as far as I was concerned.
My take: When I used to get a mortgage to buy a property, we already had the price set and the Purchase Agreement signed. We always bought for what we believed was significantly below value - or wouldn't be buying it. Yet the appraiser for the mortgage always came in at the exact purchase price. Crookedly I think, they already knew the price and were really just giving it a yes or no that the value supports the mortgage. They never said, you're buying it for x but we appraise it for x + 20%. They magically always came in at the exact purchase price.
When I took out an equity line of credit around that time, it was done off of county assessed value, with no comparables and no appraisal. You know the industry far better than any of us, but the equity lines in the runup to the crach involved far less scrutiny than a first mortgage.
If all you say is true, very possibly Rubio 'benefited' from the sloppiness in the industry - if it is a benefit to take on more debt and pay it back. If it smells fishy, then good that it is brought out now than dropped on us a minute before the election.
"There have been FDIC and DOJ actions against homeowners, lenders and brokers for these types of actions throughout the crisis... "
Not much appraiser, lender, homeowner prosecution that I ever saw, and not much of a pattern here if he is accused of doing it once. And now he has the Hillary commodities defense if he needs it, the statute of limitations has passed.
Contrasting, it would be interesting to apply this level of scrutiny to all of Trump's transactions, including loans he obtained where our ten-fold billionaire couldn't / wouldn't make the promised payments and used the legal system to escape his obligations, like only the most rich and powerful among us can.
I have friends who sold their businesses after the tech crash for a fraction a what they could have sold for before the crash and for less than what they owed, and then made good on those obligations over time with other business income. No doubt they had to sign personally and plege other assets to get their funding. Trump put his Trump name and Trump honor but not his Trump assets on those loans before defaulting. Good for him, I guess. A zero-sum win in those cases - what he won someone else lost. Not much of a model for the economy, the federal government, or the nation. The belief of Trump backers is that he (hopefully) won't govern the way he ran his businesses.
The larger point on Rubio and others making a serious bid for the Presidency is this: When (if) he wins, he is no longer on some political climb. All that he owes his backers is his word that he govern as promising. And he does govern as promised and succeeds in turning the country around, he will have plenty of backing for reelection over the stark alternative of returning to big-government-leftism.
-
Let me give you some inside info on this:
"We always bought for what we believed was significantly below value - or wouldn't be buying it. Yet the appraiser for the mortgage always came in at the exact purchase price. Crookedly I think, they already knew the price and were really just giving it a yes or no that the value supports the mortgage."
When the loan officer filled out the appraisal request, there was a line for Purchase Price that was filled out. The appraiser would like at that line, and then ensure that the appraisal came in at that amount. If the value was too high or too low, the loan got denied, and the loan officer would never use that appraiser again. In fact, some lenders would put them on a do not use list. BTW, appraisal fraud is back up again.
"When I took out an equity line of credit around that time, it was done off of county assessed value, with no comparables and no appraisal. You know the industry far better than any of us, but the equity lines in the runup to the crach involved far less scrutiny than a first mortgage."
Using the assessed value was unusual. Usually an automated value system was used. This would have a higher value than assessed value, but would lag current values in an increasing market.
As to Rubio, he presents this "honest facade" in the campaign, like all politicians. But this, and the allegations of financial abuse outlined in the article presents a different picture by far. And if he wins, it would make for a good argument that he could no longer be bought, but the Clintons prove that this is not true. And if Rubio did have financial improprieties with campaign cash, etc. and since he is not a "wealthy" candidate, one could reasonably expect that the lure of Clinton style bucks would be a motivation for him.
Regarding Trump, at least we know what we would be getting with him. And, I do not expect him to be nominated. The GOPe and the media will take him down, leaving Bush, Rubio or some other equally poor candidate.
BTW, Dana Perino said yesterday that there was a 3rd Party candidate preparing to run. If this is so, then either Hillary or Biden will be the new president whoever the GOP nominee is.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0CfrEPyihs
-
Pretty soon this will be the hot thread.
The debate and the issues are turning quickly toward Rubio's wheelhouse, foreign policy and economic growth, just as his poll numbers assure that he stays on the stage.
Rubio perfectly explained and predicted the actions of Putin we see now in the last debate.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/everything-marco-rubio-said-about-russia-and-syria-at-the-gop-debate-is-coming-true/
Rubio passed up Bush (just barely) in the Real Clear Politics poll average. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html That happened earlier in the campaign than anyone predicted. When Bush leaves, his 'right to rise' theme that he couldn't move forward is left to Rubio. He is one of very few with upward momentum. He is still behind the 3 'outsiders'. At least two of those will fizzle or drop before the real votes start, making Rubio a serious contender with staying power.
His weakness (immigration) is his strength. He has already gone down every other path and knows the only path left is to secure the border first, not as a bargaining chip, throw out the criminals and the recently arrived freeloaders, and lastly, legalize and plea bargain with the people already established here that no one else is going to send back anyway. Taking a hard, hard line on people who came here illegally, while the de facto policy of the US government was to let people come here illegally, polls at about 21-35% of Republicans and much worse for the general electorate. A fatally flawed Hillary is still leading Trump by 10 points and Trump can't get them all sent home anyway. If you want real progress on this issue, you are going to have to: a) acknowledge both sides of the issue, and b) win the election. Rubio could actually do that, and it was his only glaring weakness. He could appoint Trump to build the biggest, prettiest fence we have seen for a fraction of the cost - no profit to himself, just m'ake America great again'.
Kasich has more executive experience than Rubio, as do other Governors and Carly. But being experienced isn't enough. This isn't going to be a resume election; it is going to be a leadership and a choice of directions election. The President isn't the hands-on manager of the millions and millions of federal workers (nor is the governor the day to day manager of hundreds of thousands of state government workers). The President is going to set priorities and agendas and work through Congress and his own cabinet to implement them. The problem with junior Senator Barack becoming President was not that he couldn't get things done; it was that he got the wrong things done. I said early on, and nearly all the conservative pundits now agree, Rubio is the best communicator in politics. We very badly need someone with amazing communication skills and focus to turn this ship around. Being right on the issues isn't enough.
Rubio has another weakness that Hillary already tried to exploit. He has his own hurdles to jump, probably after he becomes the frontrunner.
PP predicts Rubio will win the nomination. He's right. My job is to make sure Rubio wins his vote. )
-
Bringing PP's list over to this thread:
==================================
For Rubio, there is this.
1. He is for Amnesty, a problem with 62% of the population.
2. Voted against the Mike Lee amendment for balancing the budget by 2017 and reducing government size by half by 2025. Voted in 2013 against balancing budget in 5 years without tax increases.
3. He misses votes more than any other candidate. He missed votes for both the Planned Parenthood funding and also TPP.
4. He supports TPP.
5. He wants Permanent Extension of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act.
6. He voted for the NSA and against the requirement of needing warrants for wiretapping of US citizens.
7. He votes against reforms to the NSA Mass Survelliance and the privacy issues.
8. Supports Medicare Part D
9. Against privatizing Social Security
10. Cosponsored legislation calling for private business to consider race in interviewing
11. Supports sugar subsidies and Import Export bank
12. Supported federal subsidies in student loans
13. Supported arming Syrian rebels and getting rid of Assad. Also supported US intervention.
14. Was in favor of US intervention in Libya.
15. Voted to block conservative amendments to the Iran Nuclear Agreement
16. Voted for Florida's Cap and Trade.
Rubio concerns me because though he appears to be a conservative, his positions like Cap and Trade and NSA/FISA suggests that he is for government expansion.
-
Good list, PP. Let's discuss the details over time. In general, I think the opposite, that he is is a conservative but comes across as non-threatening as we can hope for to get elected.
Details of Senate votes almost always require explanation. When a Senator digs too deep into those details to explain his vote, he loses the audience and the big picture. I think he is a visionary conservative trapped in the votes scheduled and framed by Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. Note that he wants to leave the Senate to make a difference. He is as dissatisfied with his role their as we are.
His absentee rate is only going to get worse during the campaign. Obama, Hillary and Edwards had the worst rates in 2007-2008. He cancelled a Mpls appearance for a big McConnell vote that never happened. We are lucky there isn't an Obama Democrat voting in that swing state seat.
My state representative came back to our caucus after his first year and told us it wasn't at all about how to vote on the bills in St. Paul, he couldn't believe what they thought the issues were.
Cap and trade: Rubio has very clear (recently) about not buying the nonsense of turning our economy upside down to pass laws and mandates that won't solve anything.
I am more pro-NSA than you and others. I want potential terrorists tracked, even if that includes me if I had incidental contact with one of them. I don't know the details of those bills.
Yes, I remember him busted on sugar subsidies. I don't know the details of that bill either. Ted Cruz is the purity candidate. He probably voted for some pro-Texas interest.
I oppose Ex-Im Bank, but the model is to compete on an even footing with other countries.
Rubio is pro-free trade. He doesn't support the actual TPP agreement, just supports that Presidents should have negotiating authority before it is brought to Congress. This puts him in a stronger, not weaker position as President.
Polling on amnesty depends completely on how it is asked. Rubio (now) supports securing the border first - with measurable success. Pat, some people are going to get legalized at some point through some form of negotiation or what I call plea bargain. Round them up and send them all home does NOT get 62% support. It also requires warrants and the kicking in of doors, see your NSA point. Every person who knows someone undocumented instantly becomes single issue against us. It has to be done reasonably and thoughtfully, without flame-throwing, with the worst kicked out first. The best, the law-abiding and most established will end up staying. No matter who you don't vote for.
He does not support Obama's agreement with Iran no matter how weirdly someone framed that list of objections. He would take the hardest line of any of them against the tyrants, terrorists, dictators and enemies of the US around the world.
Medicare Part D wasn't done under him. All Senators have votes for big government or they aren't in play in the real negotiations. He doesn't favor government taking on a bigger role in our lives. That comes from the other side.
"Supported federal subsidies in student loans" - As you said on taxes, end student loans means lose all the under 30 vote. Instead, Rubio proposed reforming the whole system and driving the cost down. Rubio is more likely to win the youth vote than any other conservative.
PP said something like, forget about purity. CD said something like, don't let looking for perfect get in the way of good.
There is no comparison between Rubio and Biden or whoever, on policy or anything else. He isn't going to run America like Romney ran Massachusetts. In fact, with Rubio working his way to the top, Romney is looking at getting back in.
Now let's go over the good points PP made about Rubio...
-
Everyone can quote the good points. I only care about the bad.
For myself, I can live with most of the above. However, my critical buttons with any candidate are:
1. Immigration - If they are for Amnesty, then I will not give them my vote.
2. NSA and Government Spying - Again, if the candidate is for increased action, I will not support them. The damned government cannot be trusted. Give up Privacy for Security? Who protects me from the government.
3. FISA - Another court with too much power and no oversite.
4. Man Made Global Warming supporter - They can go to hell.
5. More Gun Control - Forget it.
6. Syria - No way to commit troops unless it is to win. Jacksonian Warfare. And I don't trust our government to "fight to win".
With Rubio, it is primarily Amnesty and NSA that makes him a no go. I can live with the rest.
Why can I accept Trump? No Amnesty. And build the wall.
-
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. First Snarly, then Carson, and now Rubio......................chance war with Russia over a No Fly Zone?
Have these candidates lost their "collective frickin minds">
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/marco-rubio-wants-us-to-risk-war-with-russia-over-syria/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/marco-rubio-wants-us-to-risk-war-with-russia-over-syria/)
HARWOOD: ONE FOREIGN POLICY QUESTION. AND I’M GOING TO TOSS IT BACK TO SCOTT WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. YOU SUPPORT A NO-FLY ZONE IN SYRIA.
RUBIO: I SUPPORT A SAFE ZONE IN SYRIA THAT INCLUDES A NO-FLY ZONE, CORRECT.
HARWOOD: WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN MILITARY CONFLICT WITH THE RUSSIANS WHO ARE NOW FLYING BOMBING MISSIONS OVER SYRIA TO ENFORCE THAT ZONE? WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO HAVE WAR WITH RUSSIA OVER THAT?
RUBIO: NO. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A NO-FLY ZONE, IT HAS TO BE AGAINST ANYONE WHO WOULD DARE INTRUDE ON IT. AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CAN ENFORCE THAT, INCLUDING AGAINST THE RUSSIANS. THAT I BELIEVE THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT TEST THAT. I DON’T THINK IT’S IN THE RUSSIANS INTEREST TO ENGAGE IN AN ARMED CONFLICT OF THE UNITED STATES.
HARWOOD: YOU THINK PUTIN WOULD BACK OFF IF WE HAD A NO-FLY ZONE?
RUBIO: I DON’T THINK HE’S GOING TO GO INTO A SAFE ZONE, ABSOLUTELY. I DON’T BELIEVE HE WILL LOOK FOR A DIRECT MILITARY CONFLICT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO GO INTO A SAFE ZONE.
HARWOOD: WHAT IF HE WAS?
RUBIO: WELL, THEN YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. BUT THAT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER ADVERSARY.
HARWOOD: YOU’D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT CONSEQUENCE?
RUBIO: BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS THIS MASSIVE MIGRATION CRISIS THAT WE’RE NOW FACING. THE ALTERNATIVE IS THAT ASSAD WILL REMAIN IN POWER, BUT NEVER CONTROL THE WHOLE WHOLE OF SYRIA AGAIN. THE ALTERNATIVE IS THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF NON-ISIS TERRORIST GROUPS IN ADDITION TO ISIS ITSELF. SO I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE IS WORSE.
HARWOOD: DON’T YOU THINK THE PROSPECT OF POTENTIAL MILITARY – HOT MILITARY CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA WOULD SCARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
RUBIO: SURE. BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT DOING ANYTHING WOULD SCARE THEM EVEN MORE AND THAT INCLUDES ITS ONGOING CRISIS OF THE MIGRATORY CRISIS THAT WE’RE NOW FACING. THE CONTINUED GROWTH, NOT JUST OF ISIS, BUT A JABHAT A- NUSRA AND OTHER GROUPS IN THE REGION AS WELL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS NOT AN EASY SITUATION AND WE WISH WE DIDN’T FIND OURSELVES HERE. AND IN MANY REASONS WE ARE IN THIS POSITION, BECAUSE WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DIDN’T DO TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS ADVOCATING FOR THEM TO DO THIS TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. NOT NOW THAT BEING SAID, WE CANNOT SAY, WELL, IF PUTIN IS GOING TO TEST US, THEN WE CAN’T DO ANYTHING. YOU’VE BASICALLY AT THAT POINT CEDED TO HIM AS BECOMING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL GEOPOLITICAL BROKER IN THE REGION.
-
Let's take this exceedingly important discussion to the FUBAR thread.
-
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post on Marco Rubio:
You can see why so many are high on Rubio
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is not leading the race nationally or in any state polls. Yet many political onlookers are convinced he has the best chance to win the nomination. For reasons I have discussed elsewhere, that may be true, but it is too early to say. Aside from predicting the fall of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, on what is the Rubio rise predicated?
There are at least a dozen factors:
1. He is the candidate most adept at fencing with the media. He turned ridiculous New York Times pieces on traffic tickets and a fishing boat into fundraising and free media bonanzas. Republicans like to bash the media, but they really want a candidate who disarms them. (One reason for Carly Fiorina’s rise.)
2. While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker went too far to the right, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) lost respectability when people figured out his foreign policy was less robust than Hillary Clinton’s, Ohio Gov. John Kasich made no effort to accommodate conservatives and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continued acting like the entire party is composed of Southern tea partyers, Rubio has maintained the perfect spot in the race — on the right edge of mainstream Republicans. He did not, for example, go nuts over the gay marriage ruling or defend the Confederate battle flag, but he introduced a pro-growth conservative tax plan and has continued to enunciate a strong pro-life position. He remains well positioned to unite the party.
3. He has had solid debate performances, speeches and interviews. If anything, his eloquence can work against him, suggesting (like President Obama was) he is too glib. It’s a “fault,” however, that many candidates long to have.
4. Among the candidates, he has done the best job of knocking Donald Trump without getting sucked into an endless duel of insults. Pointing out Trump is touchy and uninformed cut to the quick, with the benefit of being true. He has the ability to project nonchalance rather than show Trump is getting under his skin.
5. The worse the president’s foreign policy missteps are, the more farsighted Rubio looks. His exact prediction of events in Syria earned him some bragging rights.
6. He hasn’t risen to the bait to attack Jeb Bush, maintaining that they are good friends and that he respects Bush. (To the extent Bush appears to be swiping at Rubio, Bush has faced some blow-back.)
7. Like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, he has put out a series of reform proposals, making his case that he is about the future while Democrats are stuck in the past.
8. He projects an optimistic, happy demeanor. In a field with many angry scare-mongers he stands out in this regard. It explains why his favorable/unfavorable split is high and why he has virtually no gender gap among Republicans and a very small one with voters at large.
9. He seems to have beaten the “just like Obama” rap by differing with Obama on virtually every issue, demonstrating prowess on foreign policy and putting out detailed, specific plans. In other words, he does not seem like a lightweight.
10. His immigrant story is compelling. Republicans are infamous for providing little or no way for average people to relate to them. By contrast, Rubio’s family story and his modest background (complete with student debt) provide that link to voters who don’t share his ideology and do not come from privilege or wealth.
11. He has run a lean campaign, avoiding the bane of losing campaigns (wasting money).
12. His campaign team is invisible. They know it is about him, not them. You won’t see them explaining strategy; they simply execute.
-
This story changes the election. Previously Rubio seemed to walk right into the 'rape abortion' mess that brought down some tea party Senate candidates in the last couple of cycles, saying on CNN that the unborn [even in that situation] 'deserve protection under the law'.
That is a logically consistent statement for a pro-life but also a political suicide pact. I couldn't understand why a man who thinks so fast on is feet, has thought deeply about all the issues, and makes virtually no other political mistakes (since his role in the gang of 8 immigration nightmare) - why would he step in this so badly, an issue the President is mostly powerless on anyway?
Rubio is as pro-life as they get and yet LifeSiteNews reports that Sen Rubio not only supports the sale of the 'morning after' pill, he supports the sale of it over-the-counter, trumping (forgive the expression) all of the Democrats on this crucial, so-called women's health issue.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/marco-rubio-supports-selling-the-morning-after-pill-over-the-counter
Marco Rubio supports selling the morning after pill over-the-counter
Marco Rubio
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio supports selling the morning after pill over the counter.
The Florida senator, a Roman Catholic, said he supports making the abortifacient available without a prescription, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of when conception occurs.
“In the cases [of rape or incest], they’re terrible tragedies. They’re horrifying,” Sen. Rubio said in response to a candidate survey by the news editorial site theSkimm. “And luckily in the 21st century, we have treatments available early on after an incident that can prevent that fertilization from happening. And that’s why I support the morning after pill being available over the counter – and I certainly support them being made available immediately for rape victims.”
However, one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject – Dr. James Trussell – said that the morning after pill may work as an abortifacient and that, for the sake of full disclosure, women must be told by taking the pill they may be aborting their unborn children.
Pro-life advocates have long said that all forms of so-called “emergency contraception,” like many forms of hormonal birth control, often thin the uterine lining and result in elective abortion.
In the remarks, Rubio made clear that he believes the unborn child is a human being deserving of legal protection.
“I have said repeatedly that I understand how difficult it is, a young 15-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and she’s scared and she has her whole future is ahead of her,” Sen. Rubio said. “And I don’t in any way diminish that and I do believe women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.”
“But in the case of a pregnancy there’s a second person involved and that’s an unborn human being,” he continued. “When confronted with two competing rights, the right to live and the right to choose, I’m forced to make a choice. And I’m gonna choose the side of life.”
Sen. Rubio said at the first presidential debate that he does not believe in exceptions for abortion due to rape or incest – but that he was willing to vote for such laws.
His position on emergency contraception echoed a statement Rubio made in August during in an interview with Meet the Press, in which he said he supports the general availability of the morning after pill. He said that he supports the fact that Plan B is currently sold “over the counter, and it’s available to people.”
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is gravely immoral, and that the morning after pill - since it can induce abortion - falls under the same sin as abortion. One Vatican prelate called it a “direct attack” on the unborn.
Asked by theSkimm if he would endorse laws to block certain forms of contraception, he drew a clear distinction between his Catholic faith and the law.
“No. And I don’t want to ban any contraceptive efforts,” Rubio responded. “Obviously, my faith has a teaching that governs me in my personal life on these issues. But I think our laws on those issues are different.”
-
Okay, who is behind this website with Rubio? It wipes Rubio out on his immigration stand.
http://www.rubioamnestyplan.com/ (http://www.rubioamnestyplan.com/)
What appears to be a well sourced article, it details Rubio misrepresentations, etc about what he thinks on immigration. A definite Gang of Eight Amnesty hawk.
-
Fair to raise this question, but I think it also fair to point out that, likely in response to political winds, he has since adjusted his position to "the border must be controlled first".
-
He was against it before he was for it?
-
He was against it before he was for it?
He will win us .025 of the Hispanic vote!
-
He will do A LOT better than that!-- especially with the Cuban vote in FL.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/marco-rubio-democratic-debate-free-stuff/index.html
Sen. Marco Rubio knocked the Democratic candidates for president Wednesday, calling their matchup Tuesday night a "liberal versus liberal debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff."
"If you watched that debate last night, it looked like something from the early '80s. It was basically a liberal versus liberal debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff: Free college education. Free college education for people illegally in this country. Free health care. Free everything," Rubio said on Fox News' "Fox and Friends."
The first Democratic debate of six planned, hosted by CNN and Facebook in Las Vegas, offered Republicans a chance to move outside their own inner party battling and take some easy shots at the Democrats.
"Their answer to every problem in America is a government program and a tax increase. That's all they prescribe time and time again. And this is stuff from the '80s, the mid-'80s," Rubio said
-
Good lines from Rubio.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/marco-rubio-democratic-debate-free-stuff/index.html
Sen. Marco Rubio knocked the Democratic candidates for president Wednesday, calling their matchup Tuesday night a "liberal versus liberal debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff."
"If you watched that debate last night, it looked like something from the early '80s. It was basically a liberal versus liberal debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff: Free college education. Free college education for people illegally in this country. Free health care. Free everything," Rubio said on Fox News' "Fox and Friends."
The first Democratic debate of six planned, hosted by CNN and Facebook in Las Vegas, offered Republicans a chance to move outside their own inner party battling and take some easy shots at the Democrats.
"Their answer to every problem in America is a government program and a tax increase. That's all they prescribe time and time again. And this is stuff from the '80s, the mid-'80s," Rubio said
-
The bit about Bill Clinton calling him the most dangerous opponent for Hillary should help him too.
-
Just saw a clip of Rubio saying he would end Common Core on Day One and was open to ending the DoEducation altogether.
-
Just saw a clip of Rubio saying he would end Common Core on Day One and was open to ending the DoEducation altogether.
Not exactly on the same page as his 'mentor'. Let's see, committed to real border security, no comprehensive settlement until that happens, and no interest expanding the federal government role in education. For limited government, free markets and a strong defense. Maybe we should take a closer look at this guy... )
Further to my own bias, I follow a couple of tough posts on the competitors with a softball column on Rubio. Disclaimer, no one here trust the NY Times and I don't know what to think of this author.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/rubio-the-unusual-front-runner.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
The New York Times
ROSS DOUTHAT
SundayReview | OP-ED COLUMNIST
Marco Rubio, the Unusual Front-Runner
OCT. 24, 2015
FOUR years ago this week, I boldly predicted that Mitt Romney would inevitably be his party’s nominee.
It was admittedly not really the boldest of predictions. But at the time the press corps was obsessed with the revolving door of non-Romney “front-runners,” and many intelligent people were still convinced that Romney’s ideological deviations would cost him the nomination in the end.
They did not, and you could predict as much by using a very simple method: All of the other candidates were impossible to imagine as the party’s nominee, so by process of elimination, Romney it simply had to be.
2016 is very different: The G.O.P. candidates are stronger overall, there’s no one with Romney’s hammerlock on money and endorsements, and Donald Trump and Ben Carson have more staying power than Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain.
But you can still play a version of the elimination game this time around.
