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
Funny, I’ve come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
On the issues I know best (for example, education) Rubio is realistically honest in his promises, accurate in his analysis of the current situation, and prepared to make a clear case for limited government to an audience not used to hearing that case. To me, that points to a real purpose. He speaks in purple-state terms, not red-state terms, and it is a difference of tone, not of principle.
Cruz has — certainly on education — talked boldly about things he cannot deliver (such as “repealing every word of Common Core”). He tells conservatives passionately that he is one of us. But — though he is sharp and sometimes insightful — I do not hear him defending conservatism to a broader audience in the same way I do Rubio.
And Rubio is about one full year younger than Cruz and actually has substantially more political experience. He has a record with some weaknesses, and some strengths. Cruz has a very short record as a senator from Texas. He hasn’t faced the kinds of political temptations that reveal those weaknesses. We just don’t know.
Ted Cruz does not have the one required thing that would make a good President. He does not play well with others. You can’t lead if no one follows, if most don’t follow. You end up leading from behind.
The ability to see other’s point of view… to convince them, rather than just subject them to your will… that is missing in Ted Cruz. It is what is wrong with Obama.
Cruz might make a great judge. But he would make a horrible President. Horrible. Picking fights is a disqualification.
No. Read the excerpts under my name here. Classy is as classy does.
Well, in my book, it’s lying to your constituents–repeatedly, in many ways, over a long period of time–about your plans for one of the issues most important to them–it’s that that is a disqualification.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. And we’ll see who wins.
Does seem that way.
I would like that. I’m not sanguine about it happening, though.
There is a “popularity contest” element to running for office – especially, it seems, for POTUS.
Obama, for example, began his political career with a certain amount of physical charm and elegance – and a smile that could light up a room. Many of us already immune to his charms may not have noticed how charming he could be to the non-immune, but that was the first thing I noticed about him.
I grant that Rubio almost always sounds better on policy. But he sounded good to the people of Florida when he talked about immigration. He did not follow through on what he said. Regard that as you wish.
And I will give you that as well. So long as you are willing to add “and that’s worth amnesty and a porous border”, I have no problem with what you are saying.
EDIT: But consider, please, this 1 hour video.
Rubio’s participation in the Gang of Eight was not a matter of succumbing to temptation. He clearly had a deliberate plan.
I might be unique in this, but Rubio’s personality was actually something I had to get past. He really, really reminded me of Tony Blair.
On endorsements, I frankly don’t care about the number. I don’t care about the ones you can see coming a mile away. But there are a few that are revealing. Trey Gowdy and Tim Scott surprised me and caught my attention.
Which “one” is that? Not this one. Why not do your name calling in your own voice? Petulant child, indeed.
As well it should. A perfectly legal and constitutional collection of data by the same government that does a census. Since it required a warrant to actually access the data (not the public information that x called y, already in the phone records) it should not have raised such ire in the day of smart bombs. I’m with Rubio on this one, not Rand Paul or, I gather, Cruz.
That’s a cute way of saying that by virtue of owning a cell phone one is a terror suspect.
Let’s also be conscious that wrapping a couple of good things around a big, juicy turd is still a turd. Again, we need to stop with this nonsense that voting against a massive bill that has “Defense” slapped on the top is not the same as being for the destruction of the United States. If protecting Israel means that I have to give up my 4th amendment rights because I happen to own a phone, then sorry Bibi, you will have to handle your own security while I fight the throngs of ignorance here in the US on how to go after terrorists.
Yes, and sometimes it isn’t. The door swings both ways. Is it wise to undergo a long term occupation of a society where a decent amount of people reject Western Civilization while half the people at home are going to do everything in their power to undermine it for political gain? I’m sorry but I have just a bit more respect for the young men and women in uniform than to vainly sacrifice them. What once worked in the past does not always work in the future.
@ J.D. — I’m not for “amnesty and a porous border.” I admittedly prefer Rubio’s current position (and Cruz’s previous one) to the current Cruz position. I don’t trust Rubio on it — nor Cruz either.
