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.
Rubio/Fiorina: Does it Matter Who Leads the Ticket?
Many said during the debate last night that they would love to see a Rubio/Fiorina ticket or a Fiorina/Rubio ticket, and they didn’t care how the ticket was ordered. Does it matter who leads the ticket? I believe it does. The best order for that ticket would be Rubio/Fiorina for the following reasons:
- Fiorina would be much more effective attacking Hillary from the VP slot. Doing so from the top of the ticket would risk making her look mean and unpresidential to all those mushy independents out there — the people that want everyone to play nice. Nobody is too concerned if the #2 person on the ticket goes into attack mode. Besides, I think Carly would be more effective attacking Hillary, and that would allow Rubio to play the forward-looking optimist. Although it would be fun to see Carly debate Hillary, we saw last night that Marco could easily handle her.
- Fiorina’s CEO experience would make a fat target for the Dems, who would accuse her of being a heartless Richie Rita laying off thousands of common folk while wiping her feet on the poor. They did it effectively to Romney and they can do it to Fiorina. Those attacks fall flat against a VP candidate.
- I believe the Dems will have a very hard time mounting a successful smear campaign against Rubio. The stuff they’ve tried so far via their media organs has been very weak tea. Barring some hideous unknown scandal, they won’t be able to lay a glove on the young, handsome, Hispanic, middle-class Senator.
- Fiorina is not much younger than Hillary. Nominate her and you lose the youth advantage Rubio brings. It would be harder for Carly to appeal to the kids.
- The Dems would attack Fiorina’s complete lack of political experience. I know it doesn’t matter to some people, but it will matter to a lot independents. Attacking Rubio’s short career in the Senate doesn’t really fly given the current occupant of the White House.
I love Carly and would love to see her on the ticket, but I really think she would be better in the number-two slot. No matter who gets the nomination, they could do much worse than Carly. If she won’t take the job, give it to Susanna Martinez. We need a woman on the ticket to balance Hillary who, despite my doubts, says she’s a woman.
Published in Elections, General, Politics
This is what always frustrates me. Its seems that people that criticize Rubio have never read up on him. Google him and simply read a biography, even from Wikipedia (that which has a verifiable link). The guy was in the Florida House of Reps for 10 years prior to running for federal senate. He was ranked as a hard core conservative, especially in taxation (by far right wing guys like Norquist) and was Speaker (leadership) of the House under both Bush and Crist when they were governor. He has experience and his positions are well known if you simply google.
In the case of immigration, Rubio is in favor of enforcing border control and even increasing it. The only issue these nativists have is that the worker status, penalties, and long assimilation process which Rubio proposes. Besides, our classical liberal philosophy applies to all, poor unwashed masses yearning prosperity will not destroy it.
Executive experience of overrated. There’s a guy in office right now with zero executive experience who is exerting his will unopposed. If a Republican President were half as successful at moving the country right as Obama has moved it left, we’d consider them the second coming of Reagan.
Or they’ve forgotten he was once a conservative, Tea Party, grass roots darling because he took on Crist and beat him so bad the guy left the party.
Yes, but dealing with Crist was the only reason he was acknowledged by the Tea Party.
His policy positions are decidedly conservative. The daylight between him and Trump on immigration requires an electron microscope to see. The difference is Trump uses bombastic language and makes ridiculous promises. I can’t wait for all of those $1.50 an hour iphone making jobs to come back from China, can you?
It may be overrated, but it executive experience is more critical for a conservative. Obama could rely on an administrative state that is geared to ratchet up its control over us. Once enabling legislation is passed, the machine takes over.
A conservative will have to rein in–and ideally, dismantle–a bureaucratic beast that will fight back. Among other traits, that fight will require an executive who knows how to pick lieutenants who won’t be easily co-opted, who know where and when to fight, and who can make the case over the head of the media (which will be fed tales of woe by agency and union flacks).
Carly has much experience in downsizing. Elect her immediately.
I’m sorry, but this is just fiction. The Gang of 8 Bill included ‘enforcement’ as window dressing. There were so many loopholes in the enforcement part as to render the initiatives meaningless. There was going to be no real enforcement. It was the same ‘bait and switch’. A compromise where only one side gets what it was promised, and the other side gets shafted (again).
This assumes they buy into it classical liberal philosophy , and I see no evidence of that. Even our own ‘conservative’ leaders don’t seem to talk about the ‘blessings of liberty’ or individual rights anymore. All the evidence supports the supposition that, when made citizens, they will turn out to be reliable democrat voters.
Bah, we are just a bit over a year from election day, ten months from the conventions, and three months from the first vote being cast. At this point, we’re all just tossing around WAGs.
