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: Man-Boy Candidate Promises Less of the Same
Marco Rubio by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0.
While a boy’s face on a man’s body may be the romantic ideal for some, it serves only to reinforce Republican primary voters’ skepticism about Sen. Marco Rubio’s lack of skepticism about government interventionism. The Florida senator’s political instincts have led him to believe, among other things, that the US immigration crisis can only be addressed through comprehensive reform, a mutually-exclusive term favored by pundits, progressives, and “soft values” Republicans like Rubio.
When the senator from Florida invokes “context” in attempting to explain away his since-disavowed support for amnesty, one is reminded of a petulant child attempting to rationalize wrongdoing rather than a respectable grownup who straightforwardly asks for forgiveness and moves on.
Rubio, it seems, possesses a Peter Pan complex in reverse: a political boy who desperately wishes to be a political man. One gets the impression of an eager-beaver naif easily seduced by big, juicy ideas advanced by big, juicy government.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the man who cited US security in supporting the invasion of Libya should do the same when defending his risible, regrettable belief that — absent government handouts to Florida sugar growers — the America is at risk of “losing the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security”. (Other than pundits refraining from affixing “-gate” to every political scandal, my political dream is an end to invoking “security” when discussing energy issues and, now, in the case of Rubio, sugar. Sugar).
That Sen. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses while issuing full-throated opposition to ethanol subsidies further suggests that Rubio is the Bobby Darin of contemporary American politics: a relatively young man whose moment has already passed while trying desperately to appeal to an audience that has discovered rock’n’roll and in no mood for a new cover of “Beyond The Sea.”
Rubio fluently speaks the language of limited government while giving the impression that he’d be much more at home speaking Rockefeller Republicanism. His boyish desire to please does not befit a man seeking to be a conservative president in the mold of Coolidge or Reagan.
Conservatives rightly fear that Rubio is, in the words of Peter Robinson, a little soft. For example, while comfortable enough deflecting blame onto Obama and the Democrats for government shutdowns, it doesn’t even seem to occur to Rubio to do what the moment seemed to demand: namely, taking credit for them.
Seemingly far more confident in the American experiment, the equally young Cruz stands in direct contrast to Rubio in his frumpiness and breath-of-fresh-air arrogance. Cruz, unlike every other candidate in the field, offers the tantalizing possibility of a return to self-government, where Hillary Clinton promises more of the same and Rubio the weak beer of less of the same.
Published in Politics
Agreed. I’m focused on the Gang of Eight debacle right now, but you are oh-so-right to bring up sugar subsidies.
(And your more serious work is a pleasure to see as well.)
Thanks, J.D: I hope you mean my “less serious” work!
DD, this raises real concerns. One of the biggest threats the next President faces is the Congressional Republican leadership and their increasing commitment to more government everywhere all the time.
I fear, as you outline, Rubio will rubber-stamp every dollar of it. This is an area where Cruz’s poor relations with his peers is a plus. I am less interested in passing the Cruz agenda and more interested in stopping the Republican agenda.
Can we please, please dispense with the fiction that Cruz won the Iowa caucuses while opposing ethanol? I know he says so, but it just is not true. I’m going to have to write a post about it. In the meantime, I will reproduce my comment from another thread:
I went into this primary season with much this impression about Cruz, that he was a brave crusader always true to principle. That’s what I believed right up until I started to look into his ethanol position. In brief, the story is:
If anyone questions any of this, I’m happy to provide links. But you can Google it all yourself perfectly easily.
It seems, however, to fit with my overall impression of Cruz: He likes to make people mad, he’s happy to do things that make him look like he’s a brave crusader for principles, and he cares less about the principles.
I should add on reflection that defeating Trump in Iowa was important, and may have been a worthy enough goal to justify Cruz’s behavior. I just wish it had not been necessary. And I wish people knew what had actually happened.