Play it with me. No major party has ever nominated a figure like Trump or Carson, and I don’t believe that the 2016 G.O.P. will be the first. Rand Paul’s libertarian moment came and went, Carly Fiorina seems like she’s running for a cabinet slot, John Kasich is too moderate (and ornery about it), Chris Christie has never recovered from the traffic cones. Scott Walker and Rick Perry are gone. Ted Cruz has the base’s love, but far too many leading party actors hate him. Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee are boxed out by Carson and Cruz; Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki are boxed out by voter indifference.
That leaves Jeb! and Marco Rubio. But Jeb’s campaign has been one long flail. His favorable ratings are terrible, he and Trump topped a recent poll of Iowans that asked which candidate should drop out expeditiously, and as a Republican consultant pointed out for National Review this week, his candidacy looks like a pure creation of the super-rich: He has raised only three times as much from small-dollar donors as Lawrence Lessig, the good-government academic running a quixotic campaign against Hillary Clinton.
So that leaves Rubio. And unlike all the rest, it’s surpassingly easy to imagine the Florida senator as the nominee. He sits close to the party’s center ideologically, and his favorable ratings with Republicans are consistently strong. He’s an effective debater with a great personal story and an appealing style, and a more impressive policy portfolio than most of his rivals. He scares Democrats in the general election, and strikes the most politically-useful contrasts with She Who Has Always Been Inevitable. His past support for comprehensive immigration reform is a major liability, but Rubio has shown a lot more finesse on that issue than has Jeb, and one liability isn’t usually enough to doom a candidate who otherwise looks like a winner.
And that’s how Rubio looks right now. The betting markets have him as the most likely nominee, and — since this is quadrennial prediction time — I’ll say that I agree: I think he’s the real front-runner, and I predict that he will win.
But I make that prediction gingerly, not boldly, because Rubio is a very strange sort of front-runner. He has never led a national poll. He is not cleaning up endorsements, nor raking in the cash: His recent fund-raising totals were weak given his seemingly-enviable position. Nobody seems impressed with his early state organization. He’s earned a round of favorable coverage after each debate without making much progress overall.
It’s also easier to imagine him winning a national primary than it is to figure out which early state he’ll win: He’s a little too moderate for Iowa, a little too conservative for New Hampshire, perhaps not quite combative enough for South Carolina … and so he might end up in the Rudy Giuliani-esque position of banking on his native Florida.
It is possible to win a party’s nomination without winning the earliest states, if the candidates who do win seem unelectable: That’s how Bill Clinton won in 1992, and Rubio’s candidacy has certain obvious similarities to Clinton’s.
It’s also quite possible that there will be a consolidation of money and support around Rubio that enables him to eke out a narrow Iowa or New Hampshire win, in which case he could very easily run the table thereafter.
But the question people keep asking — I had a smart political reporter ask me just the other day — is why that consolidation isn’t happening already. If Rubio is actually the front-runner, shouldn’t a few more big donors be drifting from Jeb’s camp into his? Shouldn’t a few more debate-watching voters be saying to themselves, and then to pollsters: The Donald is fun and I admire Carson, but let’s get real: I’m going to vote Rubio?
I think they will. I predict they will.
But in the event they don’t, I’m guessing that Mitt Romney is still ready to serve.
-
By POTH standards Douthat is considered a conservative. I have read more than one reasonable column by him.
-
http://nypost.com/2015/10/29/this-gop-underdog-was-the-debates-big-winner/
This GOP underdog was
the debate’s big winner
By John Podhoretz October 29, 2015
Marco Rubio has been playing the long game as a presidential candidate — not getting into fights, not trying to shove himself into the daily news stories, just sticking to his themes and strengths.
If his strategy is sound — and we won’t know until votes start getting cast — Wednesday night’s CNBC debate will mark the moment it began paying off big time. And if he ends up the nominee, it will be the moment people will say he made his move from the outside.
It wouldn’t be right to say that Rubio totally dominated — both Ted Cruz and Chris Christie made real splashes, too — but he put on quite a show.
His extraordinary preparation and message discipline showed, as did his understanding of the Republican voting coalition. Over the past few days he has been hammered by the Florida press in particular for missing Senate votes, and he knew he would get questioned on it — and when he was, in a tone of naked hostility by CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla, he pounced.
He pointed out that the Florida newspaper that had called for his resignation said nothing about previous Democratic senators in the state who had missed more votes than he while running for other offices. He called the attack “evidence of the bias that exists in American media today” in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone that immediately drew Republicans to his side.
And then came the evening’s great coup. Jeb Bush, his Florida frenemy, decided to jump in on CNBC’s side to complain that as a constituent he didn’t think he was getting his money’s worth from Sen. Rubio.
Rubio quickly reminded viewers Bush had supported Sen. John McCain and added, “I don’t remember you ever complaining about John McCain’s voting record.” Rubio added sadly: “The only reason you’re doing it is that we’re running for the same position and someone has convinced you that attacking me will help you.”
It was gasp-inducing without being nasty or even all that confrontational. And if Bush, who has fallen into the low single digits in the polls, is teetering on the edge, Rubio’s meticulous counterstrike may have been the blow that does Bush in.
Rubio’s meticulous counterstrike may have been the blow that does Bush in.
Bush seemed shaken by it; he had little energy in the answers he gave afterward and said nothing memorable or even interesting. If Bush had been paying attention, he might have noticed that the way to get his mojo back would have been to attack the snide and inappropriate manner of CNBC’s three chief panelists.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz did it in his shining moment, when John Harwood demanded he explain why on earth he might dare oppose the current budget deal if he claimed to be a “problem-solver.”
Cruz hit back in the same sweet spot Rubio had found: “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?”
Later, both Ben Carson and Chris Christie followed suit as well, and fluently, but none of them had a line better than the one Rubio managed to slip in after a rather lame Donald Trump attack on the funding entities known as super-PACs: “The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC: it’s called the mainstream media.”
And then he took that line and spun it around with a red-meat answer that surely thrilled Republicans nationwide.
“Last week Hilary Clinton went before a committee,” he said. “She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying ‘hey, this attack in Benghazi was caused by al-Qaeda-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet, the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar . . . but she has her super-PAC helping her out — the American mainstream media.”
Rubio might not be the Republican nominee. But last night he gave it all he’s got, and what he’s got is pretty remarkable.
-
Doug,
I know Rubio has been a favorite of yours from day one.
I agree he has possibly the best presentation and can rapid fire great answers. He is very likable and appealing and has I think crossover appeal.
I only wish he was just less willing to cut deals with the left (based on his attempts at legislation).
-
Doug,
I know Rubio has been a favorite of yours from day one.
I agree he has possibly the best presentation and can rapid fire great answers. He is very likable and appealing and has I think crossover appeal.
I only wish he was just less willing to cut deals with the left (based on his attempts at legislation).
They all come with flaws. My view is that he learns from his mistakes. Not true of all politicians, especially those who say they have never made any. I think he is a true, limited constitutional government, freedom loving conservative, who faces political realities and tries to deal with them.
I know that Rubio is more pro-immigration than you are, but I think he has learned a lesson there. His attempt at a deal was to head off Obama before he did something worse. And it failed. The immigration issue, I have been trying to point out, has two sides to it. Obviously there is the security, sovereignty, rule of law side of it, and secondly there is the fact that all these people are here, many for a long period of time under our current de facto amnesty system. Watch how Trump won't answer the question of how to send them all home. Rubio found that you have to build the wall first and close up the employer loophole and overstayed visas loopholes etc. then cut some kind of middle ground deal about what to do with the rest. Jeb in contrast made some flippant remark about the wall, doesn't even acknowledge we need a secure border going forward. They are not one and the same! Others don't acknowledge the human compassion side of it, and there is one. The main point is that we want Rubio or someone on our side to have to go through with a Republican House and Republican Senate to get a border and a deal, not to have Hillary act by Executive Order, going beyond what Obama has done she says, or to be working through a Democrat Senate which is what will happen if we screw up this opportunity. We have to win the election have a seat at the table.
We also have to win this election or be ruled by a liberal Supreme Court for the rest of our lives.
What I am looking for in a candidate is upside risk - someone who could become a great President. We wish for another Reagan and Rubio isn't one, but he has an ability to communicate in a way that nearly all the observers think is the best of our time. And that has now held up over a sustained period of time, so he isn't a one and done or a flash in the pan.
To bring new people to conservatism you have to a) be conservative, b) come across non-threatening enough to get heard, and c) you have to be able to communicate really well and have your arguments hold up under intense scrutiny. These jerks for moderators actually helped Rubio and others, because the rest of the campaign, general election in particular, is not going to be held in a media friendly environment.
-
All good points.
If he would stand up just a little stronger to the lib bully crowd........ :-)
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/29/two-weeks-after-correcting-himself-cnbcs-harwood-lies-about-rubios
Two Weeks After Correcting Himself, CNBC's Harwood Lies About Rubio's Tax Plan — Again
By Tom Blumer | October 29, 2015 | 1:41 AM EDT
The competition for the worst moderator moment of Wednesday night's GOP debate is fierce. John Harwood's rephrasing of an old and discredited charge that Marco Rubio's tax plan disproportionately benefits the top 1 percent has to be in the running.
That's especially true because Harwood himself had to back away from a similar contention two weeks ago, yet still brought up the same issue with a similar dishonest assumption Wednesday night. After Rubio refuted Harwood and pointed out that the CNBC hack previously had to correct himself about the substance of the Rubio-Lee plan, a finger-wagging Harwood still insisted he was correct (bolds are mine throughout this post):
JOHN HARWOOD: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds to you.
The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.
Since you're the champion of Americans living paycheck-to- paycheck, don't you have that backward?
RUBIO: No, that's -- you're wrong. In fact, the largest after- tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan. And there's a bunch of things my tax plan does to help them.
Number one, you have people in this country that...
HARWOOD: The Tax Foundation -- just to be clear, they said the...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: ...you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.
HARWOOD: No, I did not.
RUBIO: You did. No, you did.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
HARWOOD: Senator, the Tax Foundation said after-tax income for the top 1 percent under your plan would go up 27.9 percent.
RUBIO: Well, you're talking about -- yeah.
HARWOOD: And people in the middle of the income spectrum, about 15 percent.
RUBIO: Yeah, but that -- because the math is, if you -- 5 percent of a million is a lot more than 5 percent of a thousand. So yeah, someone who makes more money...
HARWOOD: (inaudible)
RUBIO: ...numerically, it's gonna be higher. But the greatest gains, percentage-wise, for people, are gonna be at the lower end of our plan, and here's why: because in addition to a general personal exemption, we are increasing the per-child tax credit for working families.
We are lowering taxes on small business. You know, a lot of business activity in America is conducted like the guy that does my dry cleaning. He's an S corporation. He pays on his personal rate, and he is paying higher than the big dry-cleaning chain down the street, because he's paying at his personal rate.
RUBIO: Under my plan, no business, big or small, will pay more than 25 percent flat rate on their business income. That is a dramatic tax decrease for hard-working people who run their own businesses.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: ...The other thing I'd like to make about our plan, one more point, it is the most pro growth tax plan that I can imagine because it doesn't tax investments at all. You know why? Because the more you tax something, the less of it you get.
I want to be in -- I want America to be the best...
PAUL: ...John...
RUBIO: ...in the world for people...
Sean Davis at the Federalist noted that Harwood's stance was so outrageous that the Tax Foundation's Scott Hodge had to tweet the record straight in almost real time:
(http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/FederalistOnHarwoodRubioTaxLie1028.jpg)
Here is Harwood's tweeted correction from two weeks ago: -
(http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/HarwoodCorrectionTweet101415.png)
A graphic representation of the Rubio-Lee tax plan by income decile plus the top 1 percent is here.
Those who want to defend Harwood on the basis that he was asking about the "middle" of the income scale and not the entire rest of the income scale need to understand two things:
Harwood's question still has a false premise, as seen in focusing on the middle 60 percent as presented in the following table from the Tax Foundation's model:
(http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/RubioLeeTaxPlanDecileImpact1015.jpg)
The dynamically scored after-tax income effect for the top 1 percent of income-earners is 27.9 percent. The average of the deciles from 20 percent to 80 percent is 16.2 percent. 27.9 divided by 16.2 is 1.72. That's closer to 1-1/2 than it is to 2; there no justification for calling 1.72 a "nearly twice" impact. John Harwood doesn't get to "creatively" round up like this and get away with it — and he didn't.
Harwood was treating the upper 19 percent (between 80 percent and 99 percent) and the lower 20 percent as if they don't exist. Why? Because he didn't want to admit the large favorable impact on the bottom 20 percent — because, y'know, the Republican Party is the party of the rich which never helps the less fortunate. Rubio, to his credit, got it in there anyway.
Those who believe that the GOP should never have allowed CNBC to host one of the its presidential debates, and especially should have insisted that Harwood not be one of its moderators, should feel vindicated — but still quite frustrated — tonight.
-
One comment on the previous Rubio post: The argument Rubio won against NBC's John Harwood was crucial along with all the media and opponent drivel based on static scoring that shows other plans 'costing us trillions' illustrates why his plan has to be so modest at the high end to get elected. Yes, the top rates should be much lower but that feeds the labeling of all tax rate cuts being a 'giveaway' to the rich. Unfortunately, you have to win the election to reverse Obama's tax increases or repeal Obamacare or anything else. The alternative is Hillary going further than Obama on amnesty and big government.
No wonder NBC's (no one but Clinton?) John Harwood felt the need to have his Candy Crowley moment.
-
Just like in medicine. One could make statistics come out in any way one chooses - almost.
Just like the 25% increase in heart attacks if one has more the 2 diet sodas a day in the news now.
It doesn't appear this was controlled or other personality characteristics were even factored in. Bottom line this "announcement" which is great bullshit for the entertainment media has almost zero medical legitimacy or relevance.
Most of the medical stuff we read is just pure crap. Sometimes for financial gain. Sometimes for career feathers in one's cap. Sometimes for political propaganda.
To say that Rubio would benefit 10% more? So the F what!
-
Excellent contributions Doug.
-
Significant Ops Research on Rubio back in 2012. Worth a look, especially his financial aspects and credit card usage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99535157/American-Bridge-Rubio-Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/99535157/American-Bridge-Rubio-Book)
-
Significant Ops Research on Rubio back in 2012. Worth a look, especially his financial aspects and credit card usage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99535157/American-Bridge-Rubio-Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/99535157/American-Bridge-Rubio-Book)
This is all in addition to his parking ticket. I wonder if he will resign...
I would challenge the Dems to nominate someone squeaky clean to take full advantage of this!
-
Would it bother you if the claims of Rubio using RNC credit cards for personal use to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars with no reimbursement to the RNC? What about all of the other alleged abuses?
-
I'm under the impression that this was brought up during Rubio's successful challenge to Crist and has mostly been dealt with, though with Trump pushing right now it will be interesting to see what the coming days bring.
-
Would it bother you if the claims of Rubio using RNC credit cards for personal use to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars with no reimbursement to the RNC? What about all of the other alleged abuses?
When I looked into this, it cast far more light on the accusers than it did on Rubio. I believe it is true that he had to pay back the RNC for 'personal charges' made. When nearly everything you do is political and benefits the RNC, I wonder what charges, like taking a cab or having dinner on the way to a political event, are considered personal.
The 'luxury' boat he bought was after signing a book deal and in celebration of paying off student loans and living off of a shoestring those early years. Still the 'luxury' boat requires that you pee off the side.
Not that this makes anything right, but he is running against I guy worth billions who 'used' the bankruptcy laws to his advantage 4 times to escape responsibility for promises made, and a lady whose financial criminality is global and goes into well the billions.
I would be curious if it was the RNC was who complained about mis-use of their funds or was it political opposition dirt diggers. I doubt the RNC feels they don't get their money's worth with Rubio and his expenses working on their behalf. I would like to see the arcane rules he allegedly broke. It is legal for Trump to jet anywhere with money questionably made but not for a political organization to pay expenses for a guy supporting a wife and 4 kids who is not worth billions to do the same thing.
The part about Rubio owning a house with a seedy friend turned out to have no Rubio wrongdoing in it. They are accusing him of struggling on the second wrung of the ladder called the American Dream.
But vet this out now. Let's not get blindsided later - on any of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a commonly used liberal logic string that I call 'And another thing'. It goes like this: They make a first charge or statement that is either marginally or patently false (like Rubio's troubles with the house in Tallahassee). When called out on it, instead of answering and backing up the original claim they proceed to throw more things on it. Pretty soon the 'facts' appear to be just endless troubles piled one on top of another ('and another thing') even though the original claim never turned out to be true.
From the post: "What about all of the other alleged abuses?"
Don't be that guy.
-
Excuse me but about the house than Rubio owned, I cited previously why there were real problems with the underwriting, the evaluation and the providing of the 2nd on it one month later.
The whole affair violated all regulatory requirements and prudent lending actions. The FDIC would have nailed the bank hugely on that practice. And if the bank did not do the same for other borrowers, it was surely influence buying at the very least.
-
Excuse me but about the house than Rubio owned, I cited previously why there were real problems with the underwriting, the evaluation and the providing of the 2nd on it one month later.
The whole affair violated all regulatory requirements and prudent lending actions. The FDIC would have nailed the bank hugely on that practice. And if the bank did not do the same for other borrowers, it was surely influence buying at the very least.
a) We know he didn't have money to buy influence. Wasn't he a run of the mill legislator at the time, not Speaker of the Florida House or US Senator.
b) I don't believe rules for equity loans were that tight at that time.
c) Isn't it the bank that made the error in your scenario, not the applicant.
-
1. Rubio was not trying to buy influence, it was the bank. In fact, the main character was a friend and campaign supporter of Rubio.
2. You have bought properties and then gotten loans. How many properties have an increase in value of 33% in one month? Lenders would not lend on a one month purchase with an increase in "eguity" over the purchase price.
3. On the appraisal, there were no "model match" homes closing with similar values in the local area. The appraiser went 1.5 miles away to find his comps. This is appraisal fraud.
The only way for this loan to have been done is for the board to approve it. And then of course, why after one month on the purchase does Rubio want such a big line of credit and gets it based upon a "questionable" appraisal and a practice that violates all underwriting guidelines?
Again, I have seen this type of lending several times, usually in California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. In fact, the DOJ has put people in prison for these types of actions.
-
book, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.
CLICK HERE to order your copy today!
________________________________________________________________
Media Tries to Cut Down and Puncture Carson’s Stabbing Narrative
Let me get this straight -- Ben Carson’s getting grief for not stabbing people or attacking them with a hammer?
Really, Carson’s in the odd position of declaring that the media’s accusation that he never stabbed anyone or attacked anyone is “a smear.”
Somewhere there’s some more traditional-minded spin doctor thinking, “It wasn’t a ‘stabbing’. It was ‘early surgery practice.”
He’s got a point here.
Carson also asserted in the interview that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and President Obama did not undergo the same level of scrutiny by political journalists.
“Give me a break. Are you kidding?” Carson said, laughing. “What you all did with president Obama doesn’t even come close -- doesn’t even come close to what you guys are trying to do in my case.”
“I want you to ask Hillary Clinton the same questions you ask me. Will you do that? Promise you’re going to do that?” he asked. “We’re waiting.”
Remember how stunned journalists were when they realized that some of the people in Obama’s autobiography didn’t exist?
Donald Trump, this morning: “With Ben Carson wanting to hit his mother on head with a hammer, stab [sic] a friend and Pyramids built for grain storage -- don’t people get it?”
Washington Post: Maybe Rubio Didn’t Misuse His Credit Card After All
The Washington Post Fact-Checker goes through the saga of Marco Rubio and his credit cards and the Florida GOP and finds . . . no scandal, and as far as anyone can discern at this point, no lie or misleading statement:
Rubio also says the Republican Party “never paid a single personal expense of mine — personal expense.” Notice the emphasis here. There was an instance when Rubio did repay the party for an expense that should not have been charged to the party; he double-billed the party and the state for airline tickets for state business. So, that is one example where he repaid the party rather than paying American Express directly, as he often notes. But technically, it was not for a personal purpose.
We don’t make a judgment call on whether Rubio should have made personal charges, or whether some of the charges the party paid for should have been considered as “party business.” But what readers should remember is that Rubio’s total charges -- about $160,000 total on the corporate card -- were relatively small compared to other state party officials who ran up $500,000, even $1.3 million, on their party cards. And although other presidential hopefuls, and even media outlets, keep pointing to the February 2010 news coverage that revealed Rubio’s personal charges, subsequent reports by the independent auditor and Florida Ethics Commission are worth reading, because they tell a fuller picture of how the saga unfolded.
Rubio’s carefully worded explanation doesn’t quite rise to the level of a Geppetto Checkmark, but it is accurate enough that it does not warrant even a single Pinocchio. Perhaps the release of the 2005-2006 card statements will change the outcome.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this issue but based on the information released so far, a mountain’s been made out of molehill, by the media and Rubio’s opponents.
-
1. Rubio was not trying to buy influence, it was the bank. In fact, the main character was a friend and campaign supporter of Rubio.
- Was Rubio on the banking committee? If he was a friend and campaign supporter, didn't he already have influence with Rubio??
2. You have bought properties and then gotten loans. How many properties have an increase in value of 33% in one month? Lenders would not lend on a one month purchase with an increase in "eguity" over the purchase price.
- I've never bought a property that wasn't in my opinion at least 33% below value. I've never bought and borrowed back immediately so I can't comment based on specific, personal experience. The time I did get an immediately available equity line near that time frame, it did not require an appraisal. The property value came from the tax assessor. As my house has deteriorated to a tear down, the value has gone up 800%, meaning to me that real estate values are shall we say subjective...
3. On the appraisal, there were no "model match" homes closing with similar values in the local area. The appraiser went 1.5 miles away to find his comps. This is appraisal fraud.
- All appraisals in that time frame in your opinion and mine were appraisal fraud. But I'm guessing that in this case there was no arrest and no conviction, lol.
The only way for this loan to have been done is for the board to approve it. And then of course, why after one month on the purchase does Rubio want such a big line of credit and gets it based upon a "questionable" appraisal and a practice that violates all underwriting guidelines?
Again, I have seen this type of lending several times, usually in California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. In fact, the DOJ has put people in prison for these types of actions.
- Maybe so, but for the most part equity lending up to more than 100% of value was extremely easy and commonplace (leading to a national crisis people may recall) and I think you would agree that at least 99.9% of the people doing this did not go to prison. The larger point is that appraisal fraud goes on the housing thread; what we are looking for here is applicant-fraud. Also in terms of Rubio, there was no pattern. He didn't churn a series of these houses or default on the loans. He was buying a house in Tallahassee because that is the capital, he was legislator and he needed a place to stay - in addition to having to pay for a house back home for his family - in addition to giving up more lucrative work to serve as a 20k per year legislator.
-
Per the NY Times, the card in question was a Republican-party-linked American Express that was tied to Rubio’s “personal credit.” Primarily, it was used “for political expenses, which were covered by donations to the party.” Occasionally, however, “a few personal expenses were charged to the card as well.” Thus, when the bill came in, it contained a mixture of outlays that needed to be carefully sifted through.
And the scandal is . . . what? Did the GOP pick up the tab for those personal charges? Did a group of secret donors bankroll Rubio’s home expenditures? Did Rubio and his wife benefit from a line of untaxable private income? Nah. Not even close. Rather, as the Times flatly notes, Rubio made sure to identify all of the personal purchases and ultimately paid for them himself. He wrote a monthly check to the credit card company to cover the personal costs, and the party wrote a check to cover the political ones, according to his staff. In other words, he did what millions of Americans who work for corporations do each and every month. He didn’t borrow money. He didn’t ask his backers to pick up his personal tab. He didn’t default on his obligations. He was not, as Donald Trump proposes, “a disaster with credit cards.” Instead, he had a “company” charge card that he used occasionally for personal expenses and he settled the account at the end of the month. Unless he is lying about something — which would, of course, be a serious transgression — I can discern no story here whatsoever. Asked to investigate whether there was anything untoward about the arrangement, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled in 2012 that the charges were so much fluff. Where’s the meat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426642/marco-rubio-credit-cards-scandal-new-york-times
-
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Nov. 5, 2015 7:16 p.m. ET
908 COMMENTS
The swirl this week over Marco Rubio’s personal finances brings to mind that popular children’s word game, “Would You Rather.” Cut through the hype and the question Mr. Rubio presents to the electorate is this: “Would you rather a president who is above it all, or who has lived it all?”
