Senator Marco Rubio

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423243/rubio-sugar-subsidies?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt08312015&utm_term=Jolt

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10153812493850579/

[ppulatie]

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.

[DougMacG]

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. 

[ppulatie]

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.

[DougMacG]

"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.

[ppulatie]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0CfrEPyihs

[DougMacG]

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.  ) 

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[DougMacG]

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...

[ppulatie]

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.

[ppulatie]

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/

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

Let's take this exceedingly important discussion to the FUBAR thread.

[DougMacG]

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.

[DougMacG]

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.”

[ppulatie]

Okay, who is behind this website with Rubio? It wipes Rubio out on his immigration stand.

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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".

[ppulatie]

He was against it before he was for it?

[G M]

He was against it before he was for it?

He will win us .025 of the Hispanic vote!

[Crafty_Dog]

He will do A LOT better than that!-- especially with the Cuban vote in FL.

[DougMacG]

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

[G M]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

The bit about Bill Clinton calling him the most dangerous opponent for Hillary should help him too.

[Crafty_Dog]

Just saw a clip of Rubio saying he would end Common Core on Day One and was open to ending the DoEducation altogether.

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

By POTH standards Douthat is considered a conservative.  I have read more than one reasonable column by him.

[DougMacG]

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.

[ccp]

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).

[DougMacG]

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.

[ccp]

All good points.

If he would stand up just a little stronger to the lib bully crowd........

[DougMacG]

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:



Here is Harwood's tweeted correction from two weeks ago: -



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:



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.

[DougMacG]

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.  

[ccp]

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!

[Crafty_Dog]

Excellent contributions Doug.

[ppulatie]

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

[DougMacG]

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

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!

[ppulatie]

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?

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[DougMacG]

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.

[ppulatie]

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.

[DougMacG]

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.

[ppulatie]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[DougMacG]

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.

[DougMacG]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

 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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[ppulatie]

Rubio supports statehood for Puerto Rico also.