WATCH: 15 questions I won't be asked at tomorrow's debate.
Posted by Marco Rubio on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Most appealing answer: "It's not a vegetable, but I don't like mushrooms."
October 28, 2015
Marco Rubio answers questions.
Most appealing answer: "It's not a vegetable, but I don't like mushrooms."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
79 comments:
He seems very natural in the video.
Here is the deal - The pro-Amnesty Establishment wanted Bush, but groomed Walker as an alternative. Walker dropped out, Bush is spiraling down, so they are pimping Rubio. The official position of Althouse appears to be that Hillary!is the future and the best way to guarantee it is herd the RINOs to Rubio. RINOs for Rubio! Catchy, no?
F.G.
Is the "Pro-Amnesty establishment" like the Tri-Lateral commission?
On a different topic, I note that Rubio is not pandering to Boomers, that's good.
Are the same folks who dislike RINO's the same folks who dislike the "Republican Establishment"?
We used to talk about the Republican Party as a "Big Tent".
Nicely done.
Appealing. Authentic. Clever. New. JFK.
A Hillary attack on that nice young clean articulate Hispanic would tank her campaign.
Did you notice? No cackling.
Phil, Yes! A BIG tent! Room in it for everyone who wants to vote for a conservative. The rest can vote for Hillary! and have more progressivism.
Hey Marco? How many people did you let die in Benghazi?
It's really too bad the people in Wisconsin couldn't have voted for Trudeau.
Hey Marco? How many illegal email servers did you have?
Rubio is a very engaging guy. Unfortunately:
1. Who can say what he would do on immigration? Most likely, amnesty light.
2. He has already been duped and manipulated by Schmucky Schumer. He is not ready to deal with those people.
We need to retire the term "RINO" as it really makes no sense. Every Republican is a "Republican in Name Only" because all it takes to be a Republican is registering as one--or less than that, as many independents (particularly in states with no party registration) identify as Republican.
Now, if a "RINO" means "Republican to the relative left of the party"--say, a Republican who favors higher taxes, more domestic spending (I won't get into whether favoring more wars or less civil liberties or police power or legalization of drugs makes one "left" or "right" as that's another debate, but arguably more government makes one more "left")--the term "Left Republicans" or "LRs" makes more sense. "Moderate" Republicans I'd say would be to their right, but not as far right as the farthest right wing of the party.
"GOP Establishment" has less to do with the political spectrum and more to do with degree of power and influence within the party. Elected officials, big donors, influential pundits--any way you cut it, they're "establishment". Rank and file citizens with no real influence besides their own vote are not "establishment" no matter what their beliefs.
"1. Who can say what he would do on immigration? Most likely, amnesty light.
2. He has already been duped and manipulated by Schmucky Schumer. He is not ready to deal with those people."
That's possible. But it's also possible that he was burned by this episode, and far less likely to go down that path again. Sometimes it's the kid that burned his hand on the frying pan who is less likely to reach up on the stove.
Under the "only Nixon could go to China" theory the people you might want to watch out more for are the ones who have "political cover" to make such a deal.
Hey Marco - During your time at State, why did you use your husband's name to stuff your Family Foundation coffers?
Trump is a bigger democrat than Rubio.
The most noteworthy part of this is at the beginning, as he is driving up. First, HE is driving, not a chauffeur. Second, it is a small car, not a limousine. And judging by the natural way he parks, gets out and pockets the keys, it doesn't appear to be a staged show. It's as if this is really his car. The campaign could do a good job of juxtaposing this to Hillary arriving in a chauffeured limo or a huge campaign bus, the difference in carbon footprint, and the difference in respective images of entitlement. "He's like us" could be the catch line.
Brando, "MR" is sexist.
Rubio can communicate like no other candidate on either side.
He is excellent at making the conservative case.
Hey Marco - During your time at State, why did you use your husband's name to stuff your Family Foundation coffers?
Trump is a bigger democrat than Rubio.
If Trump or Carson win the nomination, I'm voting for AprilApple.
Rubio is not a hillbilly. He is the one candidate I worry about who could beat Clinton. He is pro immigration reform and moderate on other issues as well. Ann is right to want him as the nominee.
Only if Curious George agrees to be my running mate.
In addition to being a Democrat, Trump is a friend of the Clintons. Ever notice now he attacks Republicans with DNC talking points but barely lays a finger (so to speak) on Hillary?
Hey Marco? Were you frightened by the sniper fire when you arrived in Bosnia?
Bushman - I note that too. Trump is in this to hand it to his old pal, Hillary. I think Trump hates the GOP and he despises the very anti-GOPe base who supports him. Chumps and suckers.
Trump's rabid blind faith supporters are just that - willfully blind.
Trump is free to prove us wrong. I'm still waiting.
Hey Marco? If you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary why is neither your first or last name Edmund or Hillary?
My conjecture is that people who don't like mushrooms have never had them properly cooked-- dry, and on very, very high heat.