Only the voters can answer that question—if they have the chance. The press for its part is more interested in presenting Mr. Rubio’s financial history as some evidence of scandal. The New York Times has devoted near novel-length inches to the non-news (this was all covered in Mr. Rubio’s Senate race in 2010) that as a Florida legislator he used a Republican Party charge card for personal purchases.
And? The card was used primarily for political expenses—which were covered by the party. Mr. Rubio occasionally used it for a personal expense, which he then paid for each month by writing a check to the card company. No one is suggesting that the party paid a dime toward Mr. Rubio’s expenses, or that the candidate was a dime short in promptly paying back his personal charges. If this is a scandal, we’ve found a cure for insomnia.
-
Rubio and Big Sugar
The Florida Senator defends what may be the worst farm subsidy.
Nov. 5, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
110 COMMENTS
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/Mint Images RF
The rap against former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the GOP presidential primaries is that he’s part of a political dynasty that epitomizes business-as-usual in Washington. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, has positioned himself as a young, fresh-faced champion of limited-government conservatism.
But those stereotypes won’t hold if some enterprising debate moderator asks the two Floridians about the hoary U.S. sugar program. Mr. Bush’s campaign has said he favors phasing it out. But Mr. Rubio argued in August that it ought to be terminated only when other countries like Brazil “get rid of theirs,” which is to say, never.
There is no economic defense of the sugar program, which every year provides nonrecourse loans to sugar processors at a guaranteed price-per-pound. If the market price is below the guarantee when they want to sell, the processors simply dump the crop on the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the loan repayment. To avoid that outcome, the USDA holds sugar prices artificially high by imposing tariffs on imports above an annual quota. The result is that Americans pay about twice what the rest of the world pays for sugar.
The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which includes businesses that use sugar, says that for every U.S. sugar-growing job saved from high U.S. sugar prices, about three American manufacturing jobs are lost. The U.S. candy industry has been hollowed out as companies have fled to places like Guatemala and Thailand where they can remain competitive by buying sugar at world-market prices.
Mr. Rubio explains his support with the last refuge of protectionist scoundrels—national security. If the U.S. opens the market for sugar, he says, “other countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate,” and “then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”
So let’s see: If Americans don’t pay double the world price for sugar, Pepe Fanjul will sell his sugar acreage to home builders, who will pave over Florida and put us at risk of extortion from . . . Brazil? This national security line doesn’t hold up for rare-earth minerals from China used for national defense, much less a basic farm commodity.
Mr. Rubio knows this, but he’s also close to Florida’s biggest sugar producers. One of the largest campaign contributors over his career has been Florida Crystals, which is a Fanjul family company. On this issue Mr. Rubio is allied not with the tea party but with Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn), the progressive hero who fronts for wealthy sugar-beet interests.
Mr. Rubio has many talents, but one trait the presidential campaign has exposed is a tendency to hedge on his principles when he thinks it’s politically beneficial. He’s walking away from his immigration reform record, and he’s pandered to social conservatives with his $2,500 tax credit per child. His sugar high is another low.
-
Rubio supports statehood for Puerto Rico also.
-
Meaning he would accept a PR vote to that effect or something else?
-
Yes, and he suuports PR obtaining statehood. What does that mean?
2 more Democrat Senators
3 more House Democrats
Bail out of PR which has already defaulted on its debt.
Just what we need...............Greece lite!
-
Rubio opposed the bailout of Puerto Rico.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/rubio-disagrees-with-puerto-rican-bailout-opposing-bush/2244161
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rubio-puertorico-213332
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/28/puerto-rico-wont-get-a-bailout-from-congress-commentary.htmlhttp://www.ibtimes.com/marco-rubio-puerto-rico-no-bankruptcy-protection-should-be-given-presidential-2083381
The statehood question I think is more complicated. I saw that he supported them voting on it, not what the northern 50 should think about that.
I will sway him off of PR statehood if you can get Trump to recant on private takings. What a great opportunity for both of them to say they were wrong.
-
Yeah, bring PR into statehood and not bail PR out? Not gonna happen.
-
:-D :-D :-D
Rubio now backtracking on TPP. Now he is undecided on it. What another lying politician steaming pile of ..............
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/08/marco-rubio-tries-rewrite-history-obamatrade/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/08/marco-rubio-tries-rewrite-history-obamatrade/)
But after the Wall Street Journal listed Rubio as supporting the pact, a new paragraph suddenly appeared at the end of the piece stating that “Mr. Rubio’s spokesman said that although he backed the bill granting Mr. Obama fast-track trade authority this summer, he has not decided whether to support TPP legislation.”
-
Sorry Pat, but IMHO that is a fair distinction.
-
A followup interview on most subjects with a little more time to answer:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/11/marco_rubio_federal_governments_primary_responsibility_is_to_keep_us_safe.html
-
CD,
So are we going to see another "I was for it before I was against it " arguments?
Everyone is concerned about Trump flip flopping, but not with Rubio and others?
-
I agree that this is a fair question and would be quite surprised if Rubio does not get to hear it quite a bit more.
-
This is how you answer the minimum wage question, listen up!
Video at the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-minimum-wage_5642a4d5e4b060377346e81e
Did Reagan explain it any better than that?
Watch the crowd reaction at the end. Maybe they became Rubio fans during the debate.
One diction gaffe if you can catch it, but pretty good for a first term Senator standing in front of 20 million people.
-
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207789215833251&set=gm.10153267472601519&type=3
-
https://www.facebook.com/MarcoRubio/videos/10153710641937708/
-
Rubio the Opportunist
This is intended as a hit piece by no doubt a liberal Dem journalist, (sorry for that redundancy). But other than his bias that occasionally shines through it is actually a very long, detailed story with a lot of facts and information in it about Rubio and the campaign. There are things is here all the candidates could learn from, such as his dexterity in answering difficult questions.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/the-opportunist
-
Excellent article.
-
By Patrick O’Connor And
Byron Tau
Nov. 29, 2015 5:30 a.m. ET
16 COMMENTS
DAVENPORT, Iowa—Florida Sen. Marco Rubio likes to remind GOP primary voters of the long odds he faced running for the Senate in 2010.
“Everybody in the Republican establishment came forward and said, ‘You can’t run, it’s not your turn, you’ve got to wait in line,’ ” Mr. Rubio told the crowd at a recent campaign stop in early-voting Iowa.
The underdog narrative helps Mr. Rubio cast himself as a political outsider to a party desperate for change. But it glosses over a basic fact: The 44-year-old Florida senator has spent the bulk of his working life in politics, reared by the party whose leaders he occasionally campaigns against.
This tension between Rubio the insider and Rubio the outsider cuts to the heart of his biggest challenge in the Republican primary—positioning himself as a bridge candidate, while some of his rivals specifically target evangelicals and tea-party conservatives and others focus on rallying the establishment.
Though Mr. Rubio is viewed favorably by different parts of the GOP, his appeal has yet to deepen. He trails the two front-runners—businessman Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson—by wide margins in national polls, and lags behind in every early-voting state, including his native Florida. A super PAC backing his candidacy is trying to change that by launching a $2.5 million ad campaign in three early states in its first major ad buy to date, set to air ahead of the nation’s first nominating contests in February.
According to Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling, Mr. Rubio draws roughly similar support from the four main segments of the GOP primary electorate—centrists, religious conservatives, tea partiers and libertarians. In New Hampshire, he scored equally well among Republican primary voters who want the next president to be a political outsider and those who want someone with prior elected experience, according to a recent survey by WBUR.
In contrast, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Mr. Trump draw much higher marks from tea-party Republicans than from more centrist Republicans or even religious conservatives, according to Journal polling. Mr. Carson, meanwhile, is most popular among tea partiers and religious conservatives.
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst recently polled Republican primary voters and found they move fairly fluidly between the top four candidates—Messrs. Trump, Carson, Cruz and Rubio. However, the Florida senator served as a link between the outsiders and the establishment contenders, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
“Rubio shares a lot of support with Trump, Carson and [former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly] Fiorina and with establishment candidates, like Bush and Christie,” said Mia Costa, one of the researchers on that poll. “He’s well-positioned to pick up supporters from both camps.”
On the trail, Mr. Rubio’s message has something for everyone. He often emphasizes his foreign-policy expertise for Republicans who favor who experience. But he also complains about dysfunction in Washington and occasionally riffs about the need to nominate a true conservative, an appeal more often associated with Mr. Cruz and other candidates in that mold.
“What this nation needs is an alternative to the direction that Barack Obama and the radical left-wing elements of the Democratic Party are taking America,” Mr. Rubio told the crowd in Davenport. “That is in a direction that applies the principles of limited government and free enterprise to the unique challenges of a new era.”
On abortion, Mr. Rubio personally opposes exceptions for rape and incest, although he has said he would sign legislation that included both.
His conservative message appears to resonate. A South Carolina survey conducted this month by Public Policy Polling showed the Florida senator garnering roughly similar levels of support from Republicans who identified with the tea party and those who didn’t, as well as Republicans who consider themselves evangelicals and those who don’t.
In the same South Carolina poll, Republicans who described themselves as “somewhat conservative” viewed him more favorably than “moderate” or “very conservative” Republicans. An Iowa poll in October, conducted by Quinnipiac University, revealed a similar trend, with Mr. Rubio performing better among conservative GOP primary voters than more moderate ones.
Mr. Rubio, seeking to expand that base, appeared in Iowa recently with six other candidates at an event for evangelicals organized by the Family Leader, a Christian conservative group. A few days later, he capped a five-day swing through this first-in-the-nation caucus state by meeting with church leaders.
“I haven’t been a Rubio supporter until really tonight,” said Kent Peterson, 61, a journalism teacher from West Des Moines who attended the Family Leader event. “For me, as a conservative Christian, he resonates with my belief system. Every time I hear him, it’s a consistent message.”
Appealing to evangelicals means competing for the support of voters who tend to favor Messrs. Carson and Cruz. Both Republicans frequently outperform Mr. Rubio among tea-party Republicans, evangelicals and those GOP primary voters who consider themselves “very conservative,” both nationally and in the early voting states. At a reception after the Family Leader event, Mr. Rubio’s campaign drew a small crowd, while people flocked to Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Fiorina and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Mr. Rubio could miss out if he neglects or alienates more centrist voters with his efforts to court conservatives. “He could be a bridge candidate, but can he walk that line without turning off the Main Street crowd?” asked John Stineman, a Republican operative in Iowa who ran races in the state for former GOP presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm but remains unaffiliated this year. “He doesn’t want to be painted as the establishment candidate, but he does want to benefit from their support.”
The Florida senator, the son of Cuban immigrants, has straddled the divide between the insiders and the outsiders for much of his career. He started interning for a local congresswoman in college and volunteered for another Cuban-American Republican running for a U.S. House seat. Both wrote his recommendations for law school, according to Mr. Rubio’s memoir, “An American Son.”
After law school, Mr. Rubio organized voters in South Florida for former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole’s unsuccessful 1996 White House bid. His team included a future congressman and the state’s current lieutenant governor, Carlos López-Cantera. As a joke, some volunteers made a “Rubio for President” sign from a Dole yard sign and that of another Rubio running for local office.
But Mr. Rubio has been an underdog in most of his campaigns for elected office, including his first run for the state Legislature. He eventually became speaker. In 2010, he traveled Florida addressing groups organized by the then-nascent tea-party movement in his uphill race against then-Gov. Charlie Crist for the Republican nomination to a vacant Senate seat.
Since joining the Senate, Mr. Rubio has maintained that balancing act. He delivered the party’s official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in 2013 and alienated a number of conservative supporters that same year for his role in shaping a sweeping immigration overhaul that would have created a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.
“Once upon a time I did support him, but now, no, absolutely not,” said Edna Mattos, a tea-party activist in Florida who frequently invited Mr. Rubio to rallies during his 2010 Senate race. “He’s a flip-flopper.”
Mr. Rubio frequently sides with the most conservative elements of the Senate on high-stakes legislation, opposing a series of must-pass budget deals, a hurricane-relief bill and legislation to raise the country’s borrowing limit. He joined Mr. Cruz on the Senate floor during the latter’s talk-a-thon against the Affordable Care Act in the fall of 2013 when the government was headed toward a partial shutdown.
The Florida senator generated a standing ovation at the Values Voter Summit in Washington in September when he announced former Speaker John Boehner’s decision to resign. “I’m not here today to bash anyone,” Mr. Rubio told the crowd at a Washington hotel. “But the time has come to turn the page.”
-
Yes, he is bridging the gap between insider and outsider. He risks being first choice of neither.
When the frontrunner insults the other candidates, he is also insulting their supporters. When Rubio talks about Trump's support, he first validates their frustrations with the status quo and with the Republicans in Washington.
-------------------------
Pat says (correctly) that Rubio has not done significant work outside of politics. For that, I would nominate Sen Ron Johnson, R-WI, former manufacturing CEO, tea party incumbent, currently trailing Russ Feingold by double digits. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_johnson_vs_feingold-3740.html
What is needed right now, unfortunately more than resume and experience, is the ability to communicate, to reach and persuade people who aren't getting a conservative message from anywhere else. Trump says he will be great. Rubio says the American people will be great. Which message will resonate with the most people who turn out to vote? [I don't know.]
Highly qualified while taking second place isn't going to do it. Rubio hasn't run anything, nor has Cruz. Trump has no experience working in a bureaucratic, co-equal branches, hostile media environment. The top governors in this race were unable to communicate or set a vision for the country or for this race. Trump and Carson have never been on a ballot until now, much less won a race. Rubio has won every race he entered all the way up, including the one below where he got nearly 50% and a million vote margin against a popular incumbent governor and a Democratic member of congress in a most divided, swing state:
Marco Rubio Charlie Crist Kendrick Meek
Republican Independent Democratic
2,645,743 1,607,549 1,092,936
48.9% 29.7% 20.2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2010
-
"What is needed right now, unfortunately more than resume and experience, is the ability to communicate, to reach and persuade people who aren't getting a conservative message from anywhere else. Trump says he will be great. Rubio says the American people will be great."
Nor has Rubio ever made donations to Hillary, Pelosi, supported single payer, blah blah.
-
"If I have this right, Cruz was against Hillary's Libya policy and Rubio a gung ho supporter. Is this correct?"
Supporting regime change in Libya doesn't mean he supported Obama's methods. Off the top of my head, some differences:
1. Rubio supported taking it to congress, the constitutional process. The Obama administration did not. Debate there might have stopped it.
2. Rubio supported America leading. Hillary / Obama did not.
3. Rubio urged the President to immediately recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya. http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/marco-rubio-urges-senate-leaders-authorize-force-libya-back-regime-change#sthash.YUBE5tIK.dpuf
That is not the same as bypassing congress, leaving the invasion to others and leaving the country to al Qaida and street gangs to control.
One other point bears saying, it would appear that Khadafy was about to fall anyway - into the hands of Islamic extremists. A successful intervention might have steered that into more moderate hands.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/rubio-takes-lead/556049
-
Very helpful Doug. It would appear Sen. Cruz was playing a tad fast and loose , , ,
What about what his strategy for the ISIS, Syria, et al in the Middle East?
-
Also in Presidential thread:
Rubio is the only one to lead Clinton in the general election matchup with a 7 point advantage over Trump, 5 better than Cruz.
Clinton 48, Trump 44 Clinton +4
Clinton 47, Cruz 45 Clinton +2
Rubio 48, Clinton 45 Rubio +3
Carson 45, Clinton 46 Clinton +1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
-
And as in the other thread.
Real Clear politics only uses a few polls, those doing phone calls. On-line polls are ignored. Yet those show Trump with the biggest leads and also that he too is beating Hillary.
What is this fascination with Rubio? Do people really want another Amnesty loving Bush? A Moderate Pub bought for by the COC and Wall Street? Maybe he will be good for the Upper Class, but for the Middle Class, forget it.
-
Crissakes Pat, he has backed off from the amnesty thing for a long time now-- politicians SHOULD adjust course in response to the people sometimes! And he is plenty fine on plenty of issues.
And, , , and this is REAL fg important, HE IS THE MOST LiKELY TO BEAT HILLARY.
-
"in this we agree. Dole was, and is, an irrelevancy." - Crafty to Pat.
I imagine that Marco Rubio is scrambling right now behind the scenes to get Dole, Romney, Bush, Ford, McCain, Kasich, Graham, Petaki and Mitch McConnell to NOT support him. )
-
CD,
Did you hear what he told Telemondo in Spanish a couple of months ago? My wife did and she freaked. He let them know he supported Amnesty, but just did not use the word Amnesty specifically. He is another lying gas bag like the rest.
I will be around to say "I told you so" if he wins.................if I have not joined DDF in Mexico by that time.
-
Perchance do you have a URL of that? I'd love to hear it.
-
He couched it in ambiguous terms.......but here is the Beast.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/18/in-spanish-language-interview-marco-rubio-says-he-believes-obamas-executive-amnesty-is-important (http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/18/in-spanish-language-interview-marco-rubio-says-he-believes-obamas-executive-amnesty-is-important)/
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/on-immigration-rubio-chooses-words-carefully/2228864 (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/on-immigration-rubio-chooses-words-carefully/2228864)
For Rubio, Immigration means providing them Amnesty in a form he can deny is Amnesty.
Now, he comes out and opposes any stop on Muslim immigration, even to allow for the US to figure out what is going on.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/04/sens-rubio-graham-vote-continue-muslim-immigration-countries-jihadist-movements/ (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/04/sens-rubio-graham-vote-continue-muslim-immigration-countries-jihadist-movements/)
And with Syria
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/rubio-ok-sending-us-troops-syria-numbers-might-even-have-be-larger (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/rubio-ok-sending-us-troops-syria-numbers-might-even-have-be-larger)
Rubio and the others who want to send more troops in to Syria and Iraq are fucking idiots who don't know a damned thing about the military. This is especially so when they talk about sending up to 10 or 20k troops. Here is why I say this:
1. The troops would need bases. Where are they going to come from in Syria?
2. 10k of troops would require large amounts of infrastructure and logistical support. Where does that come from?
3. Of the 10k in troops, only about 2500 at the most would be shooters. The rest are support.
4. How are the shooters going to get to the action? Choppers......in an area with an incredible amount of SAMs all over. And with choppers, even more troops would be dedicated to logistics and support.
5. Spread the troops around the country? Need Forward Operating Bases from the main base. That means more support troops and security in those areas. More logistical issues. And those troops become at even greater risk.
6. Increase the number to 20k troops. Still have the same problems and shooters will only increase marginally to the additional 10k of troops.
These people are absolute idiots.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act
By ROBERT PEARDEC. 9, 2015
Photo: Senator Marco Rubio at a campaign event in Greenland, N.H., last week. He attached a provision limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses to a spending law last year. Credit Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A little-noticed health care provision that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law.
So for all the Republican talk about dismantling the Affordable Care Act, one Republican presidential hopeful has actually done something toward achieving that goal.
Mr. Rubio’s efforts against the so-called risk corridor provision of the health law have hardly risen to the forefront of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, but his plan limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses has shown the effectiveness of quiet legislative sabotage.
The risk corridors were intended to help some insurance companies if they ended up with too many new sick people on their rolls and too little cash from premiums to cover their medical bills in the first three years under the health law. But because of Mr. Rubio’s efforts, the administration says it will pay only 13 percent of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. The payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risks they assumed when they decided to participate in the law’s new insurance marketplaces.
Mr. Rubio’s talking point is bumper-sticker ready. The payments, he says, are “a taxpayer-funded bailout for insurance companies.” But without them, insurers say, many consumers will face higher premiums and may have to scramble for other coverage. Already, some insurers have shut down over the unexpected shortfall.
“Risk corridors have become a political football,” said Dawn H. Bonder, the president and chief executive of Health Republic of Oregon, an insurance co-op that announced in October it would close its doors after learning that it would receive only $995,000 of the $7.9 million it had expected from the government. “We were stable, had a growing membership and could have been successful if we had received those payments. We relied on the payments in pricing our plans, but the government reneged on its promise. I am disgusted.”
Blue Cross and Blue Shield executives have warned the administration and Congress that eliminating the federal payments could have a devastating impact on insurance markets.
Twelve of the 23 nonprofit insurance cooperatives created under the law have failed, disrupting coverage for more than 700,000 people, and co-op executives like Ms. Bonder have angrily cited the sharp reduction in federal payments as a factor in their demise.
But Mr. Rubio is pressing forward, demanding a provision in the final spending bill now under negotiation that continues the current risk corridor restrictions, or even eliminates the program altogether. That enormous spending bill is being worked out as Congress slides toward a deadline of Friday, when much of the federal government’s funding runs out.
“If you want to be involved in the exchanges and you lose money, the American taxpayer should not have to bail you out,” Mr. Rubio said on the Senate floor on Thursday.
A White House spokeswoman, Katie Hill, declined to offer the administration’s position on proposals that she said were still theoretical. “We are not going to weigh in on the possible inclusion of proposals floated by members of Congress” in potential legislation, she said.
Congress established the program in 2010 to protect insurers against the uncertainties they faced in setting the level of insurance premiums when they did not know who would sign up for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Under the law, the federal government shares risk with insurers, limiting their gains and losses on insurance sold in the public marketplaces from 2014 through 2016. If consumer payments to an insurer exceed the company’s medical expenses by a certain amount, the insurer pays some of that profit to the government. But if premium payments fall short of medical expenditures by a certain amount, the insurer is eligible for payments from the government.
The hope was that payments into the program would be in balance with payments out, shielding taxpayers from responsibility.
Mr. Rubio latched on to the issue in late 2013, recognizing not only the importance of risk corridors to the operation of the Affordable Care Act but also the political potency of a program he labeled crony capitalism — putting taxpayers “on the hook for Washington’s mistakes,” as he said when he reintroduced his risk corridor bill in January.
The “bailouts” of big banks and other financial firms during the economic crisis of 2008 and the rescue of the Big Three automakers that year and the next remain politically unpopular.
Then the numbers rolled in from the insurance exchanges’ first year of operation: Losses were so steep that insurance-company requests for risk corridor payments were $2.9 billion, compared with only $362 million paid into the program by profitable plans.
Mr. Rubio says he “saved taxpayers $2.5 billion” — the difference between those two amounts — because his measure prevented the government from using other sources of money for the risk corridor payments.
The administration has repeatedly told insurers that it will explore other funding sources to keep its commitment to companies losing money in the exchanges, but Mr. Rubio effectively tied the hands of federal health officials this year.
Like many other observers of the health law, the Obama administration initially failed to appreciate the impact of the Rubio restrictions. Kevin J. Counihan, the chief executive of the federal insurance marketplace, told state officials in July that money collected from insurance companies would be “sufficient to pay for all risk corridor payments.” More recently, the administration consoled insurers by telling them that it would make additional risk corridor payments from money collected in 2015 and 2016.
But in a new report, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s says that money will not be there.
Mr. Rubio says Mr. Obama compounded his problems by diverting risk corridor funds to quell a 2013 furor over canceled insurance policies. That year, the president announced that states could let insurers renew canceled plans and continue coverage for several years even if those policies did not meet the requirements of the federal health law.
Insurers were shocked by the sudden change. They had set 2014 premiums on the assumption that healthy people with old insurance policies would move into the new marketplace, but Mr. Obama allowed many of them to stay out. In a letter to state insurance commissioners in November 2013, the administration said “the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue.”
Five days later, Mr. Rubio introduced his bill to kill the risk corridor program.
Insurers now are lobbying to get more of the money they say they were promised, or to get relief in some other form.
Mr. Rubio has highlighted the role of Marilyn B. Tavenner, the former Obama administration official in charge of rolling out HealthCare.gov who is now president of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans.
“The former Obama administration official who led the rollout of Obamacare’s exchanges and now runs the health insurance lobby is working with her White House allies to secure a new bailout by providing more funding for the law’s risk corridor program,” Mr. Rubio said last week.
Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for the insurance group, said the federal payments were not a bailout for the industry, but a way of stabilizing the market and thus protecting consumers. “When health plans cannot rely on the government to meet its obligations,” she said, “individuals and families are harmed.”
A version of this article appears in print on December 10, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Rubio Measure Delivers a Blow to Health Law.
-
There has been much written on this, but there does appear to be an issue at this point from what I understand.
The provision works as long as a budget is in place. But the Continuing Resolution that was passed in place of this provision does not apply. So the argument is that the CR avoids the need to follow the provision.
If so, the provision means nothing until a new budget is actually passed. And we have seen the propensity of the Congress to pass budgets.