Still, I’ll fire up my Magic 8 Ball, and see what I get … here’re my predictions (not my endorsements): Rubio ultimately gets the nomination. I sincerely doubt the VP is up on stage right now. I’m going to predict Rubio will run alongside Governor Greg Abbott of Texas (after considering and passing on Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, and Tom Cotton). Ted Cruz will not join any administration but his own (nor should he), so he will return as the most visible member of the Senate or he will slide into the Governor’s Mansion in Austin after Vice President Abbott takes the oath of office (friends, stick that possibility in your pipe and smoke it). Jeb retires or, since he seems really serious about a Floridian casting votes in the Senate, runs for and wins Rubio’s seat.
Now that I’ve made a fool of myself, who’s next?
I like Rubio/Fiorina because I believe the opponents will be Clinton/Booker (admitted rank speculation).
I don’t think it’s Booker. He will suffer from the same problems O’Malley does: That the city he ran not too long ago is still an absolute [your choice of forbidden CoC terminology].
Can’t buy entertainment like this for $39/year anywhere.
Well done.
Perhaps, but I am cynical and dull-witted. I think this give me insight on the Dem mind. They don’t care about job performance, it is a demographic/image game. I’ll amend my pick to read Clinton/Booker(ish).
That’s nothing, man. Tell you what, figure out a way to get one of your fancy ol’ one percenter enterprises sued in federal court, call me up, and we’ll see how much entertainment you can buy for $490/hour. Talk about a hootenanny! :)
I would contend that O’Malley’s election troubles stem from him being visually bland and male.
All of these traits are more about the individual’s character than about whether or not they were ever an executive. Bush was an executive and he gave us John Roberts and Colin Powell among others. Bang up job he did.
Success will be determined by whether the next president truly believes in their core principles or not. Executive or not, if they refuse to sell out, they’ll be fine.
As an open borders free trade advocate, I wish this were true. But even if Rubio is willing to entertain citizenship for illegals and not willing to build a wall, calling him open borders is hyperbole.
In all seriousness, the idea that Rubio supports open borders is ludicrous.
He clearly supports more border security. His mistake was not getting guarantees that new border security measures are working as intended before giving any concessions in an immigration deal.
That sounded more plausible in 1990.
Rubio was 19 in 1990.
If your suggestion is that past immigration deals have failed on the enforcement part…yeah, that was my entire point.
In the past, the parts dealing with legal status go into effect immediately, and the border security never materializes.
What I was saying is that Rubio’s mistake was not having triggers in the deal that don’t allow any of the legal status aspects of the law go into effect until several years of a variety of targets being hit.
My suggestion is that to sucker for that in 2014 is inexcusable and probably not genuine.
An of course he hasn’t realized this mistake…no, he must be conniving to undermined the true conservatives.
Again, I am suggesting that he doesn’t see it as a mistake. The money backing the party and the votes don’t line up. That creates a tension for bad behavior.
Slightly OT: I hope Hillary picks Julian Castro as VP, and Telemundo hosts a debate. When the country (especially Hispanic Democrats) see Julian can’t speak a lick of Spanish, the mockery will be fun to watch.
Booker would be the better diversity selection for Hillary, and like her, he’s accomplished exactly nothing in his Senate career. Match made in heaven, those two.
I worry about Castro. Texas has always been the state we can take for granted as are NY and CA in the Democrat party.
Joisey? Be my guest!
I don’t think they care about that as much as you think. It is quite common really.
Except for the part where he, you know, acknowledged his mistake?
Sorry, I’m not buying. At the time, many tried to point out to Rubio that he was wrong about Gang of 8, and that the ‘enforcement’ part of the bill was utterly unenforceable, and had little chance of being enforced. He resolutely (earnestly!) stood by his work with the Gang of 8. And all this after he promised NOT to support amnesty DURING A CAMPAIGN! (there’s a data point for you.).
So, here we are now in another campaign. Rubio initially stood by his choice to join the Gang of 8. But it was a problem for him. So, now he is admitting his ‘mistake’? This is all just a little too convenient, and you’re just a little too eager to ‘forgive and forget’.
You like Rubio, and you’re either suspending belief because you just really, really WANT to believe, or amnesty is not an issue for you
Do what you want. But, you’ve been warned: many like me don’t believe his sudden change of heart and won’t vote for this man.
That is what I was trying to get at. It is common in politics when money or belief is in tension with votes. Obama’s many opinions on marriage would be an example for the other side. Really he always believed one thing but he had to wink at progressives and take a false stand in 2o08. The progressives understood just as the cheap labor crowd understands Rubio’s “mistake”. Unfortunately this game has been played too many times.
I want to make clear that I will vote for Rubio but that I would also vote for Trump if he is the candidate.