Hey Marco? How did you get so good so fast at commodity trading?
"In addition to being a Democrat, Trump is a friend of the Clintons. Ever notice now he attacks Republicans with DNC talking points but barely lays a finger (so to speak) on Hillary?"
Had another candidate--say Rubio, or Bush--donated to the Clintons' campaigns, and their scam "charity", and invited them to his wedding, and even had a long phone call with Bill Clinton just before deciding to jump in the race--you can be sure the people who are currently Trumpists would scream bloody murder and declare that candidate to be a secret leftist. The fact that they completely brush off this suspicion of Trump's actual ideology or loyalties sheds disturbing light on the thought process of Trumpists.
Trump I think is in this mostly as an ego boost--with that amount of money and fame, getting more attention than ever and maybe even getting nominated is a thrill to him. If he happens to help his buddy Hillary get elected and stick it in the eye of a GOP that he long despised, that's just as well. After all, what could be a better ego boost for him than having a craven corrupt Hillary "owe him" while not having to go through the difficulties of governing the country himself?
Hey Marco -- Will you disclose all the sell-out deals that enriched your private family foundation right after you became Secretary of State?
Hey Marco? Why were you kicked off the Watergate investigation?
Bushman and AprilApple--I agree with you both but I think we're whispering at the wind here. A Trumpist by definition will simply not accept any of this. Trump could announce tomorrow that he is doing all this just for his own fun and he thinks Hillary would make a fine president--they'd say he was misquoted by the media, and if you found video footage of him saying this they would say it's part of his elaborate long game.
My second conjecture: when Trump drops out of the race, he'll blame it on the electorate. Something like I thought the country was ready for me, but I guess it's not. I wish we had more people who could see, like me, what the country really needs. But it's probably going to take more time.
Yea Marco, us conservatives really want to know about your Sooper Seekrit emails! Hillary will be indicted any day now.
I do think Trump wants to win. His backup plan is Hillary.
So Garage, are you saying that Hillary and Bill didn't use her time at State to stuff Clinton Family Foundation coffers?
"Now that Hillary Clinton’s much anticipated congressional testimony is in the rearview mirror, the House Select Committee on Benghazi can move toward completing its investigation and issuing a final report. It’s also an appropriate time to urge standing congressional committees on both sides of the Capitol to press new investigations into a crony capitalism network the Clintons built inside the State Department. They ran a political cash register that blurred the lines between official government business and private enrichment and left behind many unanswered ethical questions."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/27/david-bossie-why-congress-needs-to-keep-probing-th/
If you really are an anti-GOPe type, then you should back Fiorina. She's smart, tough and capable. Someone that all Republicans can support. Personally I'm fine with either her or Rubio. A combined ticket would be best.
I'm saying you all don't give a shit about secret emails and insider trading. You care that Hillary is a Democrat. That's it.
So you can read minds?
Hillary is a crook.
Proof - I'd glady vote for any other Democrat running if your party would agree to clean house and express shame and embarrassment over that fact that your 'front runner' is a crook.
Sanders - O'Malley 2016!
If Biden was running against Trump, I'd vote for Biden.
Last question: Where the hell are you going?
Is his Senate office in a shop?
If Hillary was a Republican with conservative values but was involved in the same scandals and illegal activity, I wouldn't vote for her or have sympathy for her.
Bushman - exactly. If Hillary were a Republican - She would still be a crook. The R or the D doesn't matter. She's a crook.
TLDL (too long didn't listen).
Sound bites. I want only sound bites. Preferably soft and easy to chew.
I don't think a leftist Democrat in the White House in and of ittself is so bad--on the one hand they have a chance of being reasonable on civil liberties and avoiding unnecessary wars, and on the other hand their more damaging proposals won't come to pass as long as the GOP controls Congress.
But Hillary is the sort of Democrat I can't abide--not only is she incredibly crooked, she's incredibly incompetent, meaning government will be run as poorly and as venally as possible. On top of that, she always favors military force, and opposes civil liberties every time it matters. Her character is terrible. I wouldn't want a Republican like that in the White House either.
If we absolutely had to have a Democrat in the White House, I'd much prefer Biden or Sanders. But as there is no race now on the Democratic side, the only question is whether the GOP makes it a fight.
"avoiding unnecessary wars"
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Garage can only imagine other people having the same motivations as he himself has.
I don't think a leftist Democrat in the White House in and of ittself is so bad--on the one hand they have a chance of being reasonable on civil liberties
There's nothing more dangerous for a prole than a Democrat being 'reasonable'.
and avoiding unnecessary wars,
The HAHAHA isn't an echo, it's me joining in with EMD
and on the other hand their more damaging proposals won't come to pass as long as the GOP controls Congress.
Course they will. The only difference is that there will be a bit of political theater about a government showdown. The only question is whether the rubber stamp pretends to argue with itself or not.