-
If I have this right, it sounds pretty shrewd of Rubio to me.
-
So you going to Rubio? What about his Muslim immigrants?
Of course, you have the ability to defend yourself unarmed against all the Muslim terrorists that will come in under Rubio. I don't have that benefit since in CA, I can't keep a weapon handy outside my home.
-
a) I simply said that particular move was pretty shrewd.
b) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/washington-post-fact-checker-examines-marco-rubios-sweeping-gun-control-claim-and-finds-out-hes-right/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%2012-10-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
c) Yes, I consider Rubio seriously, but there are serious reasons I hesitate as well.
-
FWIW
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/washington-post-fact-checker-examines-marco-rubios-sweeping-gun-control-claim-and-finds-out-hes-right/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%2012-10-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
-
A political point or two on Muslim immigrants. We've had a republic for something like 240 years. The shooting in San Bern was not something totally new, the Ft Hood guy was Muslim, the DC suburban shooters were Muslim. What is new is that Donald Trump, out of the blue one day, said no more Muslim immigrants. Pressed on it he doubled down, and the call went out to all others to disavow or join with this alleged policy proposal. Is that policy going to happen - even if Trump wins? No. We are arguing over blurry lines in the sand, not cleanly drawn ones as Trump pretends it to be.
Yes we need to tighten down admissions and security right now. We are under attack which makes it a good time to double check all our security procedures, and they are in shambles. It isn't something simple like saying no one comes from Syria, because plenty of people we would call Syrians have Norwegian and Swedish passports even though they don't look, speak or pray the least bit Scandinavian. This isn't a religious test; it's terror test and the answer doesn't come easily. We need new policies and we need enforcement of our existing ones.
If you are a candidate (Rubio) and your competitor (Trump) can say anything and demand your instant position on it at anytime, you have just conceded the terms of the race to your opponent Those who would fold to Trump would fold to Hillary, Barack, msm, Iran, ISIS, etc. (Did I just put all those in the same group?) Cruz has an immigration proposal. Rubio has one. The answer from Rubio, Cruz, Carson should be, I have a plan, you can ask me about mine and Trump about his.
Current laws aren't being enforced. There are a LOT of things we could do for security right now without putting a presumption of guilt on all Muslim people, even the good ones already here. If this is a good one, let Trump defend it. It's not Trump's competitor's job to cover him, and the rejection of his idea does not mean you favor letting all terrorists in. That is a straw Trump.
I favor a pause on legal immigration from everywhere until we get a handle on vetting - and I oppose all illegal immigration. We need to vet some people who are already here and then vet the people who wish to be here. The idea of treating Muslims differently than others is a delicate one, if not a flawed one. (Does Trump really not see that - as he reinforces his floor and his ceiling?) Better to accomplish the security objective with a hard set of criteria that apply to all, IMHO.
-
Rubio for certain benefits of Obamacare, especially the $10k subsidy paid to him. But this is not an issue to be concerned about.......yada yada yada.
http://www.newsweek.com/rubio-enrolled-obamacare-subsidy-cheap-shotgun-404156 (http://www.newsweek.com/rubio-enrolled-obamacare-subsidy-cheap-shotgun-404156)
-
Rubio for certain benefits of Obamacare, especially the $10k subsidy paid to him. But this is not an issue to be concerned about.......yada yada yada.
http://www.newsweek.com/rubio-enrolled-obamacare-subsidy-cheap-shotgun-404156 (http://www.newsweek.com/rubio-enrolled-obamacare-subsidy-cheap-shotgun-404156)
For myself, I take it as a badge of honor that I actively oppose government programs of which I receive an economic benefit.
-
Badge of Honor. Is that sarcasm?
-
Badge of Honor. Is that sarcasm?
The article is clear, the law gives Rubio's family an employer contribution toward healthcare. Rubio favors repeal of that law.
Should Bernie Sanders pay a 90% tax rate now if he opposes all tax cuts since Eisenhower? No. He should pay what is required under the law and then work to change the law.
How about that journalism at the link, Newsweek. They conclude based on the Rubio family experience that the law is working as intended - without a word about rates skyrocketing for all ("Affordable Care") with millions still uninsured. But happy to take a personal shot at someone who tried to follow the law.
Why the big effort to take down a 9%er? Is it because he leads the pack in general election polling?
-
The media is going to take down any non-Dem candidate when they can. It is just how they function. Just like Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. They will support their goals, no matter whether their goals are benefits anyone but themselves.
I see now that PAC reform is needed. The Citizen's United ruling though correct, left too many ways to exploit campaign laws.
-
Pat, I agree with you on the first part of that. That was a leftist claim against Rubio (he bought employer sponsored healthcare for his family) and we want all the leftist claims to be aired and answered now so we are not blindsided later.
-
The problem for this with Rubio is that most other Senators have refused the subsidy.
-
The problem for this with Rubio is that most other Senators have refused the subsidy.
Yes, like defeating inflation by wearing a Gerald Ford "Whip inflation Now" button, while Rubio was taking down Obamacare in law attacking its government bailout foundation.
-
Everyone believes that Rubio is such a staunch conservative..............wait until the RINO comes out if he is elected.........I will not be "let down" again.
-
Everyone believes that Rubio is such a staunch conservative..............wait until the RINO comes out if he is elected.........I will not be "let down" again.
As a math guy I know that risk includes UPSIDE risk and that is my bet with Rubio. The others already precluded themselves from winning, making positions and consistency irrelevant.
If we believe the polls posted, the alternatives to Rubio remaining are Hillary and someone who will lose to Hillary. No thank you.
Trump admits to not being a staunch conservative, supports private takings, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, single payer and amnesty (http://www.aei.org/publication/message-to-the-gop-trump-supports-amnesty/). No let down there, nor with Hillary.
Rubio worked as part of the gang of NINE, trying to pre-empt Obama's unilateral, far worse action. Rubio knew that the ninth member, the Republican House, was a check on what came out of the Dem controlled Senate, but a bill passed in both is necessary to go to conference. Now Rubio favors border security first, not comprehensive reform. Where else is he wishy washy?
If a candidate can't change his/her mind or position based on political realities, scratch the whole Trump candidacy, and Hillary.
-
:-D Rubio can't even get to 20%. How can he even win the nomination? Oh, I forgot............The GOPe will install him, and then he beats Hillary.
-
"Rubio can't even get to 20%"
True, but no one accuses him of peaking too early.
Trump clearly won warmup.
-
Try this on for size Pat.
Rubio consistently polls best against Hillary. Therefor RUBIO IS THE FRONT RUNNER, NOT TRUMP.
-
Try this on for size Pat.
Rubio consistently polls best against Hillary. Therefor RUBIO IS THE FRONT RUNNER, NOT TRUMP.
I wonder how Rubio is going to win with Trump supporters giving it to Hillary?
How many times have Republicans lambasted Independents and Libertarians? Too many. Let it rot. Start over.
It may be time for the people entrenched with "having it their way," to learn the meaning of compromise. Trump. :mrgreen:
-
CD,
Let's see about the numbers.
Trump is showing 41% versus with Rubio either a high of 17% or a low of 7% and every other poll in between. Clearly Trump is winning there.
Now to the Hillary match up.
Rubio is ahead and Trump behind. What this means is that there are a lot of people who are no opinion at this time on either against Hillary. And it suggests that the GOP regulars are not going to support Trump in the General Election. Same as Trump supporters with Rubio. But the Trump supporters are supposed to fall in line and support Rubio for the good of the Party, yet the same does not apply to the non Trump supporters.
Of course, for Rubio to be the nominee, he must win the primaries and based upon the numbers, he can't win at this time unless Trump got caught in bed with a man. Or the GOP and the Convention changes the rules to let Rubio in.
Can you show me a road map for Rubio to get the nomination with his numbers? I can't see one.................
And.......Screw the Party. They no longer speak for me. In fact, they haven't spoken for me in almost two decades.
-
pp, That wasn't to me but you are right. As the numbers sit now, Rubio cannot win the nomination and Trump is a 2 in 12 bet on the general election. Both have major work to do. The Rubio-Hillary general election numbers already take into account Trump's supporters, same polls. Neither side can point to their good part of the poll and ignore the other side of it. Neither becomes President as it sits now. This will shift in one direction or another. More likely in my estimation, momentum will shift 3 more times. Hold on...
-
DMG, you are correct that there will be more shake ups, primarily changing positions with Rubio and Cruz, unless Trump really screws up.
After the debate, I think that we shall see Cruz strengthen some. Rubio and Trump, not much movement until the next major event affecting the public like another attack. time for the others to go.....
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/limbaugh-rubio-part-of-the-anti-establishment-set/article/2578544
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/limbaugh-rubio-part-of-the-anti-establishment-set/article/2578544
Very interesting and he is right on this, but he spent today's show defending Cruz in the Cruz vs. Rubio debate, missing half the point of it from my point of view.
Rubio isn't claiming Cruz is more pro-legalization than him, he's saying (my words) they all have a history of trying to legalize some people in order to put this issue to bed. He also exposed Cruz' support for expansion of new, legal immigration, not the message any of them are sending now.
Rubio already had a problem with pure conservatives, pure immigration hawks. Same people know Cruz opposed the gang of 8 bill. The problem for Cruz is this: he had a reputation as being totally consistent on core principles and now he has been cornered into bouncing around on his position, in other words being a slight bit of a typical politician. Which is fine but it chips away at his purity and core principles only perception. He also cornered Cruz into doubling down on 100% deportation to win the Iowa caucuses and some other southern, conservative Republican primaries at the detriment of his general election numbers. That also moves Cruz even further into the compete with Trump lane.
-
at least for now:
Levin played Chuck Schumer on a TV interview giving Rubio much praise for being part of the gang of eight. And we read in a few places Dems are afraid of Cruz and Trump.
This is the biggest compliment to Cruz. Obviously he is the Democrats biggest worry. Who for one second thinks they are worried about Trump or Cruz.
Schumer is the ultimate manipulator. Gives Rubio credit? Come on. We see it is a ruse to get Rubio's base pissed at him and make it harder for him in the primary.
As Rush knows well, though I don't think Levin gets it, whenever a Democrat either gives credit to a Republican or gives a Republican advise it is for their benefit in some way.
-
Crafty_Dog from Presidential thread:
"Some thoughts I would contribute:
1) Rubio misses a big opportunity when he fails to call himself the front runner per my previous posts in this regard.
2) Rubio missed a big opportunity in the debate to paint/point out Trump as the ignoramus for not knowing what the Nnuclear Triad is. Is he afraid to go cage fight with Trump?
3) His food fight with Cruz on metadata and immigration serves neither of them and helps Trump.
4) ALL of the candidates should have jumped on the Ryan budget HARD as the betrayal that it is. ..."
I was also surprised he didn't pounce but his demeanor is not to toot his horn or put others down in the same way others do. The Cruz fight I believe Cruz pickedand so he returned with a carefully prepared counter. He draws distinctions his own way based on facts and persuasion. As we come close to the first votes being cast he shows a confidence greater than the 15% or so showing in Republican polls, without any arrogance. You have to pick you fights with DT wisely. Trump isn't going to implode just because of some putdown Rubio could have made. Instead Rubio came off gracious and knowledgeable on nuclear triad where his opponent was not. He has come out of this largely as the one being talked about, where before that has been the guy at the center. Trump people are all attacking Rubio and so are the Cruz people. Yet they preface it with the acknowledgement that he has enormous talent, a great story to tell and so on. It is not hurting him and apparently there is still plenty of time. There are PACs and surrogates who can do opponent attacks as well. If he really is the best candidate as I suspected a long time ago, this will eventually turn his way. His general election numbers are consistent, impressive and hard to ignore. It will come out that Trump is not a base conservative and Cruz isn't a pure principle candidate either. Once they are on an equal footing, the question becomes, who is the best communicator, will bring in the most new people and will handle everything that comes their way in a general election and win. Obviously Trump's core support is impressive so far but his style carries risk for a screw up or letdown in the last 6-7 months when it is too late to change horses. Also, as mentioned often, despite his crossover appeal, the front runner's general election numbers suck. The vetting has nearly ended and nothing much is going to happen over the holidays. In the new year this quickly becomes a contest of who can win.
-
Thoughtful analysis.
-
Bush PAC is attacking Rubio for missing a Senate committee vote. This sure looks like a head fake and thy know they will soon have to advertise on behalf of the attacked.
If I was attacking Rubio in Iowa in 20165/2016 it wouldn't be too say he doesn't spend enough time in Washington.
-
Cong. Trey Gowdy has endorsed Rubio.
-
Cong. Trey Gowdy has endorsed Rubio.
Other than Mia Love who also endorses Rubio, Trey Gowdy is perhaps Hillary's worst nightmare for opposing running mate.
-
Marco Rubio's Brother in Law is an ex-con who wanted a real estate license. State law handles that on a case by case basis and the application requires 3 references. Rubio no doubt was at least among the three most respectable, influential people the man knew and wrote a recommendation saying that he would make a good realtor and he wouldn't hesitate to use him himself in that role.
From there, by the coverage, you would think he turned into an ax murderer and Rubio sent him his victims. But all I can see in the story is that the recommendation was solid, Rubio did use him to by his house and no indication that the ex-con ever returned to crime.
What are we supposed to do with ex-cons? They need to work obviously, but people are slow to trust them. When you can't get hired you become an entrepreneur; that's what a realtor is. To work legally in real estate you need a license from the state. To get a license you need references. If one of your references is someone the people deciding on your application might know, all the better. It looks to me like the system worked perfectly in this particular case. Or as the msm describes that, its the end of the world as we know it...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-marco-rubio-helped-his-ex-con-relative-get-a-real-estate-license/2015/12/30/a1d96816-ae7f-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/12077899/Marco-Rubio-helped-cocaine-dealer-brother-in-law-get-an-estate-agents-licence.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/31/10695274/marco-rubio-orlando-cicilia-real-estate
http://nypost.com/2015/12/31/marco-rubio-pulled-strings-for-his-coke-dealing-brother-in-law-report/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/30/marco-rubio-helped-brother-in-law-get-real-estate-license-after-prison-release-report-says/?_r=0
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264469-report-rubio-used-whip-position-to-help-brother-in-law
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/31/washington-post-marco-rubio-recommended-his-brother-in-law-for-real-estate-license-after-cocaine-conviction/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3379762/How-young-Marco-Rubio-helped-drug-dealing-brother-law-real-estate-licence.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-help-ex-con-brother-in-law
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/30/marco_rubio_lobbied_for_drug_trafficking_brother_in_law_s_real_estate_license.html
What a nothing story and then look at the coverage. This happened more than a dozen years ago and all media outlets need to have it playing at the same moment on the same day. Talk about puppets! Any guess as to which candidate (out of Florida) 'leaked' this (already public, already vetted) story out?
To his opponents... Is that all ya got?
-
Marco Rubio's Brother in Law is an ex-con who wanted a real estate license. State law handles that on a case by case basis and the application requires 3 references. Rubio no doubt was at least among the three most respectable, influential people the man knew and wrote a recommendation saying that he would make a good realtor and he wouldn't hesitate to use him himself in that role.
From there, by the coverage, you would think he turned into an ax murderer and Rubio sent him his victims. But all I can see in the story is that the recommendation was solid, Rubio did use him to by his house and no indication that the ex-con ever returned to crime.
What are we supposed to do with ex-cons? They need to work obviously, but people are slow to trust them. When you can't get hired you become an entrepreneur; that's what a realtor is. To work legally in real estate you need a license from the state. To get a license you need references. If one of your references is someone the people deciding on your application might know, all the better. It looks to me like the system worked perfectly in this particular case. Or as the msm describes that, its the end of the world as we know it...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-marco-rubio-helped-his-ex-con-relative-get-a-real-estate-license/2015/12/30/a1d96816-ae7f-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/12077899/Marco-Rubio-helped-cocaine-dealer-brother-in-law-get-an-estate-agents-licence.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/31/10695274/marco-rubio-orlando-cicilia-real-estate
http://nypost.com/2015/12/31/marco-rubio-pulled-strings-for-his-coke-dealing-brother-in-law-report/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/30/marco-rubio-helped-brother-in-law-get-real-estate-license-after-prison-release-report-says/?_r=0
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264469-report-rubio-used-whip-position-to-help-brother-in-law
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/31/washington-post-marco-rubio-recommended-his-brother-in-law-for-real-estate-license-after-cocaine-conviction/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3379762/How-young-Marco-Rubio-helped-drug-dealing-brother-law-real-estate-licence.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-help-ex-con-brother-in-law
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/30/marco_rubio_lobbied_for_drug_trafficking_brother_in_law_s_real_estate_license.html
What a nothing story and then look at the coverage. This happened more than a dozen years ago and all media outlets need to have it playing at the same moment on the same day. Talk about puppets! Any guess as to which candidate (out of Florida) 'leaked' this (already public, already vetted) story out?
To his opponents... Is that all ya got?
Not everyone has the ethical purity of Hillary Clinton.
-
Another attempt at a hit piece on Rubio. A liberal columnist for the Pravda-Hudson doesn't get the rationale behind Rubio's candidacy. I suppose not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/sunday/marco-rubio-doesnt-add-up.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
One thing that would be nice in journalism is if people who don't understand something write about something else in which they do.
Maybe I can help him out here. Rubio is consistently polling well enough everywhere to be relevant all the way through the campaign pre-season. He has outlasted 5 two term governors in the race if you include Bush and Kasich.
He is widely considered to have the best grasp on foreign affairs. He is by far the best spokesman in the group for the free enterprise system, which is nothing to take for granted when a socialist on the other side is currently leading the Republican frontrunner.
He is young, charismatic, experienced, informed, persuasive, positive, inspiring and well prepared for the job of President. He speaks fluent Spanish and English! He is solidly conservative without the scary rough edges that lose general elections. He favors border enforcement, is a strong advocate for liberty, freedom and the private sector.
And he is electable. (Even though people here may call that a negative.) The contrast between Rubio and Hillary or even better yet Bernie, couldn't be greater.
He gets along with leaders of congress and there is a chance that if elected he actually could get things, done, turn the country around and be a great President.
NYT if you're reading, I hope you found this helpful.
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/07/glenn-on-marco-rubio-he-will-crush-hillary-clinton/
-
Further prognostication but I am imagining Rubio behind the scenes scrambling to NOT get the endorsements of John McCain and Lindsey Graham at this point in the contest. Same for the endorsement of Jeb when he finally leaves. People, just leave quietly and let the voters sort it out. Just what we need in the year of the outsider is for a bunch of Washington career insiders and perceived establishment types try to tell us how we need to vote. It can only backfire.
-
I'm thinkin' Jeb's endorsement of Rubio is not too likely , , ,b :lol:
-
I'm thinkin' Jeb's endorsement of Rubio is not too likely , , ,b :lol:
If he did, it would be out of spite.
-
Caught Rubio on one of the talk shows this morning. He was OK but I confess to not really caring for the way he lacks concern for Big Brother surveillance issues.
-
Caught Rubio on one of the talk shows this morning. He was OK but I confess to not really caring for the way he lacks concern for Big Brother surveillance issues.
Posting the transcript below of what I think Crafty refers to. This was Stephie Stephanopoulus grilling and interrupting Rubio. Every question was an attack question pretending to be relevant because it was a charge someone had made against Rubio, starting with: Chris Christie thinks you are a wimp and that Hillary Clinton will cut your heart out, how do you respond to that, are you really a wimp and how easily would she cut you up, you wimp, in a general election?
Rubio used strong language in an ad to distinguish his approach from Cruz. Context (IMO) is that Cruz attacked first and Rubio is drawing his distinctions back on Cruz. These are two nearly identical Senators who both have great intentions. Rubio is saying that IF ISIS had a lobbyist, they would have wanted the NSA metadata authorization to go away. That is kind of an obvious point, and the other side of it is valid too, the federal government has too much information already on all of us. Cruz argues they passed new tools that go further, classified issues prevent us from knowing all the details. Rubio argues we need the old tools and the new tools. [Doug argues that after just personally going through a MNsure (Obamacare) application, recently filing two years tax returns along with everything of mine the IRS will see if I am audited including every payment in and out from everyone, and also the recent extra-constitutional 21 page Census anal exam, that this ability of them to connect telephone numbers with telephone numbers and email addresses with email addresses, all without content, is of no use or significant further encroachment of our already non-existent privacy. I understand the other side of that argument is valid too and so did Rubio, see bold, that every encroachment is a fighting point for liberty.] The Cruz and Rand Paul side says while they had this capability they didn't catch Boston and San B bombers, but I say they had this capability and perhaps could have caught them and disrupted these attacks. Cruz and Steph. make a good point in rebuttal that plenty of Rubio supporters and other good people are on the Cruz side of this issue. That doesn't change the fact that this is a point of distinction between the two while everyone is asking how do you two differ. Plenty of national security types are strongly on Rubio's side of this as well saying this tool is essential to hunt down terror connections.
The rest is below but first this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: That language about lobbyists for ISIS is pretty tough, but the bill was also supported by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte and almost 2 dozen members of Congress who support you. Are they all in league with lobbyists for ISIS?
RUBIO: No, but they’re named for two things: the names you just mentioned supported it not because they thought it was a good idea but because if nothing passed, it would’ve expired.
And second, they’re not running for president. We’re running for commander in chief here.
And, no, we should not have a commander in chief that wants to weaken our intelligence programs.
But my quarrel with Ted on these issues of national security are not limited just to the intelligence bill. If it was just that, you can have an honest disagreement. We are already cutting military spending --
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that language? The lobbyists for ISIS?
RUBIO: Absolutely. There is no doubt that groups like ISIS will benefit from us having a diminished intelligence capacity.
We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
-----------------------
Great answer BTW on the comparison of Rubiowith Obama, being just a Senator. He has 7 years experience as President now and still is a failed leader. The problem wasn't his Senate experience, it is his failed ideology.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-sen-marco-rubio-sen-bernie-sanders/story?id=36187173
Let’s take this now to Senator Marco Rubio, who joins us from Miami this morning.
You saw those projections right there, Senator Rubio.
Thank you for joining us.
What do you make of them?
And what do you need to do to overtake Donald Trump and Ted Cruz?
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing now. Look, there’s a lot of voters in these early states, particularly in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, that are going to make their decisions very late. They’re still shopping. You can see it. You can sense it in your conversations.
We’ve gotten some people that are starting to make firm commitments, but there are others that are still looking.
Look, three weeks for an Iowa caucus-goer is a long time. And they’re going to be very careful about making their choice. They have only one vote. They know the important role they play. And we feel very, very confident about where we stand and where we’re going to be when this is over.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard those Iowa voters. Some concerns about your experience, one voter calling you Obama II. And that attack has been picked up by Chris Christie, Governor Christie, who’s also hitting on your experience.
He’s made a point about you in a pretty graphic way this week.
Let’s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This guy’s been spoon-fed every victory he’s ever had in his life.
Is that the kind of person that we want to put on the stage against Hillary Clinton?
I don’t think so. She'll pat him on the head and then cut his heart out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Cut your heart out.
What do you make of that?
RUBIO: Well, look, Chris doesn’t want to have a debate about his record. I -- you know, it’s not personal, but Chris’s record, for a Republican, is what we not need. He’s a supporter of common core. He’s personally given a donation to Planned Parenthood. He’s a supporter of gun rights. That’s why -- gun control. That’s why he got into office to begin with, was to run for gun control.
I mean, the last thing we need in our Republican nominee is someone who agrees with Obama and Hillary Clinton on many of the key issues before this country.
So he doesn’t want to have a debate on those issues, so he says these sorts of things...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you -- what do you make about that?
RUBIO: The bottom of line is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you make about that experience that you're coming...
RUBIO: Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- coming -- coming from the voters, worried that you don’t have the experience, or that you could be another Obama?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, Obama’s not a failure because he was a senator. Obama’s a failure but he’s had seven years of presidential experience and he’s still making enormous mistakes. So clearly it wasn’t experience. It was his ideas and his ideologies are flawed.
But the broader point is it is true there are people running for president that have lived longer than I have. But there is no one running as a Republican for president who has more experience, has shown better judgment or has better understanding of our national security issues than I do.
And that’s the number one job of a president, is to be the commander in chief. And none of these other people running have more experience on that issue or have shown better judgment, especially over the last five years, than I have.