Rubio was playing politics when he ran against Crist, though my long-distance take is that his genuine position was likely enough well to Crist’s right, Crist being pretty far out on the issue — is that fair? But from what I’ve seen of his record in Florida, no one should have bought any idea that he was Jeff Sessions.
The question is what he was trying to do. And I can’t help noting that 1) the status quo is pretty horrible, and is de facto amnesty, 2) he saw the unilateral executive amnesty coming, and 3) while conservatives focused on what Obama could get away with under the law, it’s also relevant what the next president could do and the political cover a bipartisan bill could give to an administration serious about border security. I don’t assume he secretly wanted to let Schumer write immigration policy.
He should have walked away. But at this point the promise he’s making on this strikes me as the kind a politician knows he can’t break without political suicide — like Romney on Obamacare repeal. Add a queasy Congress remembering Cantor, and I don’t find the dreaded Rubio-Ryan comprehensive amnesty scenario that realistic.
I think if you look over this account (more precisely, my excerpts from the account) of what happened, you can see what Rubio was trying to do.
I admit it is the one account I have read. But it is detailed, and it is damning.
I’m happy to read alternative histories if you have them.
I don’t think he learned his lesson. I think Peter Singer gives millions to his super pac for the same reason Goldman pays millions to Hillary.
What did it cost the GOP? We still carried 2014. Most Americans, outside the media and the fever swamps of left wing blogs didn’t even notice. And it is mostly forgotten now.
Really great arguments guys.
Now try this one: Marco Rubio should be the Republican Presidential nominee this November because he has the best chance of being elected President in a general election against a Democrat.
As much as Rubio is taking a beating for the gang of eight fiasco, repeating it over and over will only help him with the hispanic vote in a general election.
I agree with you in principle. But the electorate as a whole is shallow enough to elect Obama – twice!- because they thought he was cool and women thought he was good looking,
Yes, that’s a valid point. But there is a lot of room between not playing well with others and letting others lead you around by the nose.
You are a lonely voice in the wilderness, J.D.. I don’t understand how anyone reading the Schafly piece can make excuses for Rubio. Even if immigration is not a big issue for you, I would think the Clintonian level lying would trouble you. And, I stipulate that all politicians lie.
I’ve actually been looking at that. As I said elsewhere, the piece reads too much like a hit piece to give me instant confidence in it. There’s a lot of intense emotional language in there, and too much evidence of interpretive bias. I’m checking links, but I won’t have time to go through it all in detail.
I’m very early on when they assert Gang of Eight is “radically to the left of McCain-Kennedy.” But they don’t give the details on McCain-Kennedy to support that assertion (and I certainly don’t remember!) Hyperlinking that text would seem to imply that the linked source supports the assertion, but it doesn’t — it’s just a link to another source opposing Gang of Eight. The only thing they prove is the greater increase in work visas.
I’ve become very, very cynical all around this past year. Among other things, watched Congress pass a law on an issue I truly know and saw misinformation spread through conservative media like wildfire. I don’t really have sources I trust on immigration, and would end up basically have to look at the text of the law myself.
Here’s the Eagle Forum piece:
The implication is that he is dishonest. Mark Krikorian, in promoting the piece, claimed outright that Rubio lied on welfare. But… the bill actually says what Rubio says it does.
(cont.)
That’s p. 90-91; it goes on to address a tax credit and Obamacare specifically. Now if they want to make the point that these restrictions only apply while these people are in the “provisional immigrant status” that’s a fair policy argument. But anyone with common sense realizes Rubio’s not claiming they wouldn’t be eligible for benefits as full citizens (something years down the road).
On this one, Rubio wins the honesty point. I don’t have time to go through claim by claim. But that one is enough to undercut the credibility of the whole piece with me.
(h/t to Could Be Anyone for pointing out that snippet on my post.)
Leigh, if you’re going to do the legwork on fact checking, I will take your response to the piece very seriously.
I have read every last one of these comments, and I have found them instructive. It is a reminder of the value of the give-and-take built into Ricochet.
I am trying to make up my mind behind Rubio and Cruz, and so far I cannot do so (even after having read all of you).
The calculations of the former remind me of Nixon. I fear that he would sell us out if he thought that this would get him a few more votes. What he did on immigration — given what he said when he ran against Charlie Crist — is genuinely disgraceful.
