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.
Marco on the Move, or, a Sudden Eruption of Sanity?
As the Rubio campaign prepares to blanket Iowa with a 30-minute television special, The Hill reports that “Buzz Builds for Rubio.” An excerpt:
Buzz is growing on the ground in Iowa around Marco Rubio, who many political watchers believe is set for a stronger-than-expected showing at Monday’s caucuses.
In interviews with The Hill, Iowa Republicans and independent analysts in the state say Rubio is primed to break free from the second tier of contenders and finally emerge as the candidate to save the establishment from Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who are battling for the lead in Iowa.
“He easily has the greatest upside,” said Doug Gross, who served as Iowa finance chairman for the campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.
Forty-eight hours to go, folks.
Published in General
I hope so, but I remember the buzz about a Romney surge before the last election. Remember Pennsylvania and Michigan?
And Ted Cruz is insane?
Peter Robinson Grabs Squish Sponge From The Hands Of Rob Long
No, I get it. Rubio is genuinely solid (98% to Cruz at 99%, in my opinion). And there’s something to be said for Rubio being able to persuade people, a weakness for Cruz. Think about the down the ticket wins with a Rubio/Fiorina ticket, the Supreme Court picks, etc. There are great reasons for optimism with this guy, even if he’s not perfect.
When Marco Rubio is too liberal for you, there is just something wrong with the way you see the world.
Rubio has all the qualities that Hillary can not beat.
My first choice has been Rubio for a while now… I do get why Trump could win. I think it is very dangerous, but I get it. And will adapt if that is the case.
But Rubio is a person to vote for, not a choice between two evils.
Many of us on Rico have liked Rubio from the beginning of this cycle. I truly believe he is the best chance the GOP has to win a general election. Match him with a Martinez, Fiorina, or Haley and it’s a slam dunk.
Fiorina: snooze fest! Rubio could run alone. He’s has a disarming normalness to himself that Hillary does not.
From your lips to God’s ears…
Great, another conservative who, if he wins, will be marginalized by the same party hacks and “consultants” as usual. And we will have forever lost our chance to the destroy the prevailing status quo which has enabled the 60 years of mostly unbroken march of the left-progressives to remain in place as the elite consolidate their separate class status, and we serfs assume our designated servitude within the European Union that we have almost achieved.
“Our nation is headed in the wrong direction and both parties are to blame.”
Marco Rubio = more of the same
So, I take it you’re voting for Bernie. You gotta admit, he’s the most different.
Rubio: 12 to 30 million more Democratic voters assimilated in hard-left non-profits yielding a worse one-party state than we have.
These kinds of comments are fascinating to me. Out of a nation of 300 million people about a dozen people who have spent their adult lives in politics, navigating the realities of their party, begging from the same pool of donors, put themselves forth and attempt to convince lots of people that they are all the same thing. This is all for a job whose most important function is presiding.
Of course we’re going to get more of the same. That’s the whole thing.
Rubio is only sanity if you think doing the same thing over and over again will somehow how get you different results this time.
“Of course we’re going to get more of the same. That’s the whole thing.”
Then why bother? The same is what’s ruining the country.
If the Republicans lose in 2016 and Cruz runs again in 2020, we’ll be talking about how much of a lefty squish he is.
Any politician with a little skill at that level can position himself on the issues to earn a “conservative” label. What matters is who you represent. Considering Rubio’s merchandising of himself to the sugar interests in Florida, and his sellout to the chamber of commerce on immigration/amnesty, I consider it an act of sanity not to support him. I don’t particularly like Ted Cruz, but his taking on ethanol says what I need to know about him. Tim
Is not a matter of bothering and not bothering.
In poker a straight flush beats four of a kind. But you don’t toss a four of a kind hoping to draw a straight flush. Both hands have a good chance of winning.
In politics the difference between four of a kind and a straight flush is mostly a matter of opinion. You’d rather have a straight flush but if you can only convince people to join in on four off a kind you play that hand to win.
That’s just how the game is played.
Ending ethanol would be great for the oil industry. Cruz’s stand against ethanol is simply consistent with supporting his donor base, it’s not especially principled. Trying to win in Iowa by opposing it is pretty ballsy. If it doesn’t pay off in a victory in Iowa, though, it will just prove Ted’s arrogance takes risks his snake oil demeanor can’t deliver on.
You mean an Imperial presidency run by decries, completely ignoring congress and all previous democratic precedents?
All for naught. The Dems are gonna take it with 5 Aces.
I just got a very strange e-mail from the Cruz campaign, and I’m wondering if things are really that bad. I’m leaning toward Rubio at the moment, but I would hope Cruz was doing better than his email makes it sound:
This is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I’m emailing you again because you’re one of a trusted few.
I’ve got less than 36 hours to raise $126,000 or risk letting you and all of the dedicated volunteers in Iowa down.
The latest polling shows that Donald’s attacks against me are swaying voters, and unless we can hit this goal and give our volunteers the resources they need — we may not turn out enough voters for the Iowa Caucus.
It’s just a scare tactic to make you open your wallet. Cruz has tried a few shady tactics to get Iowans to support him. This mailer story below seems especially strange, and IMO opinion counterproductive.
Did The Cruz Campaign Send Out Mailers Attempting To Shame Iowa Voters?
The 30 minute infomercial is potentially brilliant. Propaganda works after all, and the late deciders might very well tune in, while tuning out the ads that they’re surely sick of by now.
Coupled with his solid debate the other night, it could push him to the top in the “final impression” contest — important in Iowa, which always seems to be decided by some goofy late surge.
Here’s hoping.
We’ve had an Imperial Presidency since 1932. Democrats are just better at using Caesar’s power. No one… not Rubio, Not Cruz, not Trump, and certainly not a Democrat, is going to change that. The Supreme Court’s cowardice in the 30’s enshrined the Empire into law.
It may be too cynical, but this seems like fundraising boilerplate. I haven’t heard from Ted in a few days, but this is pretty much identical to the emails I get on a pretty regular basis from 2A groups: “We’re desperate! Only a few hours left before Obama tries to takes all your guns by Executive Order. Your urgent donation…”
SANEBOX!
Neither Peter, nor the article he quoted, stated or implied that Cruz was insane. The phrase was “save the establishment from . . . Ted Cruz.” Cruz is certainly anti-establishment, and bless him for it.
Ross Douthat at the NY Times had an article earlier this week asking why Rubio wasn’t doing better, and positing that it is because he is too conservative for the establishment. I know, it’s the NYT, but Douthat is a reasonably solid conservative (the only one they have, I think) and a good analyst.
I have warmed to Cruz since San Bernadino—thinking that perhaps voters will want toughness over likability this cycle—but, I still think Rubio is our best chance of winning the general.
AP, I try never to let facts get in the way of the occasionally half-decent snark. I’ll have to admit, tho, that I was somewhat willing to read that into Peter’s not specifically excluding Ted from the headline’s implication, within the body copy.