I can’t square the vehement opposition of Iowa Governor Terry Bransted (and presumably, his son the ‘renewable fuels’ activist), “because as Iowans learn about [Cruz’s] anti-renewable fuel stand, and that it will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income, I think people will realize that [voting for Cruz] is not in our interest” with the idea that Ted Cruz is lying about his opposition to subsidies.
And I think that’s what his opposition is to: renewable fuel subsidies. He wants to eliminate them all, if not immediately, then over time. And he’s also opposed to concomitant regulation that mandates maximums, or minimums, of any blend of fuels.
I don’t get the impression that he’s opposed to ethanol, or any other renewable fuel, per se.
What he’s saying is that, on the free and open market, absent any government subsidies propping it up, if ethanol can make such a case for its excellence as a fuel blend that its percentage in gasoline, and therefore its sales, skyrocket, then good for ethanol. Or whatever renewable fuel we’re talking about.
It seems to me a properly conservative position, and one that does not pretend, or promise, an increase in ethanol sales at all.
Here is an article from the Washington Examiner in which one of the reporters who started the most recent ‘takedown’ of Ted Cruz’s sincerity on the ethanol issue changes his mind and decides that Cruz means it after all.
He has repeatedly said that comprehensive immigration reform is not in the cards. He was naive to join the gang of 8, it was an attempt to destroy him and it worked. He should have seen it coming so your excellent point that he’s a boy wanting to play grown up politics resonates. Also he is too quick to use hawkish language so I must agree that he has an exaggerated notion of what our government can do. That is why I prefer the other imperfect vessel, Cruz. But Rubio is growing up fast and it must be one or the other, so lets not destroy either one.
Meh. The negatives Rubio carries are figured into the calculations of those who believe he is the better candidate. I’m not wholly convinced that some who support other candidates are as candid about their chose man’s imperfections.
I wish I believed that optimistic assertion. But I keep going back to the tape of him promising an Iowa voter that if he became president the demand for ethanol would increase by up to 60%.
I fear what you have here is typical Cruz behavior: Get people mad enough to attack you, accomplish nothing (in this case, deceive people in order to get them to buy into your campaign), and grandstand about how pure you are. And, again, if it took down Trump in Iowa, I’ll take it. But let’s not pretend it’s brave and pure crusading.
Marco also deflected an honest answer regarding his self-proclaimed “in-artful” promises to a Univision Spanish speaking audience. He called Ted a liar for reminding voters of his own duplicity. Instead Marco gave a dog whistle response accusing Ted of not speaking Spanish, aka, not being culturally Cuban, or, um, more specifically, not of West Miami. That was telling.
Marco has shown an astonishing lack of understanding of the consequences of his betrayal on substantive issues to those who *supported* him during his short tenure in the Senate. I’m not surprised so many are eager to love him as he makes a great first impression. He’s not a bad man, he’s just flawed in a very common knowable way and the voters he represents along the I-4 corridor know it, and remember. The trouble comes when he’s asked to take principled and unpopular positions he promised his constituents he’d make.
His cheerleaders are my friends. I understand their reluctance to let go of the “idea” of Marco because it was once so promising. But now they’re quite literally lying about his well known record hoping most folks don’t really pay attention. Marco’s failure to lead when tested should give everyone who wants to promote him for it real concern. Inexplicably, they ignore his record. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats won’t make that same mistake.
Rubio could have a bright future if he’d allow himself to grow into it.
He has not repudiated Gang of 8 and Comprehensive Immigration Reform – he just stated lat week that he ‘wouldn’t jamb it down people’ throats like Obama Care’ – well gee, thanks! Thanks for the kiss before the @#%^&!
There’ also the Commander McBragg/McCain foreign policy. If Mr. Electable thinks the public is ready for another round of Middle East intervention, they are misreading the mood.
Cruz’ and Rubio’s elect-ability vs Clinton are remarkably close (1 or 2 points) seeing how one is ‘the most despised man of the Senate with no freinds’ and the other, our Manudo-like Reagan.
