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
I prefer a citizen executive in the oval office. Fiorina had my vote
Please, everyone; I beg you to stop referring to Hillary’s “lady parts”. I’m trying to eat dinner here.
@LilyBart: I get your concern. Really, going so far that it was the primary reason I preferred Walker over Rubio. We cannot possibly see a candidate’s heart and judge sincerity on every issue and there’s no doubt the guy was a politician, but anyone who chooses to govern as conservatively as Walker did in places like Milwaukee and Madison is no mere opportunist. There just wasn’t much credible doubt about basic principles.
I don’t have equal confidence in Rubio. But I don’t think it is established that he lied. Wrong, yes. But at least for Rubio we have some record of governance before the Senate, and the choice to run and act as an unmistakable conservative in a purple state.
And — here’s the thing — I have the same concerns about Cruz. Sure, he might seem more consistently conservative. But he’s in a situation where that’s the politically convenient thing to do, and he’s been there only three years. He’s a Republican in a safe seat doing exactly what his base wants him to do. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s very little evidence to prove conviction.
As for Trump I don’t have concerns, I have absolute certainty he’s beyond untrustworthy.
I am not committed to Rubio. But it’s going to take something other than the Gang of Eight to keep me off that bandwagon. Missing Senate votes isn’t going to do it, either.
I think you are thinking the wrong demographic though. Dems know they have a lock on the black vote – they don’t need to pander to them this time. It will be Castro to lock up the current Hispanic vote and all of the millions Hillary! plans on amnestying.
Rubio has shown us his true colors on border security. Or he’s shown us that he’s too stupid to be President. The loopholes in the Gang of Eight bill were too glaringly obvious to be explained by any third alternative.
With Ryan as Speaker, McConnell as Majority Leader, and Rubio as President, Gang of Eight 2.0 would be a done deal. And if anyone thinks Rubio would follow through on any so-called border security provisions of the bill, I’ve got some bottomland to sell them. Just don’t ask what it’s on the bottom of.
Rubio+Ryan = 0*borders.
But what does he really think his mistake was? Pushing for amnesty? Or misjudging the base’s reaction to amnesty. In other words, does he think the mistake was one of substance or merely one of tactics? If it’s the latter, expect Gang of Eight 2.0 in his first hundred days. And with Ryan to push it through the House and McConnell to push it through the Senate, we can kiss the border goodbye.
Rubio+Ryan = 0*borders.
I’m sensing that the Dems are more worried about losing share of the Black vote than they are letting on. Their religious intolerance may lose them the massive portion they’ve enjoyed the last two cycles.
You know, I didn’t believe you at first, what with the crystal-ball, armchair psychology that is the only way to come to such a conclusion. But now that you’ve repeated it over and over, by George, it must be true!
Repetition of a basic, simple idea is often effective. It worked for Cato the Elder.
Rubio+Ryan = 0*borders.
You don’t need as much executive experience if you have zero regard for whatever damage you do to our institutions or country. Leftists are naturally uninhibited wreckers of this country and its institutions because they hate them.
If you’re on the Left you are fine with Executive nullification of immigration law for an entire class of illegal aliens because you have no respect for the Constitution or its take care clause. But a conservative cannot reciprocate–say, by refusing to enforce parts of the tax code they object to–when they have the Executive because they respect the Constitution.
If you’re on the Left you have no problem with the Executive undermining the enforcement of law via non-stop race-baiting of police actions even if it increases the murder rates in cities. But a conservative cannot undermine the enforcement of law because they know that one of the primary justifications for a state is the protection of her citizens.
If you’re on the Left you have no problem with the Executive facilitating a state sponsor of terrorism–Iran–becoming a nuclear threat to the U.S. But a conservative could not even imagine an Executive that would activity destroy American’s security–at least not before the Obama administration– because they know that one of the primary justifications for a state is the protection of her citizens.
If you’re on the Left you have no problem with the Executive bilking Chrysler bondholders out of their priority to be paid first under bankruptcy law even though violating a fundamental premise commercial system would delay economic recovery by frightening investors from returning to the market during an economic crash. But a conservative would not undermine our commercial system because a strong American is premised on a strong economy.
These examples show how the conservatives have an asymmetrical disadvantage in this fight. For the Left in wrecking American and her institutions is at worse merely collateral damage, if not their objective. The conservatives’ ends are preserving and protecting America. The conservatives’ just cannot use the same nuclear weapons as the Left in a fight over the homeland because the means would consume the ends
Insults not debate and true argument?
Glass house, Lily, glass house.
I don’t see how debate is possible when we can’t even share a common understanding of the term “open borders.” Besides, a little light ribbing is not the same as leveling insults, and I don’t believe that Carey J took it that way either.
Following your numbering:
Good points but I’m unpersuaded. I don’t have time to go through all your points but on the first one history has shown that VP attacks against the top of the ticket are much more effective than those that go the other way. Carly can effectively hammer Hillary 24X7 from the #2 slot and it won’t reflect as poorly on her as if she did it from the top position.