Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dubio about Rubio
I’m asking a lot of my politicians, I know, but I don’t really care about what they did in their youth or whether they were absolute straight arrows. In fact, I prefer that they had at least a little bit of a rebel streak in their teens. They didn’t have to get great grades in high school either.
But I do expect them to have a certain level of common sense and an ability to address silly notions, and here is where Marco Rubio has shown some incompetence.
Rubio explained that his decision not to answer the question [of whether he’s ever used marijuana] goes back to an encounter he had after publishing his memoir, “American Son.” In the book, Rubio reveals that he was not a disciplined student in his youth and had a 2.1 GPA in high school.
“Someone came up to me and said, ‘You know, I enjoyed your book, but I want you to know, my son came up to me and said he doesn’t have to get good grades in high school, because look at Marco Rubio, he didn’t do well in high school and look how successful he’s been,'” Rubio recalled.
“And that impacted me,” he said of the encounter.
Well, it shouldn’t. There is a response to the young man’s adolescent logic. I’ll let the Ricochetti weigh in on what form the rebuttal should take, but if your kid is using that kind of argument, then he’s probably not going to get very good grades anyway (and perhaps the lack of intelligence is genetic, because it seems that the dad was stumped by his son’s airtight case for slacking). By the way, dads and moms, if you find yourself arguing with your high-school-aged child about why he/she should get better grades, that’s a sign that you have already failed in some crucial aspect already.
I don’t know what Rubio could have done differently. Should he have omitted his high school record, so this young man (and others) couldn’t have thrown this damning piece of evidence in his dad’s face? And wouldn’t it be newsworthy if it had come out that Rubio had left out unflattering incidents and grades — under which circumstances the high school slacker would find out anyway?
Rubio told that story as an example of why he won’t answer the ‘pot’ question.
The Florida Republican, who maintains a strict stance against the legalization of marijuana, refuses to answer whether he’s ever personally smoked it. Rubio told “Politics Confidential” that his silence on the matter is based on his belief that there is no “responsible way to recreationally use marijuana.”
“If you say that you did, then suddenly there are people out there saying, ‘Well, it’s not a big deal,'” Rubio said. “On the other side of it is if you tell people that you didn’t, they won’t believe you.”
Suddenly? People have been saying “it’s not a big deal” for decades. The last three presidents, many senators and members of congress, business titans Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and countless other successful ‘ordinary’ people have used pot, so I fail to see where Rubio is going to single-handedly uphold the drug-free banner for young people and have any influence as an example. Remember, by Rubio’s own example, all the adolescent needs is one case of a successful pot smoker and the Ivy League educated US Senator just lost the debate by the terms he’s accepted.
The second part, “they won’t believe you”, is even more odd. If it’s true that Rubio never smoked ganja, then he should say so. If people don’t believe him, that’s their problem. This just doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, what about the people who will think this convenient and convoluted reasoning is his way of avoiding answering this question? I don’t know whether he did or didn’t, but somehow I feel like I’m being misled anyway! Good job, Marco!
Published in General
He lost me there. The proliferation of the word “impact” is a pernicious influence in our society. I expect senators and certainly potential presidents to stand firm against this trend.
At least Rubio is willing to own up to his academic record, unlike our President.
I really don’t care whether he smoked marijuana once or not. What I care about is where he stands on the issue now. I smoked a cigarette once in my youth. So what? It has no bearing on who I am today.
He does not want to comment on whether he smoked marijuana for fear that if he admits to it a teenager might see that as proof that you can do it and still be successful in life. He uses the story about the high school student using his (Rubio) poor grades as an excuse to not work harder in high school as a parallel.
I completely understand where Rubio is coming from on this.
Not to mention his four children.
I sense the social conservatives of this party are already starting the let’s stick it to candidates who don’t buy in to the social issues that the majority of voters in this country don’t share anyway and should be addressed on the state and local because otherwise we’ll continue to lose on the national level.
I, for one, can’t afford the luxury of another Democratic administration. And, whether you know it or not, neither can you.
Franco and I are maintaining our perfect record. My ticket for 2016 is Rubio-Martinez, and I think that Peter’s comments in the podcast last week are way too negative on the maturity of our primary voters.
Rubio and Martinez should run a race without saying word one about immigration, just stress the rule of law and property rights.
I’m with you on the first half of that ticket, but it would be a mistake to disregard our Anglo heritage plus Martinez brings zero electoral votes to the table. Give me an experienced, accomplished running mate who can help win the election.
Well, though he may one day be my best option, I’m not sold on Rubio 2016.
But I partly agree with his reasoning. Once upon a time it would have been understood that a candidate tried to keep this kind of detail about his early life private. I’m not sure we should go back to that, but nor am I sure we were entirely right to abandon it.
But he’s right: his public stature and success does set him up as an example. Unlike you, I see that as a reason why it is important to live in such a way as to be an example, even in your teens. You might not be a U.S. Senator, but you are likely to be a role model for someone, somewhere. Be a good one. And, though I’d hardly vote against Rubio for a teenage failing, on the whole I prefer to vote for public figures who seek to live that way.
The manner of admission makes a difference, though. There’s a certain reverse boastfulness, particularly about low grades, that can be very damaging.
Rubio has already shown himself to be easily sucked in by the Schumer machine. He can make all the noises he wants on other issues, but he is simply disqualified from leading the country because he does not recognize when he is being used.
“Yeah I used pot, but it was a mistake. Yeah I got bad grades, but it was a mistake. Yeah I [fill in the blank], but it was a mistake. We’ll all make mistakes in life.
I’ve succeeded, yes, but it’s in spite of those mistakes, not because of them. Those were avoidable mistakes. Don’t make avoidable mistakes.”
What’s so hard about that?
I understand where he is coming from as well, it’s a variant of the GWB formula but not quite as good.
It’s a completely ineffective strategy on top of a flimsey argument. Teenagers have hundreds of examples of people succeeding after teenaged indiscretions of all kinds.
People do succeed after having low grades in high school, however the odds are better the higher your grades. This is not a concept teens are unable to grasp. If you relate to teens like that, no wonder they laugh and dismiss your proclamations. And if you allow your teen to hold up one example that somehow refutes your entire argument, you aren’t making the right argument. “Aunt Mildred smoked cigarettes all her life and she lived to be 94” is not a rebuttal to the premise that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
Trying to hide evidence that contradicts your preferred narrative will not win any debates, especially when it’s obvious to everyone that’s precisely what you are doing.
Why does he have to be an example? Of what? We have to whitewash his past in order to keep the fiction alive, even though it’s patently obvious. That’s doubling down on stupid. This is precisely the wrong approach if you are going to try to reclaim some credibility talking to teens about grades, drugs, or anything. Sheesh.
He is an example whether he wants to be or not. How we live influences others. You are an example. I am an example. What we are an example of depends on the kind of life we lead. Rubio, having achieved something that many would consider success, is going to be looked up to as a role model by some people, and bears responsibility to some degree for the lessons they learn from him. I did not say I agree with whitewashing the past: only that I understand his reasoning for refusing to talk about youthful failings, and that it would be better if the past were better.
Why is it important whether or not a candidate ever smoked weed? Or what his views on marriage are, for that matter? Conservatives should be more concerned about national security and Americans’ competitiveness for private-sector jobs in a global marketplace.