And so I’m confident that, as we continue to make that argument, the people who are troubled by that will move on and come to support us.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re getting hit pretty hard by Ted Cruz on the issue of immigration, taking on your support of that bipartisan Gang of Eight compromise in the Senate.
And this week, a new issue cropped up, an article in "The Daily Beast." And here’s the headline.
It says "Marco Rubio in 2004: Cheap College for Undocumented Immigrants."
They’re talking about in the Florida statehouse, you co-sponsored legislation to provide in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.
What was your thinking then?
And do you -- do you stand behind that position now?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, a lot of these attacks are exaggerated. I don’t support amnesty. I think there has to be real consequences for violating our laws.
I continue to support and have supported and sponsored the largest border surge in American history, 20,000 new border agents, 700 miles of fencing and walls, a mandatory e-verify system, entry-exit tracking system to prevent visa overstays.
On the bill you talked about, it was a very narrowly drafted bill. You had to have a certain GPA, you had to live in the U.S. a long time, you had to graduate from a Florida high school.
It was very narrowly tailored to high-performing students who found themselves in a situation where they were brought here by their parents when they were 5, didn’t even speak another language except English and therefore couldn’t attend college because they were being charged like they were from out of state.
They still had to pay for college but they paid for what people paid when they lived in Florida.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that --
RUBIO: They had to be high school graduates of Florida.
Yes, of a narrowly tailored bill like that, absolutely. In fact, the Florida legislature came back years later, after I had left the legislature and passed it with a vast majorities of Republicans voting for it and a Republican governor signed it. That’s different -- we didn’t legalize anybody. That’s the issue here.
And the truth is, when it comes to Ted, he has changed his position on immigration all over the place. I mean, he used to be against birthright citizens -- or he used to be for birthright citizenship; now he says he’s against it.
He used to be for legalizing people that were here illegally. Now he says he’s against it.
He used to be for 200 percent increases in green cards, doubling them; now he says he wants none.
And he said he used to be for a 500 percent increase in guest workers. And now he says he wants zero.
So this is not consistency; this is calculation, as he’s changed this position on these issues as we get closer to Election Day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve also engaged in the national security debate with Mr. Cruz, saying the USA Freedom Act reforming America’s surveillance capabilities, that he supported, is going to make it harder to protect the homeland. Here’s what you said this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: If ISIS had lobbyists in Washington, they would’ve spent millions to support the anti-intelligence law that was just passed with the help of some Republicans now running for president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: That language about lobbyists for ISIS is pretty tough, but the bill was also supported by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte and almost 2 dozen members of Congress who support you.
Are they all in league with lobbyists for ISIS?
RUBIO: No, but they’re named for two things: the names you just mentioned supported it not because they thought it was a good idea but because if nothing passed, it would’ve expired.
And second, they’re not running for president. We’re running for commander in chief here.
And, no, we should not have a commander in chief that wants to weaken our intelligence programs.
But my quarrel with Ted on these issues of national security are not limited just to the intelligence bill. If it was just that, you can have an honest disagreement. We are already cutting military spending --
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that language?
The lobbyists for ISIS?
RUBIO: Absolutely. There is no doubt that groups like ISIS will benefit from us having a diminished intelligence capacity.
We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.
And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.
And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.
Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service.
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama made a brand new bid for background checks on gun sales this week. And one of your recent ads said that President Obama’s plan would take away our guns. The president took on this argument this week. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The conversation has to be based on facts and truth and what we’re actually proposing, not some, you know, imaginary fiction in which Obama’s trying to take away your guns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Fact checkers have called you out on that as well.
Where has the president called proposals for taking away guns?
He has not done that.
RUBIO: Well, his proposal for everything is to -- is to infringe on the Second Amendment. There’s a terrorist attack in San Bernardino; before even the facts are known, he immediately jumps and says, we need gun control.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But take away our guns?
RUBIO: This is what he always resorts to.
Well, if he could he would. Obviously he knows he’s constrained by the Second Amendment so what he tries to do is chip away at it every chance he gets.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you can see --
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: -- he wants this debate to be about -- George, if he could he would. And let me tell you what he’s trying to do. He is trying to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens by continuing to put new restrictions on our gun rights.
Let me give you an example. He says he wants -- Barack Obama says he wants this debate to be about fact and truth. Good. Let’s have it about fact and truth.
Here’s the fact and here’s the truth: none of the attacks that he is talking about, none of these horrible, horrifying tragedies that have occurred that he cites as the rationale for these measures that he’s taking, not a single one of them would have been prevented by anything he’s proposing.
And the reason why is because killers and criminals do not care what the gun laws are. They are not going to go to someone that conducts background checks. They will continue to get their guns the way they have always gotten their guns: from the black markets, stolen guns, et cetera.
So this is absurd. And the only people that are going to follow this law are law-abiding people. This is nothing but an effort from the Left to continue to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Senator, we heard this news overnight that Sean Penn, the actor, interviewed the Mexican drug leader, El Chapo, a few months back and had follow -- several follow-ups, interviews. The Mexican authorities are now investigating.
Do you have any problem with what he did?
RUBIO: Yes, I’m not -- look, I think Sean Penn is not someone I spend a lot of time thinking about. I didn’t even know he was still around. I think he made movies a long time ago or something.
I don’t -- he interviewed El Chapo, we, I’ll guess, use the interview that he had in order to find him. That’s -- the Mexicans did, that’s fantastic. I hope they extradite El Chapo to the United States.
And, you know, if one of these American actors, who have benefited from the greatness of this country, who have made money from our free enterprise system, want to go fawn all over a criminal and a drug trafficker in their interviews, they have a constitutional right to do it. I find it grotesque.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Rubio, thanks for joining us this morning.
RUBIO: Thank you.
-
Thank you Doug.
This is what caught my attention:
BEGIN
"We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.
And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.
And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.
Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
END
Zero expression of awareness about our 4th Amendment rights and our 9th Amendment right of privacy.
-
Thank you Doug.
This is what caught my attention:
BEGIN
"We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.
And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.
And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.
Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
END
Zero expression of awareness about our 4th Amendment rights and our 9th Amendment right of privacy.
I believe he is referring to the 'authority' granted in the patriot act and related legislations that followed it. I believe these laws have been upheld as constitutional meaning they fall within someone's definitions of the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9th (unenumerated rights). That said, I agree your concerns are valid.
I am a huge supporter of REAL privacy - the right to be left alone and for them to not know any more than they absolutely have to know about any of us. The government should not only not dictate my healthcare arrangements, it should not even have a right to know them. I have posted my concerns with Google as an Android user and same goes for Apple for i- users. They know virtually everything about us and their systems have breaches and potential for worse. As I have argued before (unsuccessfully), this 'metadata' showing just connection not content, used only (supposedly) when a terror connection is found and having no allegations (yet) of abuse is an emergency tool we are told by security experts is crucial. Ending it, from my point of view addresses none of the problems noted above - that almost everybody who wants to has almost everything they want on me and you. I mentioned trying to comply with O'care before a year end deadline. I can't believe how many people including receptionists at multiple offices of multiple agencies freely asked for (demanded) my full legal name and date of birth just to open a file to leave a message that no one will return. I didn't have to provide any of it unless I wanted the subsidy that I don't want but now need after THEY caused my healthcare cost to go up by 20-fold. So we on the libertarian side fight to weaken our security tools but if we succeed in that we still have absolutely no privacy. On the local side we can't so much as add a bathroom or move a wall without registering it with the city and county and inviting them in to our home or lose your occupancy permit and face condemnation. If there is someone running for President and mounting a serious challenge to fix all of this, I haven't heard it. Certainly not the takings guy. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are riddled with their own problems. Surrendering to our enemies doesn't bring my privacy back either.
If Cruz is so strong on the 4th, (5th) and 9th, where is his attack on Trump for his private takings? How is that for privacy in your own home and with phone records when they can take possession of your property and tear your home down with your phone and records in it? If Cruz's attack is coming, it is 7 months too late to be taken seriously. You can check the record. While I was attacking Trump on that, Trump and Cruz were talking about mutual admiration. Where's the outrage?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/19/ted-cruz-s-secret-trump-strategy.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/08/hot-air-exclusive-rubio-speaks-out-against-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
But if it involves weakening national security, libertarian leaders are ready to lead the charge. (Stepping down off my soapbox now.)
-
Cruz clearly is positioning himself to pick up the Trump vote should Trump falter. That said, he has been willing to vote against metadata and stand by it in the heat of Rubio's attacks for having done so.
-
Thank you Doug.
This is what caught my attention:
BEGIN
"We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.
And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.
And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.
Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
END
Zero expression of awareness about our 4th Amendment rights and our 9th Amendment right of privacy.
security
That's funny....as though it actually exists. The moment someone really wants any of us gone, and are committed to it, guess what...
Best laugh I have had all day. Let's be insecure and lacking freedom all at the same time.
-
Cruz clearly is positioning himself to pick up the Trump vote should Trump falter.
- Why would Trump falter when the second place challenger won't point out anything wrong with him?
[Cruz] has been willing to vote against metadata and stand by it in the heat of Rubio's attacks for having done so.
- We get no privacy back as any clerk at Sprint or Verizon can pull up the same information on us, and now the people paid to track down terror connections who weren't even looking for the needle in a haystack no longer have access to the haystack.
All you would need to show probable cause to get the data to prevent the towers from coming down is to show the judge the link you don't have along with evidence that the towers in fact did come down.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/rubio-proposes-constitutional-amendment-to-invalidate-obamacare-individual.html
-
IMHO THIS is a great political ad. THIS is the sort of thing that explains why Rubio is in first place , , , against the Empress Dowager.
https://marcorubio.com/help-fill-up-the-tip-jar-and-donate-today/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Video_Post&utm_term=Biography&utm_content=Help_Fill_Up_The_Tip_Jar&utm_campaign=FB_Donations_RubioDonors?sc=FB_Donations_RubioDonors
-
A trip down memory lane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoIcgNa3y4
-
Seems like Marco Rubio has collapsed in the polls. I am not clear why. I thought he did very well in the last debate.
I do notice Bush attacks adds making Rubio look like a flip flopper. Supposedly he thinks he can consolidate the establishment vote under his heading.
Perhaps that is working as his numbers have gone up a bit. Thanks to Hanky stanky Greeberg's ten million gift.
-
This could go under the Trump thread but it may be part of the answer for Cruz's collapse. He is still for for illegal immigration pardoning.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/reagan-biographer-praises-trump-we-are-witnessing-new-form-of-conservatism/
-
"Seems like Marco Rubio has collapsed in the polls. I am not clear why. I thought he did very well in the last debate.
I do notice Bush attacks adds making Rubio look like a flip flopper"
It's tough to win if you're not anyone's first choice. Also hard to win without a region of strength. Maybe people don't see in Rubio what I see. He has matched up best against both Hillary and Bernie for about as long as Trump has led in the GOP or longer. It will be interesting to see if that is still true, and if it matters. At the moment Hillary and Bernie look so bad that IMHO Trump and Cruz supporters are overconfident to think they can win with Trump's negatives or with Cruz's perceived conservative purity.
When was the last time conservative purity won? Never? Reagan didn't run with any conservative purity; he talked about finding someone you agree with 80% of the time. He picked moderate to liberal Republican for VP in 1976 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Schweiker)and moderate HW Bush in 1980, he compromised, made deals, etc. especially on domestic policy. W Bush didn't run or win with any conservative purity. Trump doesn't have any purity and is leading...
Rubio needs to stay relevant and he needs to score better than expected in the early contests, (as does whoever wants to win). Also, whoever is competing in his so-called lane and doing worse than him needs to get out. But instead of getting out, people like Bush Christie and Kasich sabotage one of their own. I say Rubio survives this and wins but my certainty level is zero.
Iowa is not a primary. This gets serious starting in NH and SC, one month out.
-
Very bad for Rubio that Trump is way ahead in Florida.
-
Very bad for Rubio that Trump is way ahead in Florida.
Rubio now has a state he leads in, Minnesota. He leads Trump Cruz et al. He also leads Hillary Clinton.
Republicans last won MN 44 years ago. http://www.startribune.com/rubio-clinton-take-early-lead-in-star-tribune-minnesota-poll/366314221/
I thought Rubio was done when he cut advertising $3 million in IA and NH. Turns out they switched from 60 second spots to 30 second ads. No ads were canceled. Cash conserved for other uses.
Rubio appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning. Answered all the hard questions - as he always does.
One analyst says Rubio's fate is like that of an NFL team that needs other teams to lose for him to advance.
-
I too saw him on FOX (it was recorded and waiting for me when I got home last night) and agree. He continues to hone his game. I continue to think he should be declaring himself to be the front runner, not Trump, because he does best against Hillary.
His best chance may come when some of the other candidates begin to drop out.
-
I too saw him on FOX (it was recorded and waiting for me when I got home last night) and agree. He continues to hone his game. I continue to think he should be declaring himself to be the front runner, not Trump, because he does best against Hillary.
His best chance may come when some of the other candidates begin to drop out.
Instead of declaring himself the frontrunner, vulnerable to losing that in the next poll, he seems to be playing a game of survival and managed expectations. With Trump and Cruz so strong, it is odd that the largest negative advertising in Iowa is aimed at Rubio, yet he seems to be surging in a third place sort of way. In NH, Christie is trashing Rubio ruthlessly; does he not know Trump is the frontrunner? Everyone is buying the pundit language of running lanes while the real score is measured in delegates won. If Kasich, Christie and Bush can't beat Rubio in NH, then he gains further strength going into SC and NV. It is hard to see Bush drop out ever if he can't reading the writing on the wall now and does Kasich hang in there to win Ohio or drop to make partnerships for the country and for the future. Rubio-Kasich would be an interesting Florida-Ohio combination, and also perhaps Kasich's best chance of ever becoming POTUS with gravitas but limited charisma.
Everyone who thinks a Trump or Cruz nominee will fail had better give serious thought SOON about uniting behind someone else. The logical choice if not the first or second place candidate doesn't go much below third place, the only other one in double digits and the one scoring best in general election matchups - did I mention that already?
Instead, nearly everything in this race so far has been about the ego of each candidate, not about the party, the country or winning.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marco-rubio-survival-strategy-218268
Behind Marco Rubio's survival strategy - Politico
The senator’s below-radar approach has been questioned for months. But it may be about to pay off.
By ELI STOKOLS and MARC CAPUTO 01/27/16
Marco Rubio has drawn the most negative fire from his fellow Republicans, especially the team backing his longtime friend and Miami-area neighbor, Jeb Bush.
DES MOINES-- Marco Rubio won’t finish first in Iowa's caucuses six days from now, but he and his allies have increasingly positioned him to make a third-place showing look like the victory they always wanted.
Like a contestant on a Republican version of “Survivor,” Rubio has long been content to hang with the pack and avoid elimination. For months he has been playing the expectations game—and hearing a chorus of conservatives carping about his campaign’s cool, confident approach. But now, with Donald Trump taking the lead back from Ted Cruz in Iowa, Rubio’s team says the caucuses are setting up to give their candidate the boost he needs to sideline rivals in New Hampshire.
“Marco’s goal all along has been to survive, wait for other people to get kicked off the island and pick his moment – and that’s what you’re seeing in Iowa,” said one Republican familiar with the campaign’s approach. “The only thing that has changed is the staying power of Donald Trump. And that might be a good thing for Marco.”
Indeed, Rubio’s campaign is now casting Trump as an enabler in Iowa. If the New York billionaire wins there, it means Rubio’s biggest rival, Ted Cruz, does not—and a second place finish, even though it puts Cruz ahead of Rubio, would be viewed as a disappointment for the candidate who held a double-digit lead in the state just weeks ago.
Cruz’s end-of-year Iowa surge came after Ben Carson flunked a foreign policy test and lost most of his support, largely from the state’s social conservatives. Winning the coveted endorsement of evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats in December cemented Cruz as the candidate to beat in Iowa. But the Texas senator, whose campaign is now relying on its superior organization and army of volunteers, may have done the one thing Rubio has sought to avoid: peak too early.
Now, under attack from a feisty Trump, who has won endorsements in the last week from important figures in conservative circles – Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Jerry Falwell Jr. and Sarah Palin – the Texas senator is desperately clinging to support from grassroots conservatives. He’s gone so far as to attack Iowa’s popular governor and rallied religious conservatives behind closed doors, warning that Trump might be unstoppable if he takes Iowa and New Hampshire.
By ELIZA COLLINS and MARC CAPUTO
As the top two candidates duke it out, Rubio appears increasingly confident as he closes out a week of campaigning across Iowa. With his establishment rivals seemingly ceding Iowa and campaigning in other states and the two candidates in front of him focused on one another, Rubio suddenly has more space to maneuver. He is amping up his Iowa schedule, holding three or four events a day. While he presses his case for generational change, Rubio is openly relishing the damage Trump is doing to Cruz, whose Iowa support has dipped five points since the start of the year, according to the Real Clear Politics average.
"I think Ted is under a lot of pressure over the last few days," Rubio told reporters after a Marshalltown rally. "People are learning more about his record and it’s hurting him and he’s dropping in the polls. He’s losing to Donald."
Rubio wouldn't comment about whether Trump besting Cruz in Iowa would help the Floridian.
"I feel very good about what the results are going to be [in Iowa] and we’re going to move onto New Hampshire and do well there as well. And we’ll be the nominee," Rubio said.
But make no mistake: Cruz and Rubio have long eyed one another as their most dangerous opponent, each being the likeliest second choice of most of their supporters. Following a contentious exchange over immigration in the December debate, their sparring dominated coverage of the race through the end of the year. Now, Trump and Cruz are going at it—and no one is happier about it than Rubio.
“Iowa’s going to play an important role in helping America begin to narrow its choices. And Iowa’s always done that,” Rubio said. “Then as we move on into other states, obviously, the election will take different twists and turns. It’s been an unusual year.”
Particularly so for Rubio. His strategy—straddling the primary’s conservative and establishment lanes, competing in all four early voting states and refusing to focus on one as a must-win—and his inability to fully consolidate establishment support despite his consistent prowess on the debate stage and Jeb Bush’s inability to enthuse voters, has long confounded many mainstream conservatives eager for a clear alternative to Trump and Cruz. In the last month, allies of Rubio’s three main establishment rivals—Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich—have successfully planted news stories aimed at questioning his campaign’s strategy, organization and Rubio’s individual work ethic and commitment to Iowa.
Rubio has drawn the most negative fire from his fellow Republicans, especially the team backing his longtime friend and Miami-area neighbor, Bush. The Right to Rise super PAC backing Bush has accounted for more than $20 million of the nearly $25 million in negative TV ads trained on Rubio. Just Tuesday, the group quietly went up with a new ad attacking Rubio for his use of a Republican Party of Florida credit card over a decade ago.
All of the negative ads and press helped keep expectations for Rubio low. While the onslaught of negative ads have likely kept him from expanding his support and consolidating the anti-Trump/Cruz vote, his very survival underscores the characteristic that matters most to pragmatic, establishment Republicans: electability.
"If he can withstand all of that and be the mainstream alternative, that's a pretty powerful position to be in," said Doug Gross, a Romney campaign co-chair in 2012 who remains undecided. “They always say, 'Get hot at the end,' and he is. I think he’s in a position potentially to finish a strong third in Iowa, and if he does, he becomes the mainstream Republicans' consensus alternative to Trump and Cruz going into New Hampshire, and that's a strong position to be in. If he's a strong third in Iowa, I really think he's likely going to be our nominee.”
160123-rubio-ap-1160.jpg
Rubio’s homestretch pitch: I’m more electable than Trump or Cruz
By SHANE GOLDMACHER
In Iowa, Rubio's super PAC and campaign are now bragging that Democrats and Republicans share the view that Rubio is the most formidable GOP contender as evidenced by the amount of money spent attacking him and statements from Democrats about the young, Florida senator being the nominee who scares them most.
And Iowa's Republican stalwarts are helping Rubio close the sale, directly and indirectly.
Gov. Terry Branstad has urged Iowans not to support Cruz; and Sen. Chuck Grassley provided Trump with an important stamp of approval by introducing him at a recent rally. Sen. Joni Ernst tacitly but unofficially backed Rubio by virtue of campaigning alongside him last weekend. “She’s such a normal person from here," said Shelly Whalen, of Cumming, Iowa, one of roughly 500 people who attended Rubio's event in West Des Moines Monday night. "It’s just nice to see him relate to someone like that, a real person.”
Rubio is speaking to growing, standing room only crowds this week, just days after he won the endorsement from the state's biggest and most influential newspaper, the Des Moines Register, which wrote that Rubio "has the potential to chart a new direction for the party, and perhaps the nation." Meanwhile, his establishment rivals have yet to show up. Christie and Kasich have remained in New Hampshire, while Bush, after fundraising events Monday and Tuesday and a rally in Elko, Nev., made his first caucus week appearance in Iowa just last night.
"We feel very good about how we are closing here in Iowa," Todd Harris, Rubio's senior strategist, told reporters Monday night. "There's real movement that we're experiencing on the ground here and that's why we feel confident that on caucus day we're going to do what we need to do here in Iowa, and I think we're going to surprise a lot of people."
A sense of momentum at the right time offers validation for Rubio's brain trust, which has long plotted for him to expand his support as the field shrinks and eventually become the GOP's alternative to Trump. But Trump's dominance remains the elephant in the room.
Unlike in past months, though, the Trump-bashing wing of the Republican Party now sees Trump as a likely nominee. If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire he’ll have not only a formidable number of delegates needed to secure the nomination, he’ll benefit from the growing aura of invincibility around his candidacy.
Rubio isn’t the first candidate to see Trump’s candidacy as an assist to his own, however. In August, one consultant who has worked for Bush summed up Bush World’s thinking this way: “It’s going to come down to Trump v. Somebody and Jeb is the somebody.”
But Bush only got weaker; Trump stronger.
Cruz, too, thought he could use Trump to his advantage – but by praising him for a time in the hopes that the frontrunner would implode and send his supporters to Cruz. Florida-based Republican consultant Rick Wilson said the tactic was akin to “feeding the alligator in hopes that it eats him last.”
160125_marco_rubio_1160_ap.jpg
Marco Rubio's Scandinavian blooper reel
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
In Team Rubio’s thinking, Trump’s elimination of Cruz in Iowa will send many of the Texas senator’s supporters to the Florida senator, who has a similar conservative voting record as Cruz – except for immigration. Under their theory, Cruz will be damaged goods heading into New Hampshire and that will help Rubio bounce into contention for second place with Kasich. Most consultants, including Rubio’s team, say they can’t see Kasich expanding his appeal beyond New Hampshire until March, when Ohio holds its primary. And, they say, Christie won’t survive past New Hampshire if he remains stalled in single digits despite spending more time there than in his home state of New Jersey.
So just as Rubio’s backers hope Iowa kills off also-rans like Mike Huckabee and weakens Cruz, they’re counting on New Hampshire to do the same to Christie and Kasich. Bush, Rubio’s team thinks, hangs on to compete in South Carolina, where he has the added benefit of the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham, whose home state infrastructure could give Bush a boost in a state his family has never lost.
“What will make post-New Hampshire different is that Bush will be out of money and he won’t have finished ahead of Marco or in the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire,” another Rubio backer familiar with the campaign’s thinking said. “So Marco sees this as a chance to make South Carolina a real two-man race, if not a three-man race with Trump and Cruz.”
Though Rubio, too, could be cash poor coming out of the Iowa. His team pulled back advertising and the Florida Republican has tried to keep up his fundraising even holding an event at a local country club Tuesday evening.
Rubio’s team has been adamant in pushing back at one storyline gaining traction among reporters: the “3-2-1” strategy, outlined by the National Review, in which Rubio would take third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire and first in South Carolina.
While Rubio’s campaign would love that, no one associated with it would venture to set expectations that high this far out. Many say Rubio has a far better shot of winning Nevada outright, but the team’s challenge is to make this smallest of the four early states appear as if it matters heading into the March contests.
-
Frank Luntz ✔ @FrankLuntz
23 of 27 #GOPDebate focus groupers tonight say @MarcoRubio won the debate.
I also noticed that John Hinderaker of Power line and Center for the American Experiment endorsed Rubio.
-
Hi Doug,
Rubio is the most likable , but I still cannot see him as leader of the country but then again may be best to beat the Democrats.
Cruz's positions are best for me but there is something about him that he is not warm and fuzzy. Not many think he would be great to beat Democrats.