The latter has acted as a one-man band, and he has stepped on every toe in sight. Much of the criticism directed his way by his colleagues in DC reflects resentment and makes those colleagues look dishonest and small. But the fact that they dislike him as much as they do gives one pause.
I am not bothered by their preference for those who — like Rubio — are more, ahem, malleable. That is a given. Establishment Republicans did not much like Reagan.
But they did not hate him, and they do hate Cruz — which gives me pause. Let me add that I know folks in the jurisprudential world who agree with Cruz on everything and can praise his abilities, but still dislike him intensely.
I wish that Rubio had a bit more integrity. I am willing to give politicians a lot of slack. But he is slippery, and I am tired of Republicans who talk a good line when they are seeking the support of the base and who then turn around and betray the people whose votes they have solicited.
I did a little above. I really don’t have the time I would like to put into it.
And I don’t want that one above to be interpreted as an outright conclusion in Rubio’s favor on the whole debate, or that they are wrong on every point. Only that I find this particular article seems more of a hit piece.
From looking into it more, including staring at the actual text, I’m so far strengthened in my opinion that 1) there’s some pretty bad policy in there, and 2) it’s not Obamacare, and it doesn’t prove Rubio to be traitorous or establishment or a fake conservative.
And Rubio really believed he could make a difference with the Hispanic vote. I think this is utterly naive. Until I compare the politics of President Clinton establishing Obama’s executive amnesty with the politics of President Rubio selling the American idea and constitutional governance to these people — and I’d take the latter a million times over.
Right. Because no successful President has ever gone and picked a fight. Thank Heavens Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan were all such easy, go-along sorts, or think of where we might have wound up! (I know I’m missing a few there…) Or take a few from the other side, like Wilson, Roosevelt, Obama.
So what you’re saying is you’ll only vote for a card-carrying member of the surrender caucus?
I am supporting Cruz exactly because he is picking fights. I want a president that will pick fights with corrupt Washington, DC establishment.
For Lucie, Cruz stance on ethanol is/was principled. Just because you are standing up for a principle doesn’t mean you can’t try to argue that your principle is right and the other side is wrong. Cruz stated he was against ethanol subsidies and when he was attacked for it instead of backing down he stuck with his principle and argued against the opposition.
OK, here’s another and then I’m done for now:
Crane did claim Rubio “directly misled” ICE. But this is a charge from a single source without verifiable specifics. Crane says Rubio misled, but we don’t know on what provisions specifically he believed Rubio was dishonest. I have no reason to believe Crane is lying, but it is inappropriate to present this as proven fact based on a single source — without even a response from Rubio’s office.
Next the article claims Rubio, instead of fixing it, “made things worse” — with a hyperlink you’d expect leads a source explaining that claim. But the WT article doesn’t mention any changes in the bill after that meeting. I’m honestly not sure where the “made things worse” phrase came from. It’s a serious charge with zero substantiation.
WT does give Rubio’s response to Crane’s accusation:
Is that true? I’d have to research the Corker-Hoeven amendment. Sounds relevant, but the Eagle Forum piece doesn’t address it.
Now you’ve got me looking this up. Here is why the 13 year wait isn’t actually a 13 year wait. So it goes from “illegals will have to wait 13 years and will never collect benefits” except if they’ve worked on a farm for 72 days in a 2 year timeframe then it’s 5 years for them and their entire families. But they won’t collect benefits until after the 5 years in which case they get green cards and they can.
Honesty depends on what the definition of is is.
Thank you Dr. Rahe.
On Sunday morning, after listening to the debate and reading a number of Ricochet and other pieces about Cruz, I felt like Rubio was the better candidate. After reading the anti-and pro-Rubio pieces and some of the anti- and pro-Cruz pieces on Ricochet and other places, I’m back to square one.
I can’t make my mind up and fear the Senate battle over Justice Scalia’s supreme court replacement will undo all.
Thankfully, I am able to keep reminding myself our trust is not in the strength of princes, but I wonder what the future holds, and I likely won’t get to vote until it no longer matters.