I’m pretty sure that you all are misinterpreting this. He was going to say that he had been misrepresented, but he didn’t have a chance. And I’d like to see the text of the interview, because I have a decent reading comprehension of Spanish.
But the issue you started out debating was Ted Cruz’s changing stance on ethanol. That article does make it pretty clear that, other than softening his stand to a multi-year phaseout, versus his initial position (an immediate cessation of subsidies), his stand hasn’t changed much, if at all.
I think this must be the video you refer to. It is 7 1/2 minutes long, and worth watching in its entirety.
Cruz, as he has in the past, speaks of eliminating all subsidies (oil, wind, solar, corn, etc) and ‘leveling the playing field,’ in addition to removing the limits on ethanol blends. Once that has been done, he says that he believes that ethanol use in gasoline would increase significantly. He also cites some guy I’ve never heard of, but who Cruz says is a mover and shaker in the Iowa ethanol industry, as agreeing with him. Again, I’d say that the consistent conservative position would be to let the free market dictate the winners and losers, not the goverment. This seems to be Cruz’s position.
The farmer he was speaking to did not strike me as a dunce, or a particularly easy sell. And I’m not sure he was completely convinced by Cruz’s efforts.
Cruz, however, struck me as respectful and detailed in his explanations, reasonably well-informed for a guy who’s out pressing the flesh in what was some fairly hostile country, and not a purveyor of bombastic claptrap at all.
None of these candidates is perfect, or pure. Some of them are braver than others. And sooner or later, all of them will fail the ‘sound-bite’ test, if that’s the definitive standard of measurement. I hope it isn’t.
Read Congressman Mike Pompeo’s (somewhat terse) article about Cruz consistently undercutting the military here. Again, Cruz talks a good game…but talk is cheap.
Love the post David, but like any entertainer you leave us wanting more.
Michael Walsh was on the Ace of Spades HQ podcast last week and he made the point that either you are seemingly immune to Rubio’s charm or you think it excuses any failings.
We’re in a weird place regarding presidential politics and I’m again struck by how often people are emotionally attached to their candidates instead of coolly assessing them.
TKP, respectfully disagree. I’ve had Rubio supporters quite vehemently insist that the Gang of Eight bill violated no campaign promises re::amnesty whatsoever, that he never really supported amnesty, and then try to trash everyone or anyone else at the same time (usually Cruz because they see him as the only viable alternative to Rubio in the primaries). Rubio might not be a robot but I’ve been forced to wonder about some of his boosters.
Brian, on the National Defense Authorization Act:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17248-ted-cruz-indefinite-detention-retained-in-ndaa-2014
Cruz is not against funding the military, of course. He is against some of the nonsense attached to that funding.
Meanwhile, Rubio gives every indication of adhering to the Bush-Yoo-McCain philosophy of security at any cost to liberty. He fails to balance security with competing values.
And we would likely end up with an occupation of Syria that echoed our fruitless occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Cruz fans are not generally against the option of war, but we are against poorly executed wars without clear and obtainable objectives. Rubio as president would certainly stand up to tyrants and probably pull off some deft maneuvers via embargoes and whatnot. But he would also lead us back into Bush’s busy-work, occupying the Middle East without achieving many long-term results.
Rubio would fully fund our soldiers… and waste their lives in a war with no victory amid allies who rape little boys and brutalize their women.
Please do, because I just did Google it, and can’t find anything to support your claims. Even Mother Jones says he’s anti-ethanol subsidies:
This is just not so. Rubio expressly says he understands now that comprehensive immigration reform is impossible, because of the government’s record of failure with it before.
He says one step at a time with a proven record of success before moving on to the next step.
First– stop all illegal crossing of the border, with enforcement of current laws, beefing up border guards, and a fence, whatever it takes.
After a pre-arranged measurement of the success of that effort, move to the next step, which I don’t remember… measuring needs and arranging legal immigration to fulfill them? And then with evidence of success–ONLY then, do we talk about who is here illegally and decide what to do about them.