Trump is really losing me. I am beginning not to like him much at all but he is best on some of the positions by far, but then again has very high negatives.
Kasich is likable, talented and probably could beat any Democrat but his policies are way to leftist.
In conclusion a Presidential race that should be a blowout for us is leading down to the wire.
BTW as for the debate I watched for about 10 to 15 minutes and got bored. Not because T wan't there but because it was a lot of the same old questions and answers. Just getting tiring and redundant to me
Did you hear anything new perhaps that I missed?
-
I thought Rubio did the best last night.
Ultimately I think his current position on border defense, immigration, and what to do about those here already (discuss it with the American people once we have shown them we have control of borders/immigration) positions him AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY well.
While I have great sympathy for Cruz's "just enforce the fg law" position, it will cost the Reps HEAVILY for decades to come with the Latino vote. Rubio is a great hope for the Reps to become competitive for the Latino vote.
Here in CA there probably is no greater single factor to explain the one party state we have become than the initiatives (Prop 187 was it?) that we the people passed but the Dems parlayed into universal and unconditional Latino support for the Dem party.
Rubio has far superior ability to Ted in calling to the middle, independents, Latinos, and women. Apparently not only young, single women are a MAJOR voting block this time around but the female demographic tends to respond not so well to Ted. For example, my wife can't stand him.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-battle-gop-soul-article-1.2512858
(Charles Kraiuthammer) ... My personal preference is for the third ideological alternative, the reform conservatism that locates the source of our problems not in heartless billionaires or crafty foreigners, but in our superannuated, increasingly sclerotic 20th-century welfare-state structures. Their desperate need for reform has been overshadowed by the new populism, but will make its appearance this year in Congress in Speaker Ryan’s promised agenda — boring stuff like welfare reform, health care reform, tax reform and institutional congressional reforms such as the return to “regular order.”
Paired with a President like Rubio (or Chris Christie or Carly Fiorina, to go long-shot), such an agenda would give conservatism its best opportunity since Reagan to become the country’s governing philosophy.
Unless the GOP takes the populist leap. In which case, a conservative restoration will be a long time coming.
-
Krauthammer uses the term conservative rather broadly here. For Example I think Cruz would describe himself more as a constitutional conservative like Mark Levin would.
Christie Fiorina and to a lesser extent Rubio are certainly not strict constitutional conservatives.
They are also more likely deal makers.
Kasich for example is one of those "fiscal conservative" "social liberal" guys. I don't understand people who use these terms together. You cannot be a social liberal while calling yourself conservative in my view. Oh yea one could say freedom for gays, equal rights for women but what about social liberal policies that include the welfare state? That alone precludes the concept of fiscal conservatism.
And Krauthammer confuses the concept of the Republican Party and conservatism. The two are not the same. If he wants to talk about the people he lists as saving the party I agree. If he wants to talk about conservatism he is mistaken. They are compromisers. Big time.
-
I thought Rubio did the best last night.
Ultimately I think his current position on border defense, immigration, and what to do about those here already (discuss it with the American people once we have shown them we have control of borders/immigration) positions him AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY well.
While I have great sympathy for Cruz's "just enforce the fg law" position, it will cost the Reps HEAVILY for decades to come with the Latino vote. Rubio is a great hope for the Reps to become competitive for the Latino vote.
Here in CA there probably is no greater single factor to explain the one party state we have become than the initiatives (Prop 187 was it?) that we the people passed but the Dems parlayed into universal and unconditional Latino support for the Dem party.
Rubio has far superior ability to Ted in calling to the middle, independents, Latinos, and women. Apparently not only young, single women are a MAJOR voting block this time around but the female demographic tends to respond not so well to Ted. For example, my wife can't stand him.
Great post, well expressed.
I would note as G M has, that in CA, the problem was the border opening that led to the demographic shift, not necessarily the response to it. Same for America and maybe it can't be walked back, but still, our response to it can't be to attack the people who who aren't going to be sent back, and we need to take our best shot at reaching all people and all groups with an inspiring, optimistic, positive, conservative message. Whoever can do that best.
Rubio right now has the softer image to represent conservatism, but if he is the nominee, he will suddenly (in the media) be the the most extreme far right guy to ever seek the office. His adeptness at surviving all the current attacks against him indicate he can conceivably overcome the future ones as well. In a different way than Cruz or Trump, he doesn't let the questioner control the premise of the question.
After all we've been through, this is a country where Obama has a near even approval, Bernie leads Trump, and Cruz is admittedly the furthest to the right in his own party, not reaching to the middle. This is no time to be over-confident and think whoever we choose will win. As Pat has pointed out, the term electable has been used wrongly with weak candidates that failed. That doesn't change the Wm F Buckley wisdom that we need to choose the most conservative candidate that can win. Whoever that is.
-
Krauthammer uses the term conservative rather broadly here. For Example I think Cruz would describe himself more as a constitutional conservative like Mark Levin would.
Christie Fiorina and to a lesser extent Rubio are certainly not strict constitutional conservatives.
They are also more likely deal makers.
Kasich for example is one of those "fiscal conservative" "social liberal" guys. I don't understand people who use these terms together. You cannot be a social liberal while calling yourself conservative in my view. Oh yea one could say freedom for gays, equal rights for women but what about social liberal policies that include the welfare state? That alone precludes the concept of fiscal conservatism.
And Krauthammer confuses the concept of the Republican Party and conservatism. The two are not the same. If he wants to talk about the people he lists as saving the party I agree. If he wants to talk about conservatism he is mistaken. They are compromisers. Big time.
Stipulating the big difference between Cruz and Rubio on the past immigration reform episode and stipulating that prior to and during that time you and many others have put that issue first and paramount... otherwise, Rubio and Cruz have nearly identical voting records. That will actually be used against Rubio in the general election.
I have other issues with Rubio, the sugar subsidy thing is stupid, but there is something to getting elected. Rubio got elected in a divided state, Cruz in one of the most conservative state.
Rubio can make one constitutional conservative promise that Cruz can't, he can appoint Cruz to the Supreme Court where he can do the most good. )
-
"Rubio got elected in a divided state"
The last poll I looked he is being trounced and pummeled into the pavement by Trump in Florida.
-
When is the FL primary?
-
Fla primary, Tues March 15.
"Rubio got elected in a divided state" [Cruz was elected in one of the most conservative states]
The last poll I looked he is being trounced and pummeled into the pavement by Trump in Florida.
True. Rubio led Bush, now Trump leads both - on the GOP side
Current delegate score among the top 3 is 0-0-0.
-
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/a-national-security-history-lesson-for-marco-rubio/#ixzz3ykOinytg
-
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/a-national-security-history-lesson-for-marco-rubio/#ixzz3ykOinytg
Michelle Malkin has been quite unforgiving Rubio's past immigration reform work even though now mirrors hers.
-
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/a-national-security-history-lesson-for-marco-rubio/#ixzz3ykOinytg
Michelle Malkin has been quite unforgiving Rubio's past immigration reform work even though now mirrors hers.
Somehow, I find Rubio very untrustworthy.
-
At this time with the understandings of candidates positions I would have to say is my biggest beef with Marco is his weak stance on immigration.
I am not sure if his tax policy is so great either.
The most attractive thing I like is he is likable and he may be best in the general election to beat an opponent who appears to be out on the lam and being hid, given provisions, cash, weapons, legal advice from 40% of the population and the corrupt DNC to avoid capture.
-
Great. :x I think I wind up paying more not less under Rubio's plan. How does this help families or individuals?
https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/rubio-tax-plan/
-
Great. :x I think I wind up paying more not less under Rubio's plan. How does this help families or individuals?
https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/rubio-tax-plan/
I don't like his tax plan either. I actually like Trump's the best, or Bush's, but I will settle for Paul Ryan's. The tax rate cuts in the campaign need to be understated to pass through the media and prevail in the election. Rubio I believe will be the most likely to hold the Republican House AND Senate making reform actually possible and then the new tax plan can originate (and be written) where it should be, by supply sider Paul Ryan in the Republican House.
My own take from the beginning of the modern tea party was that conservatives need to agree to cut spending first. The tax burden can't be corrected until the spending avalanche has subsided. Remember that a trillion a year in 'temporary, emergency' spending has been made 'permanent'. Deficit hawks including the pretend ones in msm journalism will eat alive any aggressive tax rate cuts, especially for the wealthy - like dr. ccp. ) Entitlement reform and spending cuts must accompany or precede any real breaks given especially at the high end except to repeal all the new damage imposed by Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
If Rubio does not start with drastically lowering the top marginal rate, he will have to generate economic growth in other ways first, such as through simplification and regulatory reform.
The political problem with tax rate cutting is that so few now pay the burden that every possible reform looks like a tax cut for the wealthy. If the candidate cannot refute that charge, he or she loses.
-
"Rubio I believe will be the most likely to hold the Republican House AND Senate making reform actually possible and then the new tax plan can originate (and be written) where it should be, by supply sider Paul Ryan in the Republican House."
Doug, besides intuition do you have any evidence this would happen?
I respectfully do not agree that a tax reform with lower rates on the middle class would not sell. Yes of course the 50% who now pay nothing could care less but the other 49% sure would appreciate some help.
Between his plan on immigration and this middle America continues to get screwed over as we always to.
-
"Rubio I believe will be the most likely to hold the Republican House AND Senate making reform actually possible and then the new tax plan can originate (and be written) where it should be, by supply sider Paul Ryan in the Republican House."
Doug, besides intuition do you have any evidence this would happen?
No, only intuition. The House is expected to stay Republican either way. The Senate starts with at least a 50-50 shot at switching the majority back to the Dems, making almost all the other issues in this race moot. (We aren't passing a 10% flat tax or repealing a dozen other taxes in a Chuck Schumer Senate.)
People seem to lean toward divided government in their voting patterns and Trump and Cruz are the most divisive candidates on the R side. It's easy to see why people might think Trump, with what Gallup calls the highest negatives in history, needs checks and balances and show it in their voting if people in the middle vote for him. In the case of Cruz, he is the one arguing that he is the the 100th most conservative member of the Senate, a great argument in an Iowa GOP caucus, but scary to the middle. Cruz, at this point, isn't even talking to the people in the middle. People in the middle, if they vote for him (which is not that likely) will tend to vote for balance, meaning split their ticket. Rubio is maybe the 5th or 10th most conservative Senator but he is being painted as a moderate, a centrist with a much softer image. (If he gets nominated, that will shift but that impression is already set. His campaign is aimed at bringing more people from the middle over to conservatism more so than fighting over those already here. If Rubio succeeds, he is most likely to swing a Senate race or two with him, which is absolutely necessary to get anything done. Supporting that idea is that he polls better in general election matchups, which means he is reaching those people best and they are finding him less threatening.
"I respectfully do not agree that a tax reform with lower rates on the middle class would not sell. Yes of course the 50% who now pay nothing could care less but the other 49% sure would appreciate some help."
We also have that $20 trillion debt problem. It will be hard to sell large rate cuts when we are totally addicted to the revenues. We have to right-size government. Rubio is out front on entitlement reform. Rand Paul is the only one who talked about real spending cuts, but instead of pushing that he emphasized his differences on foreign policy and defense cuts. Cutting government doesn't sell very well but needs to be done. Marginal rates have to go down, but we also have to fund government. I tried to write a tax plan and found out it's harder than it looks if you still have to raise $4 trillion a year. I like the flat tax but from where we are today, that is a tax increase on the middle class and will never pass. Anyway, this comes down to doing something bold and drastic that won't win or moving in a more incremental way. The House is coming out with its own agenda; it will be interesting to see what they propose. Maybe Rubio can endorse their plan.
-
Do you think Ryan would be the kind of Senator like Reid - somehow when he is in either the majority or minority seems to get his way?
Or is he going to play nice letting crats run circles around him?
"In the case of Cruz, he is the one arguing that he is the the 100th most conservative member of the Senate, a great argument in an Iowa GOP caucus, but scary to the middle."
Agreed. We will see if he is able to talk to anyone in the middle. Sometimes I listen to the radio heads and think if they are nuts if they think this could sell beyond their fan club.
Who would have ever thought many years ago we would have 2 Ricky Ricardos leading the way to the Rep nomination and the Presidency?
-
Something I forgot about in the Rubio tax plan. He eliminates all (federal) capital gains taxes (also all estate taxes).
The reason I forgot is because, like the 10% Cruz flat tax, I don't believe the repeal of capital gains taxes is politically possible. But if Rubio wins and is unable to eliminate the capital gains tax, that makes room for additional lowering of the other rates.
What I would do with capital gains taxes is simply discount the 'gains' to account for inflation using the government's already established and published 'colas', cost of living adjustments used on other programs.
Incidentally, if the Rubio plan were enacted, it would be a get out of jail free card for me; I would be able to sell everything and be set for life. Waaaay too good to be true.
Estate taxes are assessed on after tax income after death and that is morally wrong. (It reminds me of government lawyer Cheryl Mills pilfering Vince Foster's office before the family was even notified of his death.) Estate taxes will be hard to eliminate but should be made much lower with much higher exclusions. If you discourage people from creating an estate, you hold back the economy from creating wealth.
---------------------------------------------
Here are the liberal attacks on the Rubio proposal from The Week, NY Magazine and the Dishonest Citizens for Tax Justice:
http://theweek.com/articles/603052/marco-rubio-isnt-second-coming-george-w-bush-hes-much-worse
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/math-on-rubionomics-way-crazier-than-you-think.html
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/11/marco_rubios_tax_plan_gives_top_1_an_average_tax_cut_of_more_than_220000_a_year.php#.VrKkw7IrLIX
"[Rubio's] proposed tax cut amounts to more than three times the size of the Bush tax cuts, with nearly half of it going to the top 5 percent of income-earners. These cuts would produce a revenue shortfall of $6 trillion after 10 years."
("Trump's plan would 'cost' 11 trillion over 10 years.")
("Cruz plan would 'cost' 16 trillion over 10 years.")
Amazing how wrong you can be with static scoring. Why would you cut taxes on capital if it did not energize employment and economic growth!
---------------------------------
How the Rubio Plan Would Cut Personal Income Taxes:
Reduces the top personal income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and reduces the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3 (35, 25 and 15 percent).
Eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends, including the 3.8 percent high-income surtax on investment income that was enacted as part of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms.
Reduces the top tax rate on individual business income to 25 percent.
Replaces standard deduction with a $2,000 per taxpayer (i.e., $4,000 for married couples) refundable tax credit, which phase out between $150,000 and $200,000 for individuals and between $300,000 and $400,000 for couples.
Creates a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child on top of the existing $1,000 per-child credit. The new credit is refundable based on rules similar to the current child credit. It phase out at much higher income levels than the current child credit (starting at $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples)
Eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay at least a minimal amount of tax.
Eliminates the estate tax.
Cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Allows for full expensing on new investments, including buildings and land.
-
Rick Santorum out, endorses Rubio. (Among other things, Santorum is known for being strong on defense. He is not exactly establishment!)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html
Sen. Tim Scott, conservative black Republican from South Carolina (tea party) endorses Rubio.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/marco-rubio-snags-south-carolina-sen-tim-scott-s-endorsement-n509541
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/03/how-tim-scott-chose-to-endorse-marco-rubio-for-president/
Tim Scott: .“When I put together a strong position on national defense and foreign policy, coupled with a compassionate attachment for people to alleviate poverty using conservative principles exclusively, Marco Rubio became the only candidate that I honestly believe can do both,”
(Also Rep Trey Gowdy from South Carolina endorsed Rubio; SC is the primary that follows NH.)
Conservative blogger John Hinderaker at Powerline (whose opinion I highly respect) endorsed Rubio:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/for-president-marco-rubio.php
In my opinion (Hinderaker), Marco Rubio should be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. This is why:
1) Rubio is a solid conservative. If elected, Rubio would be the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. He is squarely in the tradition of Ronald Reagan’s three-legged stool: foreign policy, the economy and social issues. Of the other Republican contenders, only Ted Cruz might plausibly claim to be more conservative. But Cruz has not been a consistent conservative on foreign policy. On the contrary, early on, he supported Rand Paul’s positions on drones and the National Security Agency. Only when a series of terrorist attacks caused public opinion to shift decisively toward security did Cruz trim his sails.
The knock on Rubio, of course, is immigration. But he has recanted his early support for the Gang of Eight comprehensive reform bill, and his views on immigration are conservative enough to satisfy me. I have taken a hard line on the issue, as regular readers know, and I am comfortable with Rubio’s view of immigration as a national security issue and his determination to enforce the laws, rather than subverting them as Barack Obama has done.
2) Rubio is strongest where it counts. The president–Barack Obama and Donald Trump notwithstanding–does not have plenary authority to dictate policy by issuing executive orders. The one area where the president can wield significant power on the first day of his administration is foreign policy. Marco Rubio is, in my opinion, as knowledgeable about foreign policy as anyone in Washington. I have interviewed him on foreign policy topics numerous times, and the breadth and depth of his knowledge is impressive. He understands not just the obvious hot spots, like the Middle East and Russia; he also has encyclopedic command of issues relating to Asia, including but not limited to China, and Latin America.
Not only is Marco extraordinarily knowledgeable, he is an unabashed advocate for American power and influence. That doesn’t mean war, it means strength, consistency, and fidelity to principle. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. Marco Rubio is an heir to that tradition. If you want to restore American influence in the world, Rubio should be your candidate. I can’t think who would even be in second place.
3) Marco will win. I am on record as believing that Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate who will never be elected president, even if she escapes indictment. But many others disagree with that assessment and consider her a formidable opponent. Let’s not take any chances. Marco Rubio has, I think, the ability, unique in the current crop of Republican candidates, to reach out to the broader electorate and bring new voters into the Republican orbit.
When it comes to economic opportunity, perhaps the key issue in this years election, no one can equal Rubio’s inspiring approach. He makes the virtue of free enterprise real and tangible–something that, one might think, should be easy, but which few politicians achieve. I have seen nothing similar from Chris Christie (whom I also like a lot), Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
We can all try to guess which candidate will best appeal to unaffiliated young voters. It isn’t a matter of age; Ronald Reagan’s best demographic, after all, was young people. But that was because he refused to accept the conventional wisdom of the moment, silly in retrospect, that America was in decline, and young people should just get used to it. Marco is a lot younger than Reagan was in 1980, but he shares a similarly optimistic message. My experience with my own children and their friends suggests that of the current crop of candidates, Marco is by far the most effective at bringing the conservative message to young voters.
4) Rubio is a good guy. As noted above, I don’t pretend to be a personal friend, but I have spent enough time with Rubio to form a strong impression of his character. In politics, there is a continuum: on one end are those for whom it is all about them and their personal psychodramas. On the other end are those who are in politics because they genuinely want what is best for the country. I think Rubio is about as far on the correct end of that scale as a politician can be.
Beyond that, he is a stable, normal guy. Rubio is almost as knowledgeable about sports as about foreign policy. Fellow Senators tell me that he is well liked and respected in that body, something that can’t be said for all of the Republican contenders. He has a sense of humor and can be self-deprecating. In person, he is unfailingly gracious.
Do these things matter? I think they do. A number of strange, obsessive people have sought the presidency, sometimes successfully. Marco, like Ted Cruz, is very smart. But that is almost incidental. What we most need in a president are judgment and character. My own experience with Rubio, as well as his public record, tells me that he has those qualities.
A final observation: recent years have been very bad for America. It is easy to be pessimistic, even to adopt an apocalyptic view. But who follows a pessimistic leader? No one. Rubio’s vision of America’s future is always positive, always optimistic, always inclusive, never spiteful or divisive. In this, too, he stands in Ronald Reagan’s big shoes. I, for one, would rather cast my lot with Marco Rubio than with any of the other contenders for the presidency. He is our best choice for 2016.
-
Doug,
You bring up THE question for me when you state you don't think a capital gains tax elimination is politically possible. How far to push or not is the question in Shakespearean terms.
Levin thinks we push for it all and stand firm as though we just need the right message ignoring we may lose it all in so doing, and rhinos are the other extreme who push for nothing and fight a rear guard defensive fight while retreating.
Perhaps you and Rubio are right. Push for smaller incremental gains and dig in to fight for the long game - like the C(rats) do.
-
Quoting the 21st century version of Shakespeare, Joseph Biden, this IS a big "f" deal:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/la-opinion-marco-rubio-republican-obama/
if it leads to a big shift in Hispanic voters to Republican.
I wonder how Cruz would do ? Obviously he won't be approved by the militant La Raza but who cares.
Whoever can garner the Hispanic vote will certainly schlong Hillary.
-
Quoting the 21st century version of Shakespeare, Joseph Biden, this IS a big "f" deal:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/la-opinion-marco-rubio-republican-obama/
if it leads to a big shift in Hispanic voters to Republican.
I wonder how Cruz would do ? Obviously he won't be approved by the militant La Raza but who cares.
Whoever can garner the Hispanic vote will certainly schlong Hillary.
My friend of Mexican descent says Rubio is a fake Hispanic. Couldn't get him to elaborate but it means something like he looks and acts like a white guy, he is a white guy. (Same for Cruz.) He won't suddenly win votes of Mexican and Central American Hispanics just for showing up. However, he speaks fluent Spanish (Cruz doesn't, neither does Hillary's alleged runningmate Julian Castro) and I believe Rubio has a softer edge than other conservatives (like Levin, or Trump or Cruz) and can start from scratch to give them a message of conservative inspiration they aren't hearing anywhere else. At best, that will effective at the margin, but if you convert 1 out of 20 people, even 1 in 50, that is a huge electoral shift and at some point, like reaching blacks, people in a community realize they have a choice, rather than feel that if you are a group member, young, female, gay, black, urban, Jewish or Hispanic you are expected to vote a certain way.
Cruz did well with Hispanics in Texas. It is a more conservative place. Rubio will do well in Texas too in a general election.
Why isn't Christie's putdown, calling Rubio a boy, racist?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/03/chris_christie_slams_marco_rubio_the_boy_needs_to_come_out_of_his_bubble.html
Bush and Christie need to go away, with nothing but negatives to offer, and Kasich needs to stay fresh for his VP assignment. Cruz accusing Carson of getting out makes it harder for Carson to get out.
Want to defeat Trump? Stop splitting the anti-Trump vote 17 ways. Cruz and Rubio are viable alternatives. Rubio possibly passes up Cruz in NH and SC. We will see.
-
"a fake Hispanic"
What a bit of horse dung!
I suppose if I said he does not salsa around eat rice and beans, have an accent, wear brightly colored outfits I would be a called a bigoted racist pig.
So what does he have to do to prove himself Latino. What does this guy think? His name is Italian? Bottom line your friend is a Dem and if Rubio is not a Dem he is a fake or a traitor.
Tells me it is not about being an American it is about HIS interest group getting more concessions.
-
"a fake Hispanic"
What a bit of horse dung! ...
Bottom line your friend is a Dem and if Rubio is not...
Correct. (And he is gay, a stronger identifier than being Hispanic. Still it is good to know that no automatic votes will come from Mexican American Hispanics to a conservative Republican for being Cuban American. All the votes have to be earned.
He is probably a 6 digit earner. I told him R's will give him more liberties than Dems.
-
"a fake Hispanic"
What a bit of horse dung! ...
Bottom line your friend is a Dem and if Rubio is not...
Correct. (And he is gay, a stronger identifier than being Hispanic. Still it is good to know that no automatic votes will come from Mexican American Hispanics to a conservative Republican for being Cuban American. All the votes have to be earned.
He is probably a digit earner. I told him R's will give him more liberties than Dems.
Only leftists are seen as "authentic".
-
(from Cruz thread)
"I agree with you.
You tell the 49% you won't get anything if the payers cannot keep and invest most of their money. Somebody HAS to pay for them. Also don't you want for yourself or your children to have the opportunity to get wealthy? Or to be doomed to a life of working for the State?
So how is Marco going to do this?
He seems to understand that you can't lead from the Senate or accomplish anything by winning the GOP but not the general election. He is the messenger, not the message. We happen to believe we have facts and reason on our side and I have been saying he is the best at introducing and arguing those ideas with the persuadable.
Look at it this way. Bernie is the sensation of college kids who have never had the other side of it introduced to them. Out of those young voters, let's say that half of them are little marching Marxists who aren't going to listen to anything else and half of them are young skulls of mush who went through public and private schools and colleges without hearing anything but leftism. Over a 4-6 month general election campaign, if Rubio can persuade one in five of just those who really are open minded and mean well, that is a 20 point swing in that group. If we believe Quinipiac currently at 43-43, he doesn't need quite that many more to win.
Also keep in mind that with Rubio's anti-Castro passion, arguing against statism and socialism is something he has long contemplated and excelled at.
On the other side of it, Bernie has no chance at moving Rubio voters over to socialism. Our side has already examined that alternative and passed on it.
If Hillary is the nominee, the campaign gets convoluted with all their personal failings as well as with their skill at distraction and changing the subject. In that case, Rubio has been the most disciplined at staying on message.
The next question is how do you get real change through the Senate which mostly requires 60 votes? First is to not fire up a backlash against Republicans in the election and second is to start winning the hearts and minds of the people toward the cause and agenda and go past the officeholders to the constituents to bear pressure like Reagan did. A landslide would be helpful and so are these reports of 0.7% growth with college grads living in parents basements past the age of 30.
This won't be easy.
-
Thanks for the great and rational answer. No it won't be easy when thes kids keep hearing Bernie promise them free college etc.
Some one has to wake them up and college free or not is not worth a damn if in the end you wind up working for the government controlled state that takes it all anyway.
-
Thanks for the great and rational answer. No it won't be easy when thes kids keep hearing Bernie promise them free college etc.
Some one has to wake them up and college free or not is not worth a damn if in the end you wind up working for the government controlled state that takes it all anyway.
Socialism! It will finally work this time!
-
Bobby Jindal, that establishment juggernaut, has endorsed Marco Rubio.
Jindal would make an obvious choice for Secretary of Energy. He might be fishing for being VP choice. He would be on my short list for Sec of State, considered the top of the cabinet from the order of succession chart.
Since we don't have the perfect tax plan yet, this in my mind gives Rubio access to the Jindal tax plan. I say help pull the wagon. Jindal says keep your oar in the water pulling with everyone else.
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/policy/tax-reform/
[Jindal] tax plan lowers the tax bracket for every American, and it dramatically simplifies the tax code for every American. To grow the American economy we must reduce our tax burden and make taxes simpler. The plan has only three rates – 2 percent, 10 percent, and 25 percent. Most Americans will be in the 10 percent bracket.
Most Republican plans brag about the idea that they will allow about half of all Americans to pay zero federal taxes... aterrible mistake. Again, most Republican plans do not require the lowest wage earners to pay anything, and some basically require half of Americans to pay zero federal taxes. We have come to the point in this country where far too many Americans believe that money grows on trees in Washington. They do not seem to get the fact that our government has no money other than what it takes from our citizens. President Obama has nearly doubled our national debt. We simply must require that every American has some skin in this game. If we have generations of Americans who never pay any taxes, it will be very easy for them to turn a blind eye to absurd government spending and to continue to allow our government to bankrupt our nation.
There is great strength in shared sacrifice. My plan only asks 2 percent from the bottom bracket but that may be the most important 2 percent in the whole plan. It reestablishes the idea that in America everyone is expected to help row the boat. Now some people may have a bigger oar and some smaller but you keep your oar in the water along with everyone else.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361394.php
Malfunction.
-
Of course I get the point about the modules, but OTOH on a human level I can understand that somewhere around your one thousandth coffee clatch, speech, interview, etc. there come's a point where you have worked out how you want to say what you have to say.
Certainly I do this in my teaching. I too have lines and "modules" that I use again and again.
-
Of course I get the point about the modules, but OTOH on a human level I can understand that somewhere around your one thousandth coffee clatch, speech, interview, etc. there come's a point where you have worked out how you want to say what you have to say.
Certainly I do this in my teaching. I too have lines and "modules" that I use again and again.
That is a bit different than the debate, where Rubio couldn't help himself.
-
Fair enough.
Also fair is to note that later in the debate Rubio spoke well and responsively on foreign affairs (and pro-life) a number of times, but probably this will get a lot less attention.
-
Fair enough.
Also fair is to note that later in the debate Rubio spoke well and responsively on foreign affairs (and pro-life) a number of times, but probably this will get a lot less attention.
Definitely a lousy couple of moments for him, a little bit short of a gaffe. Interesting response from him this morning on ABC Stephie, he says he is glad they are replaying his message that he wanted repeated, 'Let's dispel with the notion that Pres Obama doesn't know what he's doing...'
BTW, taking down the popularity is a key part of winning this election.
The news reports of it are far worse than the moment and more people see those.
Trump repeats himself all the time and he leads. Christie's has said he was a federal prosecutor for seven years in the debates at least 19 times.
Like Crafty is saying, we are looking for effective ways to word and express these things to get the message to people. When we find them, do we want them said once or as often as possible?
Kevin Drum from The Nation says this is the end of a political career, probably a contrary indicator.
In contrast, Trump had 5 or 6 bad moments and 'won' the debate.
This incident draws attention to Rubio though it seems negative, made Christie look like a jerk, leaves an opening for Jeb that likely won't materialize. Kasich moves up a little, and for Rubio it depends on what happens next.
Saying it so precisely makes it sound important. Rubio has a delivery that makes what he is saying sound important.
-
A more clear point about Obama and inexperience is that he is now a seven-year President, as much experience as is possible, and he is governing the same as day one. Badly.
Is this a snowplowing competence election or is this a vision, change direction, inspire election?
-
I thought Rubio's comment about his disappointing showing was perfect. He took full responsibility admitted he believes it was due to the poor debate showing with regards to Christie (ironically who did not benefit from his torpedo of Rubio) and that "it will NOT happen again".
FWIW I loved that answer and feel it is a very good one and he sounded convincing in that he will not make the same mistake twice.
This is exactly one of the traits I am looking for from a President. Not someone who will blame others, never admit a mistake and make every excuse that could be dreamed of like Clinton.
I think he will come back strong. :-)
-
Thank You CCP, I had not heard that yet, only the results. He's right. Had he won in New Hampshire, or this, his strategy would be the same. He needs to raise his game and sharpen his message from now until the last day of his second term. )
If he is so good at memorizing, he should have 10 or 12 ways ready of saying that the left is doing this to us intentionally. Stop them.
-
is at high risk. My nephew who is no longer with Bobby Jindal is I think working with
Carlos Lopez-Cantera for the time being. I have to check. There are two Carlos's who are running. One is labeled a Charlie Crist candidate (we certainly don't need another one of that turncoat). But the other one is behind the Democrat in the polls:
http://shark-tank.com/2016/02/09/another-charlie-crist-republican-to-run-for-u-s-senate-in-florida/
-
Let's take this over to the Congress thread.
BTW I'm hearing the Reps hold on the Senate is not a sure thing? Let's discuss in the Congress thread.
-
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/02/10/my-private-marco/
-
REENVILLE, S.C.—Sen. Marco Rubio is scrambling here in South Carolina to recover the momentum his once-highflying campaign lost in New Hampshire last weekend, changing his style and message in the run-up to a critical Republican presidential debate Saturday night.
Mr. Rubio, who fell to a disappointing fifth-place finish in the Granite State, is trying to erase an unflattering narrative that he is canned and inaccessible. He schmoozed with reporters during breakfast at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Okatie, S.C., on Thursday, and shared a story about how he had recently cracked a tooth by biting into a frozen Twix candy bar between campaign events.
The Florida senator also is trying to draw sharper contrasts with his rivals for the nomination, after suggesting that he pulled his punches last week. He criticized Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for backing a budget blueprint that sought to slash military spending and businessman Donald Trump for recently employing a lewd slur.
But for a campaign buffeted by deep doubts for the first time, another high-stakes stumble could doom the prospects of his presidential bid.
“We’re past the point of meeting expectations, and at the point where campaigns need to start embracing and beating expectations,” said Kevin Madden, a senior strategist for Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential bids in 2008 and 2012 who isn’t backing anyone this year.
Mr. Trump, the New Hampshire winner, and Mr. Cruz, the Iowa victor, are certain to move on to primaries in a string of Southern states on March 1, even if poor showings here were to hobble them.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who finished second in New Hampshire, hasn’t made a serious effort to win here. Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who will also participate in the debate, has vowed to stay in the race, though his campaign has been fading for weeks.
Those dynamics have largely turned the primary here into a fight for survival between Mr. Rubio and his onetime mentor, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has drawn on his family’s deep ties to the state’s Republican establishment and popularity with the rank-and-file to begin drawing crowds at his events. The last poll in the state was taken in January, well before the recent turn of events.
Just a week ago, Mr. Rubio seemed to be the one rising. He came in a surprising third in Iowa and was running second in public polls in New Hampshire before the final debate in Manchester, N.H.
After Mr. Rubio offered a critique of President Barack Obama’s leadership, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie interrupted and accused the senator of being too reliant on lines from his stump speech. Mr. Rubio inadvertently added resonance to the attack by repeating, word-for-word, the same Obama attack line that had prompted the confrontation with Mr. Christie.
On primary night, Mr. Rubio came in fifth behind Mr. Bush, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Kasich and Mr. Trump. Mr. Christie came in sixth and dropped out of the presidential campaign the next day.
In a phone call with donors the next day, Mr. Rubio’s campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, tried to reassure them by noting that South Carolina offered friendly terrain for a recovery.
Two of the most prominent members of the state’s congressional delegation have backed Mr. Rubio—Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is leading the probe into the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Mr. Sullivan also has deep ties in the state, as do the top advisers to outside groups backing Mr. Rubio, and they have spent months building a voter turnout operation.
Mr. Rubio is also trying to sharpen his message. “I am not here to attack another Republican,” he said at a Myrtle Beach rally Thursday, “but you deserve to know that there’s another candidate for president, Ted Cruz, who, the only budget he ever voted for was a budget by Rand Paul that cut defense spending even more than we’re reducing it now.”
Much of Mr. Rubio’s critical rhetoric also was trained on Mr. Trump. “There are certain words you don’t say,” the senator said in Okatie, referring to an incident in which Mr. Trump repeated an audience member’s shout-out that Mr. Cruz was “a pussy.”
“You turn on the TV,“ Mr. Rubio said, ”and you’ve got a leading presidential candidate saying profanity from a stage."
South Carolina party officials say that perspective is likely to resonate in the state.
“Trump has a populism kind of appeal,” said Dan Hamilton, a second-generation state representative from Greenville. “I understand the mentality. But I’m still of the opinion that you want your children to respect their president. That is not a possibility with Trump.”
But it is unclear how far that could carry Mr. Rubio, who has to push past the rest of the field before he can tackle Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the criticism for using a vulgar term on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, telling NBC: “It’s one of the reasons I won.” Mr. Cruz has pointed out that he also backed a measure offered by Mr. Rubio to significantly increase military spending.
In addition, Rubio supporters said they had been optimistic that Gov. Nikki Haley would endorse him the day before the New Hampshire primary and in time to hit the stump on his behalf in South Carolina.
Ms. Haley, in a Wall Street Journal interview, had said she was looking for someone with a positive message who could widen the GOP tent, and Mr. Rubio’s allies were certain she would side with him. But that was before the New Hampshire debate.
Even if Mr. Rubio does well in the Palmetto State, he would likely need a drawn-out nominating contest to have a chance of collecting more delegates than Messrs. Cruz and Trump.
On Wednesday, Mr. Sullivan told the campaign’s top donors to brace themselves for a long slog to the nomination that puts a premium on the arcane process of collecting delegates, according to people on the call.
In order to remain viable, Mr. Rubio will need money and an early accumulation of delegates. A strong South Carolina finish would provide a much-needed boost on both fronts.
When the candidates take the stage in Greenville on Saturday night, Mr. Rubio will meet attacks head on and seek to turn them against any candidates who go after him, something he did against Mr. Bush during a debate last year in Colorado, according to an adviser.
“I think you can point to differences in a respectful way, and that’s what we intend to do,” Mr. Rubio said while dining with reporters.
—Valerie Bauerlein contributed to this article.
-
My guess from the debate is that Rubio is back to where he was. Not to where he needs to be, but back to where he was. Needs to beat expectations in SC, whatever that means. Needs to at least beat Bush, Kasich, Carson, all but Trump and Cruz to make the argument that he is the one of the rest that needs to go forward.
Bush needs to drop out before Florida and Kasich before Ohio, to clarify the choices, or else the news of this race is just a Trump 30%, Cruz 25% and others 45% affair. If one of the others earns the right to be the alternative to plurality candidates Trump and Cruz, fine, but I don't see it.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-won-the-cbs-news-republican-debate-2016/
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, said Rubio had the debate of his life, won the debate.
For anybody who thought that Marco Rubio is incapable of answering questions extemporaneously, that is blown away tonight. And the other side of that, I thought that Donald Trump had a terrible night.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/14/stephen_f_hayes_rubio_clearly_had_the_best_debate_trump_had_a_terrible_night.html
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-dWADdA7WA
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/18/rmarco-rubio-says-cops-racist-against-blacks-he-too-has-felt-sting-of-racism/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361642.php
Amenstio.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361642.php
Amenstio.
Ace says his Spanish translation of Rubio, word for word, is perfect but it looks to me like his English is less so.
I believe amnesty means to pardon the offense with no penalty or consequence; all the proposals attached to Rubio had some penalty.
If we define Amnesty as any legalization of anyone under any terms, then they all have favored it in one situation or another, at one time or another.
If the question is, who is and has been the purest conservative and hardliner on the illegal immigration issue, the answer is Cruz, not Rubio or Trump. Also, Cruz has the number one most conservative record in the Senate these past 3 years that he has served, http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com//state/state/tx just maybe not quite as consistent and pure as he says he is.
On the question of DACA, the question of re-illegalizing people who were already legalized by Obama and maybe not as simple as it sounds.. if Rubio was wrong on that previously and is right now, and the reason for changing his position was that conservative pressure worked, maybe conservatives should celebrate that rather than rip it.
On the underlying question of whether Rubio is really a closet RINO, establishment or a liberal pretending to be a conservative, look at his record before 'gang of 8'. In the 112th congress, Heritage rated him the 3rd most conservative Senator behind Jim Demint and Mike Lee. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/02/13/marco-rubio-is-more-conservative-than-you-think/ http://heritageactionscorecard.com/scorecard/ 100% from theAmericanConservativ e Union http://conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/2011/senate.html and A+ from Americans or Prosperity http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f4951a9d-7143-4d24-a963-bb0278af674a
If the question is who will get the most done stopping future illegal immigration and securing our border, the right answer is the one who can get elected. My two cents.
-
For me, the bottom line is I find him untrustworthy
-
For me, the bottom line is I find him untrustworthy
Understood. I just want to make sure you rank him above Hillary. )
-
Dntn Mpls waiting for Rubio to speak now...
-
For me, the bottom line is I find him untrustworthy
Understood. I just want to make sure you rank him above Hillary. )
Hell, I rank Vladimir Sanders above the dowager empress Klinton.
-
Dntn Mpls waiting for Rubio to speak now...
As I suspected, he is the best public speaker and most inspirational national leader since the gipper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWYbvw5cS3A
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431804/marco-rubio-republican-rainbow-coalition
-
https://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10154503616361509/
-
Too little too late. Now some establishment types are talking 3rd party. :cry:; I wonder if the orthodox constitutional conservatives such as Levin would want Cruz to go 3rd party?
Trump has definitely changed politics forever. With regards to the *Political Correctness* issue I think it is great. With regards to vulgarity, etc I don't see how this can be good. Like Clinton dumbed down the integrity of the Office of the President this aspect of Trump just furthers that.
If we think Obama acts like king could anyone imagine that Trump would not be the same or worse?
-
Too little too late. Now some establishment types are talking 3rd party. :cry:; I wonder if the orthodox constitutional conservatives such as Levin would want Cruz to go 3rd party?
Trump has definitely changed politics forever. With regards to the *Political Correctness* issue I think it is great. With regards to vulgarity, etc I don't see how this can be good. Like Clinton dumbed down the integrity of the Office of the President this aspect of Trump just furthers that.
If we think Obama acts like king could anyone imagine that Trump would not be the same or worse?
We are fcuked.
-
On this day (roughly), 7 years ago, tea party candidate Marco Rubio had 3% support challenging a popular sitting governor in his own party as an underdog. He exposed that emperor as having no clothes and now he tries to expose a different emperor for having his clothes made in China.
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/shaped-by-immigrant-experience-rubio-has-been-unde/nqc5n/
-----------------------------------
Conventional wisdom today: Cruz is now firmly in 2nd place in the GOP nomination but his original area of geographic strength is mostly done. Trump wins the nomination and Hillary wins the Presidency if the dynamic of this race doesn't change. (Conventional wisdom has been wrong so far.) Trump has a big lead in Florida and Rubio is presumed out of the race if and when he loses there. (Simultaneously, Kasich faces the same challenge in Ohio.)
Florida is a winner take all contest, 99 delegates. What most don't tell you is that Florida is at least two states (covering two time zones). North Florida including the panhandle is Trump country similar to where he swept Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and southern Georgia. Trump has been getting about 41% in those states. Florida is a closed primary; maybe that knocks Trump down a couple of points and Cruz is coming in to fight. Cruz competing is presumed to help Trump but who knows, it could be a head fake. Cruz needs Trump to lose Florida in terms of delegates, but if Rubio wins, he stays in and is re-energized. A no-win for Cruz(?).
South Florida is diverse and not as Republican as the north. Only a small part is Cuban-American. Rubio's strengths in this race have tended to be the suburban areas, college educated Republican voters (is that an oxymoron?) He needs to win his strong areas by large margins and keep down his losses in the in his weaker areas.
Floridians have been hearing plenty about Rubio "not showing up for work" and also about allegedly breaking his no blanket amnesty pledge. Now they getting an earful of anti-Trump messages to go with that.
Results yesterday (Kansas, etc.) say that Rubio's attacks did some damage to Trump, and also to himself.
If Trump loses Florida after leading by 20, it's a sign of weakness (understatement) and he probably loses Ohio as well. Then the 4-way race goes the distance.
Long shot: If Florida believes Rubio is already done and a majority think Trump is a mistake, maybe Cruz can win a big upset in Florida and be the new frontrunner. It might be his only path to the nomination too!
------------------------------------------------
Update: Rubio swept all 23 delegates in Puerto Rico with the first over 50% win of any of them. I was going to say jokingly, this changes everything. But there are a million Puerto Ricans in Florida, this changes everything. Like Bush-Gore-2000, we will soon be tired of hearing about how the course of US history changed in the 2016 primary in Florida. A week before it (now), people though Donald Trump was going to be President!
-
Last chance, Rubio must win his home state to stay in the race. I sent him money today. If he loses, Rubio is out, Trump starts taking big winner take all states, likely wins thenomination and loses the election.
If Rubio wins, which is possible, it means a number of things:
1. It could mean nothing; it was Rubio's home state.
2. It could mean Trump has lost Ohio to Kasich as well.
3. Trump can't reach 1200 delegates prior to the election if he loses these two.
4. It means Trump shows weakness in crucial states.
5. The frontrunner is no longer inevitable. The magic and momentum is gone.
6. Rubio gets a big momentum bump, a much better story to tell, overcame 20 point deficit with EVERYONE writing him off...
7. The primary map moves to different areas of relative strength and weakness for the candidates.
8. We are left with a very messy, divided, 4 way race. Questions remain:
9. Will the convention change the rules in the week prior?
10. Will the convention feel it has to endorse the candidate who is leading even if they are well short of the threshold required?
-
Seems the political damage he did to himself with participation in the gang of 8 was just too great to overcome.
Rush was questioning whether his purpose (and Kasich's) in staying in is to foil Cruz.
-
Seems the political damage he did to himself with participation in the gang of 8 was just too great to overcome.
Rush was questioning whether his purpose (and Kasich's) in staying in is to foil Cruz.
Torpedoing Cruz will serve to end his future aspirations for higher office.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/magazine/the-end-of-marco-mentum.html?emc=edit_th_20160315&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
-
It may be his political end.
He appears not even popular in his home state! :cry:
-
It may be his political end.
He appears not even popular in his home state! :cry:
Right. I don't see how he even runs for Governor if today goes the way of the polls. And who would want to lead a state while the nation is headed in the wrong direction?
Is this collective political wisdom or just a tragic mistake? Rubio IMO had a chance to lead us out of this. But only if he connected with people. Apparently he didn't.
One thing we should be able to say is that Florida voters (mostly) know what is at stake. They prefer a suicide mission to electing a young, dynamic leader who performed near perfectly on the top stage except for repeating himself on a key point.
All of Trump's political issue faults aside, he loses to Hillary in the general election (according to polls) and both are fully known entities with no chance to make a second first impression. Posting from a coffee shop at the top of the Rockies, I hear the young girl at the counter say she knows 12 year olds more mature than Trump. No doubt true. This is our America. Just like Obama 2008, people want change without thinking through what kind of change they want.
Prediction update: Democrats take the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court while Doug is last seen shopping for property in Revelstoke (British Columbia) after settling his election gambling losses on the board.
---------------------------------
An aside, would you trust the electorate of today to have a 'constitutional convention' (convention of the states) and 'improve' on what our Founders try to leave for us?
-
Doug,
No chance for Cruz at this point in your opinion?
( no thanks to Rubio and Kasich staying in to be spoilers)
"Prediction update: Democrats take the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court while Doug is last seen shopping for property in Revelstoke (British Columbia) after settling his election gambling losses on the board."
sounds like good idea but I don't like baby Trudeau either.
I am thinking Panama.
Yes, I have come to agree with you and GM (and my sister) that Trump is a disaster. I would only vote for him over Hillary. He has demonstrated over and over he does not have the disposition or emotional stability or matureness to be President. He cannot change rather than will not.
-
"[Canada] sounds like good idea but I don't like baby Trudeau either."
If I moved to the moon, my income would still be taxable in MN. My only personal strategy has to be to start caring less about the future of the country if I want the downward spiraling political and economic developments to not bother me as much in my twilight years.
--------------------------
Where did candidate Rubio go wrong? A few thoughts.
As Crafty said early on, he looks too young, and with that he hasn't had big accomplishments he could point to. He isn't General Eisenhower or Gov. Reagan. There is nothing in that weakness he could have overcome. He should have answered the charge head-on and then run on his strengths. As I said from the beginning, this contest needed to be about who can best articulate the value of freedom and free enterprise in persuasive words. This is a change of direction election from our point of view, not a resume election. From a resume point of view, we had [lenty of two term GOvernors and strong personalities to choose from.
His tax plan increased one credit (Dem-lite) and eliminated all capital gains taxes which is not politically possible nor necessary. As I have said about Cruz' plan, not fully ready for prime time and general election scrutiny. That isn't what lost it but took away from his ability to say he is fully ready
His abortion view is out of the mainstream. He could have expressed those thoughts differently. That isn't what lost it for him.
His Gang of 8 thing is something he never recovered from. Conservatives absolutely hate him for that. His support for that compromise and failed deal making needed to be handled better then and explained better later. He left a mile wide opening for Trump and Cruz with that.
I never liked the "New American Century" theme. For one thing, we are 17 years into it and for another he got labeled a marketing job, not a leader. Trump's theme is best, make America great again, I just disagree with him on how to do it. Jeb's motto was second best, right to rise. That captures what we want to offer people though he never successfully articulated how to do it.
He also never pushed his lead in general election polling, seeing that as a negative to pure conservatives and vulnerable to the whim of the next poll coming out. Still he led in that important measure for as long as Trump led in GOP polling. He never used my logic to answer his gang of 8 charge, his fence or wall will be bigger and better if he wins than Trump's will be if he loses - and that is what the all important polling was telling us.
And then there was the establishment thing. It stuck and hurt him largely as it tied to the gang of 8 experience. Other than that experience, he was certainly and consistently anti-establishment, whatever that means. Even then, he needed to answer the establishment charge directly. As he said in the concession speech, the question has to be, what is the new establishment? He needed to embrace wide endorsement from within the party (where was Jeb's endorsement?) and uniting of different factions without being establishment. A feat he never accomplished.
"The defeat (of Rubio in Florida yesterday) was extraordinary and will complicate Rubio's political future."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/donald-trump-cruises-to-florida-primary-victory-marco-rubio-trails-behind/2269478
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/rubio-makes-announcement-about-republican-convention-trump/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=THENewVoiceEmail&utm_campaign=DailyBest&utm_content=2016-05-27
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/rubio-makes-announcement-about-republican-convention-trump/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=THENewVoiceEmail&utm_campaign=DailyBest&utm_content=2016-05-27
I wonder if Rubio's speech at the convention will lead a few to think they nominated the wrong one.