Ted Cruz has said so many things, to so many different audiences, who knows what he is even saying today about the issue. He was the advisor who came up with George Bush’s amnesty plans! The ones everyone excoriated McCain and other for!
How does Cruz walk away from that pure as the driven snow? He doesn’t in my book.
Plus, he is capable of putting his blinders on, completely ignoring the negative consequences of his self-serving, reckless pursuit of personal aggrandizement! Such as the ill informed, and ill timed, filibuster that shut down the government, accomplished nothing, other than allow the media to demonize all GOP efforts at solving problems.
But somehow that gives him street cred with talk radio.
And how is Cruz supposed to do that? Even if elected, he has no skill or desire to build a mandate for his positions, his own Republican caucus hates his guts, let alone the Democrats, and he has the charm of an undertaker, so it’s highly unlikely the American people are going to warm to him. A Cruz nomination will probably mean the loss of the Senate.
You ridicule Rubio’s charm, but charm is a fundamental leadership principle in the modern presidency.
Now. He could have understood that before, as our ridiculous immigration policies stretch back to his childhood.
(BTW, I do believe that he learned his lesson. But I’m at a loss to understand how he trusted Schumer & Co. in the first place.)
Er, he had a job to do. Did he propose those plans, or merely advise Bush on how to implement Bush’s plan?
Wow. People need to read this revealing article you have posted a link to. It really puts me solidly in the Rubio camp then.
Rubio: Walk softly and carry a big stick. :) :)
I think Rubio has learned something from both Bush & Obama in opposing what Obama wanted in Syria. If we aren’t going to fight to win, we shouldn’t be fighting. Are his instincts more interventionist than the other candidates? Yeah, I’d say so. With 7 years of Obama’s malign neglect of our allies & abject coddling of our adversaries, I would think the contrast would be a good thing.
I am dependent on others for the interpretation which I don’t think comes over in a transcript, or if the two people I had listen and interpret for me, who had no axe to grind either way… they tell me, he did his best to deflect the question… he did acknowledge that he would not end the executive order on his very first day, and that a sudden end would effect people who depended on Obama’s word, so the executive order would be rescinded no question, but the circumstances of those who depended on the President’s word would be taken into consideration. But he clearly said it would not stand!
Now someone tell me how anyone else would say any different? Would Cruz just renege on promises made? Do we just ignore the people Obama duped? Obama did bad things, but it isn’t the fault of those who depended on his word.
That’s like Obama pulling out of Iraq because he hated Bush’s war, it’s national honor at stake.
The government shut downs were the stupidest, most meaningless manifestation of Cruz’s overblown ego, and need to aggrandize himself at the cost of the success of the GOP that I can imagine.
Stupid is as stupid does. Don’t tell me Cruz is smart. I’ve seen the man at work.
I’ll quote Jazz Shaw back to you: “I know there are going to be some staunch Cruz defenders who will try to spin this as being “what he said all along” but that’s thin gruel at best and it’s simply not true. “
No. No. No. You need to read my excerpts on this thread. Rubio’s participation in the Gang of Eight was calculated and mendacious.
Amen.
The excuses made for Rubio increasingly reminds me of a mother whose child was caught doing something reprehensible but she’ll defend him to the death anyways evidence be damned.
Again, Jazz Shaw, who likes Cruz: “I know there are going to be some staunch Cruz defenders who will try to spin this as being “what he said all along” but that’s thin gruel at best and it’s simply not true.”
Seems to be at first, until he starts promising a huge increase in the market for ethanol, which he has to know will not happen.
In this case I think it’s the opposite. He passes on soundbites and fails on deeper investigation. Again, if it takes this level of manipulativeness to take down Trump, I guess we’re stuck with it. But we should know what we’re getting ourselves into.
other than Lindsey Graham endorsing Jeb, every DC republican seems very comfortable with Rubio
that is concerning