-
Reagan's speech supporting Ford in '76 had that effect.
-
https://www.facebook.com/notes/marco-rubio/im-seeking-reelection-to-the-us-senate/10153942018887851
-
For me this is great news.
We need him! :-D
Doug,
you in? 8-)
-
[quote sauthor=ccp link=topic=2390.msg96903#msg96903 date=1466624703]
For me this is great news.
We need him! :-D
Doug,
you in? 8-)
[/quote]
It's good news for America, and yes, I could change my legal residence to Florida by November.
This is not a sure win for Rubio, but if he is going to lose another statewide race in Florida it might as well be now.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-leads-in-new-florida-senate-poll_us_576a9297e4b065534f484bcb?section=
-
This is VERY good news!
This man is a good American with tremendous political skills-- eloquent, good looking, young, a serious student of things international-- we need more like him.
-
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article95324947.html
-
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498529403/marco-rubio-warns-gop-on-wikileaks-tomorrow-it-could-be-us?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2045
-
I disagree with Senator Rubio here.
# 1) Most of the media is no longer a watchdog of government. As we all know the vast majority of the media is a shill for the LEFT. The only way we have to ensure some integrity is to know what is going on behind the scenes.
#2) Wiki leaks is good hard evidence that what we conservatives have long suspected the Dems are doing , illegally , behind the scenes is actually happening. We finally have evidence that supports our suspicions and rebuts their endless denials and outright lies.
# 3) To ignore this information is the same mistake Republicans make ad nauseam ; that is try to take a high road only to get buried by the liberals and lose the war.
# 4) Does Marco think that the LEFT would not use such information against the Repubs if the situation was reversed? Of course they would . It would be on the front pages of every liberal media outlet all day and every day.
#5) could the next time be "us". Absolutely. Will it happen" absolutely. So now is the time to set guidelines on how to avoid problems later. Don't say anything incriminating on emails. Assume it is potential public information.
-
Not noble (or "nobel" sic :lol: ) but naive.
"To ignore this information is the same mistake Republicans make ad nauseam ; that is try to take a high road only to get buried by the liberals and lose the war."
Yes.
-
Rubio makes a good point IMHO to note the danger of accepting leaks, breaches and ill-gotten material. That said, as others pointed out, we play on their playing field and cannot accept two sets of rules. When the leaks expose Republicans, the adversaries aren't going to look the other way. Good grief.
Trump should have turned this into example and proof that HER choice of unsecured communications was reckless and dangerous. Emails of valuable targets get hacked.
It is also an interesting to the deletion of 33,000 wedding planning emails. We will eventually know.
-
If Trump fails?
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/16/rubio-trump-should-have-responded-differently-given-what-john-lewis-means-to-our-country/
-
If Trump fails?
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/16/rubio-trump-should-have-responded-differently-given-what-john-lewis-means-to-our-country/
Stop sucking up Marco.
-
40 minutes with Marco Rubio on the whole realm of today's issues:
https://www.politico.com/video/2017/11/29/full-video-of-playbook-interview-sen-marco-rubio-064454
I don't agree 100% with him on everything but he probably makes more sense than anyone else in elected position that you're hearing right now.
Cuba, North Korea, taxes, blue collar workers, families, the wall, working with Trump, running for higher office, etc.
-
Rubio’s Tax Lament
The Florida Senator shows he doesn’t know how economies grow.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 2, 2018 7:34 p.m. ET
123 COMMENTS
Republicans have had a tough time selling tax reform to the public, and no wonder: Some GOP Members appear not to understand the economics behind it. Meet Senator Marco Rubio, who voted for the bill but now says it helped businesses too much.
“If I were king for a day, this tax bill would have looked different,” he told Florida’s News-Press, adding the bill “probably went too far” in helping corporations. “By and large, you’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price. Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders. That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.” He then noted his support for the doubled child tax credit.
Cable news picked up these comments as proof that the left was right all along that the bill is for the wealthy. This is politically regrettable and will make it harder for Republicans to persuade Americans that the law is good policy. Does Mr. Rubio want his party to lose the House and Senate?
But the more important point is what the comments betray about Mr. Rubio’s lack of economic understanding. Corporations don’t ultimately pay income taxes. They collect them, and their incidence is imposed on workers, shareholders and customers. A tax-rate cut on corporations means a wage increase for workers.
Mr. Rubio also whiffs with his zero-sum implication that any benefit to shareholders comes at the expense of growth. Economist John Cochrane in a blog post last month knocked down the “buyback fallacy.” Even if companies send money back to shareholders, investors will find other uses for it.
“In the end, investment in the whole economy has nothing to do with the financial decisions of individual companies,” Mr. Cochrane writes. “Investment will increase if the marginal, after-tax, return to investment increases.” This is the point of lowering the corporate rate—to change incentives.
The irony is that Mr. Rubio criticizes the corporate cut on grounds that it won’t produce much economic growth. Yet he takes a victory lap on the expanded child credit he demanded as the price of his vote. This special break for some families has no discernible growth effect. That’s because the child credit does not—say it again—change the incentive to work or invest.
Mr. Rubio also misjudges the economic moment. With the expansion already into its eighth year, and labor markets tight, the economy needs a boost in capital investment to sustain its momentum. This would help workers in particular as businesses scramble to find skilled, reliable employees when the jobless rate is low. Mr. Rubio apparently thinks that workers are better off if politicians hand out checks, whether workers owe income taxes or not, as opposed to having faster growth and business investment bid up wages.
Perhaps Mr. Rubio thinks his refundable tax credits will appeal to President Trump’s working-class voters, and this political opportunism is disappointing. But his failure to grasp basic market economics suggests that GOP primary voters were right to reject him in 2016.
Appeared in the January 3, 2018, print edition.
-
http://dailysignal.com/2018/03/01/rubio-backs-gun-violence-restraining-orders-measures-boost-school-safety/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRVM01UazNOMkV6TkRZNSIsInQiOiJxYVArSlYyWWdzR0dEUnNOelZrd2FwQStMVFo5am01NDR2TFBpY292QTZ6MXBBbGRreUtKbSthN09OSG10VU1vajV0NkUzXC9LVko2bWt3YTJUQVl1bTE4MjQ0MXhNbE9JMnU2bDU2blYycGtONitKY1B4dVFYQjdnSGpXQ0NLSlAifQ%3D%3D
-
Back in the primary days when I was hating Trump and supporting Rubio, I admitted on these pages that Trump had the best tax plan. Rubio was beat up for being soft (wrong) on illegal immigration, now it turns out Rubio is wrong on taxes, and spending. Please take me off his list.
Here is a Rubio quote from The Economist that liberals have jumped on to as a kind of (fake) evidence against the tax cuts:
"There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers. . . . In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker."
For one thing, the tax cuts have been in place for about a minute and the growth rate has already started to increase. We didn't support corporate tax reform to make corporations "happy" or to hope they would, out of the goodness of their heart, give tax savings directly back to workers. That isn't how it works.
We supported corporate tax reform because the old rates were 50-100% higher than our OECD competitors and companies were leaving, moving businesses, operations, investments, and money out of our country at an economically destructive rate.
After reform, corporations aren't expected to shift from a profit model to a worker benevolence model. Supply side policies work within the profit seeking model. No one cares whether they invest the savings in their business or re-invest in other businesses in a free economy and a free society. We simply want aggregate of investments in businesses to grow and increase the growth rate. Capital employs labor, and businesses, even robotic ones, require workers.
Your wages go up when more employers compete for your services. It has nothing to do with the generosity of your employer. Successful companies pay what they need to pay to attract and retain valuable workers.
------------------------------------
Here is Veronique de Rugy at National Review making this point.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/marco-rubio-comments-the-economist-tax-cuts-fiscal-policy/
Marco’s Makeover Shows The Senator Doesn’t Understand Tax Policy
By VERONIQUE DE RUGY
April 30, 2018 10:33 PM
In a recent interview with The Economist, entitled “Marco’s makeover” in the U.S. print edition, senator Marco Rubio demonstrated that he doesn’t understand how tax cuts work. Here is one example from the interview:
"There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers. . . . In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker."
Sorry, what? You expect this type of comment from a Democrat, but not from a senator who used to be the darling of the Tea Party moment. And in fact, as an article in Business Insider notes:
Rubio’s argument is nearly identical to that of Democrats: Instead of giving the savings to workers, they say, corporations will reward shareholders through share buybacks and increased dividends.
That’s exactly the wrong way to think about the benefits of the tax cut. Indeed, economists usually agree that lowering marginal tax rates on investment (or any other taxes) gives companies incentives to earn more taxable income, thus leading them to invest in other businesses and the expansion of their factories. This additional investment, in turn, raises workers’ productivity, and ultimately leads to higher wages. This process takes time.
In other words, the benefit of the tax cut will manifest itself by incentivizing companies to invest more. On the other hand, the case for the rate cut has little to do with what these companies do with the extra cash in the short term, as Rubio argues. Whether they buy back stocks with their cash or they distribute bonuses to their employees tells you nothing about whether the tax cuts will or will not benefit workers.
I could tell the senator that he needs to get better informed and that he needs to read the work put out by the Tax Foundation or the current CEA chairman Kevin Hassett. But he may see them as having been too influenced by Reaganomics, which he decries in the Economist interview as a dead end.
So here is a suggestion. How about reading a column by University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfer about how to assess the impact of the rate cut that just passed? No one can accuse him of being a raging follower of supply-side economics! And yet he writes:
The economic case for corporate tax cuts has almost nothing to do with what corporations do with the extra cash.
He also quotes AEI’s Alan Viard:
As Alan Viard, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, has written: “The economic case for corporate tax rate reduction is not based on how companies ‘use’ their tax savings. It is based on how companies change their behavior in order to obtain larger tax savings.”
Finally, I can’t help but point out this passage from the Economist article about Rubio’s plan:
The details of Mr Rubio’s new programme are unclear, but he suggests they will involve more interventions such as the increased child tax credit he inserted into the tax reform passed last year, and a provision for paid family leave he is working on now. He mulls the need for more public spending on technological research and for education reform, to prioritise vocational skills. . . .
“Government has an essential role to play in buffering this transition,” he says. “If we basically say everyone is on their own and the market’s going to take care of it, we will rip the country apart, because millions of good hardworking people lack the means to adapt.” Economic liberty, in this retelling, becomes something the government is required to guarantee. It is the freedom to enjoy “the dignity of work”, says Mr Rubio. “There needs to be a conservative movement that addresses these realities.”
The Economist adds:
Most Republican congressmen meanwhile remain entranced by the limited-government shibboleths he has shaken off, as his fight over the tax bill revealed.
Come again? Are we really supposed to believe that Rubio’s vision stands in contrast with those of his colleagues who are advocating for plans to shrink the size of government? Alternatively, are we to believe that Rubio’s vision is to expand the size of a government that does too little for too many? Neither is true. The government spends a massive amount of money and its budget is exploding. We have large entitlement programs and a large array of welfare programs on our books already. The biggest programs are insolvent and many others are duplicative. And sadly, contrary to what The Economist claims, Republicans being in power doesn’t threaten that growth. It actually feeds it.
A generous interpretation is that the senator would like first to make room for the kind of spending he suggests by cutting and reforming existing programs. But I don’t get a sense that this is the case. Adding new government programs on top of the old ones, many of which are responsible for the disincentives to work that hinder the labor market, won’t prepare the U.S. for the future that the Senator describes.
Meanwhile, The Economist seems to think Rubio is a visionary in his own party. But the truth is that if this is truly the future of the party, the GOP will have to compete with the Democrats — who have been in favor of expanding the government long before Rubio was even in politics.
-
FWIW
Most of the time I like Rubio but he does, now and then, say or do things that put a huge damper on my enthusiasm.
Like Levin said few years ago, Marco did great damage to his own cause amongst Conservative with the "gang of 8 fiasco".
He likewise was a large fan of him till then.
-
I ask my sister what my nephew and Jindal thought of Rubio a few times .
Her response was both times they just don't think he is that smart.
Most of the time I like Rubio but he does, now and then, say or do things that put a huge damper on my enthusiasm.
Like Levin said few years ago, Marco did great damage to his own cause amongst Conservative with the "gang of 8 fiasco".
He likewise was a large fan of him till then.
From my point of view, this makes him part of the 99+% who don't get it, how economic freedom works. Just a few do, Adam Smith is dead. Jude Wanniski, dead. Robert Bartley, dead. Jack Kemp, dead. Ronald Reagan, dead. I had high hope for Rubio for taking what we all sort of know intuitively and putting it into the words that connect and persuade others. Instead he is reaching backwards to other people who don't get it.
George (W) Bush couldn't explain the benefits of his own tax cuts. He lost power in his second term and they were eventually repealed.
Reagan understood and he won 44 states in 1980, 49 states in reelection and 40 states for his successor, who didn't get it, reversed course, and then lost.
Bill Clinton doesn't acknowledge the role his capital gains tax rate cuts and welfare reform played in his economic success.
And Barack Obama has no idea what he did wrong. Clueless.
Marco Rubio has great communication skills and conservative instincts, is often brilliant, but one too many times has left people like me saying, What?!
-----------------
Pres. G.W. Bush: "Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64714
That is a valid, STATIC economics point, arguing like liberals - how to split up a fixed size pie.
In that speech and to the credit of his speechwriters he goes on to mention the importance of growth 22 times. But in his communications with the American people, that was most often missing. He never made the connection.
Supply side economics is NOT about finding better ways to split up a fixed size pie. That is what socialism purports to do. Veronique de Rugy has it right; economics is all about the incentives (and disincentives) to invest and produce.
If we all just pay in less in a stagnant economy, we will go broke. I thought Rubio was someone who understood that.
Rubio, 2013:
"we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/13/marco-rubio-response-state-union
-
Well said.
-
Rubio only really knows that he really wants to be president.
-
Totally lacks life experience outside of politics and within politics IIRC he has only legislative experience, no executive experience.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/build-national-american-conservatism-to-counter-existential-threats/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-04-23&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/build-national-american-conservatism-to-counter-existential-threats/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-04-23&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
He is carving out some kind of a middle path and calling it new conservatism? He is doing the opposite of what I saw in him when I picked him out as my favorite. Yes, a politician needs to go into these living rooms and hear the stories of these people, the unemployed New Hampshire factory worker, the Iowa truck driver and so on. But I wanted him to go into those places, meet those people, hear those stories, and then lead, not follow. We need someone on the conservative side with logic, wisdom, skills and charisma who can connect with them and let them know a better way (than Leftism) for our country and the answer is not Leftism-lite.
He sounds like a Bill Clinton like to me, triangulation and say what they want to hear, not like a Ronald Reagan inspiring us to greatness.
Government doesn't owe the NH guy a job and NAFTA didn't take his job, or whatever this new "nationalism" implies. People since the landing of the Mayflower had to endure hardship, and move or learn a new skill to support their family. The squeeze on these families is the cost of government, not the shortage of redistribution. And the cost of government is not fully measured in dollars taken from a paycheck; that is so 1950s or some other time. They took over our mortgage industry, they took over healthcare, they took over the transportation sector, they took over housing, and energy, and food, and they declared your pond a protected wetland and what plants breathe a pollutant. To follow all this we should give them more power to do more "smart planning" in and out of the tax code to alleviate the burden of our struggles. What BS.
Rubio: "What happens to a nation when the only economic-policy options offered are narrow economic growth without redistribution, or narrow economic growth with redistribution?"
The first is a straw argument against conservatives. There is no one of national political prominence advocating "("narrow"?) economic growth with no redistribution. (He is the one who switched to the side of narrowing the growth.) Republicans allegedly lead all chambers and branches of government in Washington and more than 60% of the states and redistribution spending just keeps going up and up and up. Who is he arguing against? A straw man?
-
Chinese police watch as Muslims exit a mosque in Kashgar, China, June 26, 2017. Photo: johannes eisele/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
32 Comments
By Marco Rubio
Aug. 9, 2018 6:51 p.m. ET
The phrase “re-education camp” invokes Mao’s Cultural Revolution or Vietnam after the communist takeover. But this form of repression is alive and well in Xi Jinping’s China. His government is imposing a “political re-education” campaign in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, targeting the Uyghur Muslim population, Kazakhs and other ethnic Muslim minorities.
Xinjiang today is “a police state to rival North Korea, with a formalized racism on the order of South African apartheid,” wrote one expert. Its residents make up only 1.5% of China’s population—but accounted for 21% of arrests in 2017. This massive increase over the previous year doesn’t include detainees in re-education centers.
China has detained as many as one million people in camps. While Chinese authorities deny that such camps exist, satellite images show the recent construction of massive structures in Xinjiang. Research from China scholar Adrian Zenz details Chinese government procurement and construction bids for new re-education facilities and “upgrades and enlargements” to existing ones.
Security personnel subject camp detainees in Xinjiang to torture, medical neglect, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation and other deadly forms of abuse. They also force detainees to submit to daily brainwashing sessions and hours of exposure to Communist Party propaganda. The prisoners’ overseers require recitation of party slogans before eating.
Outside the camps, Chinese authorities aggressively suppress expressions of religious identity. Xinjiang residents face daily intrusions in their home life, including “home stays” where Communist Party officials live with local families. Chinese authorities prohibit “abnormal” beards and veils in public, as well as some Islamic names. Standard religious practices—abstaining from alcohol, tobacco and pork, or fasting during Ramadan—provoke the authorities’ suspicions.
The government has embraced tools Mao only could have dreamed of: big data, iris and body scanners, voice-pattern analyzers, DNA sequencers (including some sold by an American company) and facial-recognition cameras. Authorities use hand-held devices to search smartphones for encrypted messaging apps and require residents to install monitoring software in their smartphones.
Radio Free Asia leads in reporting on this crisis. In retaliation, Chinese authorities have detained dozens of family members related to Uyghur journalists working for RFA in the U.S. In recent testimony before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, RFA journalist Gulchehra Hoja lamented, “It’s a cruel irony that we as journalists can find out so much about what’s happening inside China’s Northwest, yet so little about our own families and loved ones. We are afraid to ask our friends and others there, because any contact and communication could endanger them as well.” China also has used Uyghurs living in the country as leverage to gather information about exiled Uyghurs’ activities—or to compel some to return to China.
China largely has avoided consequences for this reprehensible behavior. It no longer should.
The U.S. should apply Global Magnitsky Act sanctions against Xinjiang Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo. A Politburo member, he first gained experience with repression in Tibet. His tenure as party chief in Xinjiang has coincided with the proliferation of re-education camps, and he is seen as an innovator in his dark craft.
All government officials and business entities assisting the mass detentions and surveillance in Xinjiang should face sanctions too. The Commerce and State departments should add Chinese state security agencies to a restricted end-user list to ensure that American companies don’t aid Chinese human-rights abuses.
Consistent with the administration’s commitment to “reciprocity” in relations with China, the U.S. should deny visas to executives and administrative staff of Chinese state-run media companies operating on American soil until all family members of RFA journalists are released.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised the plight of RFA reporters and their families in July. Vice President Mike Pence has discussed the crisis publicly too. But words must be followed by action. State should work with like-minded governments to increase public pressure against China at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and many Muslim-majority nations have remained virtually silent, perhaps for fear of upsetting China. If the U.S. takes a bolder stance, other nations shouldn’t be afraid to follow.
Stability in Xinjiang is crucial to Mr. Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative. Public condemnation of China’s human-rights record, including its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, would be most unwelcome.
Despite its efforts to project a benevolent image around the globe, the Chinese Communist Party remains repressive, brutal and utterly intolerant. Consider what one official reportedly said about the “political re-education” campaign in Xinjiang: “You can’t uproot all the weeds hidden among the crops in the field one by one—you need to spray chemicals to kill them all.” American leaders must find the political will to confront this evil.
Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.
Appeared in the August 10, 2018, print edition.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/marco-rubios-bizarre-turn-against-capitalism/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202019-11-14&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
Reminds me of the high hopes we had for Paul Ryan. I was looking for someone young and charismatic who could explain to a wider audience the greatness of freedom and free markets and how that IS in the common good. Not tell us how to soften free enterprise, change it, lead us on a left turn snipe hunt for a third way.
The bad behavior of some very large corporations is already illegal and not a part of free enterprise. We can fire up anti trust enforcement instead of buying into Warren-like change of corporate mission. Companies buying their own stock is not a problem; it is a symptom. How about sending the profits back to the owners instead, a revolutionary idea, but that would trigger millions of punitive tax events in our perverted, anti-success tax system.
Maybe Rubio is doing this out of genuine belief and maybe he is positioning to be a leader in a post Trump world. Good luck with that. I don't think he can win a Republican nomination that way but maybe this middle ground allows him to hold on to an important Senate seat.
His insistence (tantrum thrown) to get his huge, non-growth deduction into tax reform is one reason revenues aren't growing fast enough right now, making the otherwise great tax reform easier to attack from the Left who advocate even less growth and much deeper deficits.
This is the Rubio speech to which he refers:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-case-for-common-good-capitalism/
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/11/rubio-bring-bill-barring-federal-funds-cities-allo/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=PMz6a%2BwxbQMOySLrrgcrFHPnDnTRqrunWvjrVG2vMNZ6wKaJYmu7XmqZ4Par6tc2&bt_ts=1639237789727
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-senators-introduce-legislation-sanctioning-beijing-over-obstruction-of-covid-19-origins-investigation_4207862.html?utm_source=uschinanoe&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-01-13&utm_medium=email&est=K0DJ%2F1B%2FBHudXGCjQyEMV0pPN9gqoK3SIAXsAuwW1Q18h65TyIZzjg3JAJaS68avAwvm
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sen-marco-rubio-introduces-bill-to-fast-track-arms-sales-to-taiwan_4451729.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-05-08&utm_medium=email&est=8%2BYldawU0VBuYSDHuXEv6oLQhS8qH4vT4KAkPNHQBhUHBVTsV%2FbGlF6rVFoX68rzT5UJ
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-military-base-cancels-drag-queen-story-hour-for-kids-after-pressure-from-senator_4503008.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-06-01&utm_medium=email&est=vxmJpqHkJqVYrDE%2BU8W9lB3shXqpvGPuclZ9uk4fWwOfWusyBPrKuWV4m0lQeS2Xf3YA
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/12/florida-senate-race-suddenly-looks-risky-marco-rub/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=evening&utm_term=evening&utm_content=evening&bt_ee=sF3DSxVAVbHVTgX0Qvf%2FKab0qkMRNEUMFM0%2FHirVlFPzaRWfOWiexicV1xmTxPJ6&bt_ts=1663014340721
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/12/florida-senate-race-suddenly-looks-risky-marco-rub/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=evening&utm_term=evening&utm_content=evening&bt_ee=sF3DSxVAVbHVTgX0Qvf%2FKab0qkMRNEUMFM0%2FHirVlFPzaRWfOWiexicV1xmTxPJ6&bt_ts=1663014340721
MSM Polls, especially early ones, are a mixture of data and propaganda. "survey for AARP"? Even Fox poll can be part of the left message manipulation. But the money disadvantage is a problem too, needs to end.
We go through this every cycle with polls. Sometimes their just wrong and sometimes the manipulation works.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/12/florida-senate-race-suddenly-looks-risky-marco-rub/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=evening&utm_term=evening&utm_content=evening&bt_ee=sF3DSxVAVbHVTgX0Qvf%2FKab0qkMRNEUMFM0%2FHirVlFPzaRWfOWiexicV1xmTxPJ6&bt_ts=1663014340721
MSM Polls, especially early ones, are a mixture of data and propaganda. "survey for AARP"? Even Fox poll can be part of the left message manipulation. But the money disadvantage is a problem too, needs to end.
We go through this every cycle. Sometimes they're just wrong and sometimes the manipulation works.
-------
https://news.yahoo.com/polls-wrong-again-120052002.html
-
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/09/12/the-recount-slams-marco-rubio-for-his-factually-inaccurate-statement-that-men-have-never-gotten-pregnant/?bcid=572330f449edc8ad46ced0740674869b638e1260c40ebbd791e72d766e89cb96
-
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/09/12/the-recount-slams-marco-rubio-for-his-factually-inaccurate-statement-that-men-have-never-gotten-pregnant/?bcid=572330f449edc8ad46ced0740674869b638e1260c40ebbd791e72d766e89cb96
This is how insane our society has become.