"Rubio is a very engaging guy"
Matters more than anything.
Besides ethnicity, it's the one thing that would clearly and unmistakably differentiate him from HRC in the minds of moderates and LIVs to the GOP's benefit.
He has a shot at FL, OH, VA. The others, no so much.
Rubio is strong on the issues.
Trump - his talking points "It's gonna be great... It's gonna be terrific...I'm going to be great." Will fall flat. His only hope will be the low info voters.
"The HAHAHA isn't an echo, it's me joining in with EMD"
I said there's a "chance" they might avoid unnecessary wars--compared with a "centrist" like Hillary (and frankly, being politically craven does not make one a centrist) I think a leftist like Sanders is less likely to use the military to act out whatever weird frustrations he has with Bill Clinton.
Some GOP candidates might be able to avoid war simply because being from the right they have political cover to not have to worry about appearing "soft". It's the "we must avoid looking soft" crap that got LBJ into Vietnam.
What if Rubio gets the nomination, and then wins FL and OH?
The result will be a resurgence of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Charles Krauthammer made up that term. The left will re-create it as Rubio Derangement Syndrome.
They've already tried to re-coin it as Clinton Derangement Syndrome. That's all over the wires lately. Interesting how quickly they get on the talking points memo.
Anyway, if Rubio becomes POTUS, he'd better be a grand-slammer, because he'll be castigated so badly, so quickly, and so harshly, that BDS will seem like a common cold.
"Trump - his talking points "It's gonna be great... It's gonna be terrific...I'm going to be great." Will fall flat. His only hope will be the low info voters.
LOL, don't forget Yuge! and amazing!
I'm saying you all don't give a shit about secret emails and insider trading. You care that Hillary is a Democrat. That's it.
Well, to be fair to garage, Democrats have tied all their hopes to Clinton's bloated carcass. They really have no other realistic option now that Uncle Joe has decided to go gently into that good night. If I was a Democrat I still wouldn't vote for her but I imagine many millions will close theirs eyes, lie back and dream of Lizzie as they pull the Clinton lever.
I have been anti-Rubio in the past. He's not been reliable on immigration (to put it nicely). His career in the Senate was similar to Obama's with missed and "present" votes plus unremarkable legislative activity. He's never run anything larger than his campaign.
What Rubio has going for him is being the one person now running who could take Hillary.
At some point, people have to make a decision: whether they want to win or whether they want to "send a message" to someone, somewhere.
For the left, the decision is easy. They want to win and Hillary is their gal. She's tough, articulate, experienced, and basically supports their vision of how the country should run (higher taxes, more govt spending, more abortions, more gay marriage, weaker military). The far left will flirt with Bernie!, but at the end of the day, Clinton will trounce him, and he will get a nice book deal and ambassadorship to France or something.
For the right, the decision is somewhat more complex. They think the Left is terrible, but they don't trust the GOP establishment. They see many sellouts in the GOP who promise conservative policies to get elected, but in office make deals with the Dems to get amnesty, more debt, more spending. It's a valid charge.
But, again, it comes back to decision time. The precise question is, Who in the GOP is the most conservative candidate that can defeat Hillary?
I'm not saying I know the answer. For example, I really like Chris Christie, but I'm not sure how conservative he is (from Jersey) or whether he can beat Hillary.
The most Conservative is definitely Cruz. He will dominate in red states, but can he win swing states like Fla, VA and Ohio? I'm not convinced that he would beat Hillary.
So, I would simply suggest that conservatives have to do some hard thinking outside of their comfort zone, on how GOP candidate X will appeal to independents and Democrats, in addition to satisfying their own conservative base. It's a tough task. That's why most presidential elections since 1984, aren't blow-outs, the best a candidate can do is 53-47. I'm pretty sure 2016 will be close too.
"His career in the Senate was similar to Obama's with missed and "present" votes plus unremarkable legislative activity. He's never run anything larger than his campaign."
I'd say he's done more than Obama, and even his immigration misstep shows that he was willing to put his neck out on something (Obama did not do this in his pre-presidential career). Plus, Rubio had a longer and more distinguished state legislative career as speaker of the Florida house.
Granted, it's not like a governorship (which is probably the best pre-presidential experience for the job) and he of course will have to overcome his relative inexperience. In his campaign he'll have to demonstrate good judgment and an ability to learn fast--if he can do that, he may pull it off.
garage mahal said...
"I'm saying you all don't give a shit about secret emails and insider trading. You care that Hillary is a Democrat. That's it."
The idiot is not even self aware enough to notice his projections on others.
My own preference is to have a governor run for President because they’re more likely to have experience doing thinks like picking the right people to serve in important positions, setting a mission and driving it to completion, negotiating with legislative bodies (which at some point will be in control by the other party), etc. which are the things that a President actually does. I was originally tentatively for Walker until he decided to suspend his campaign and while there are certainly are still a lot of good governors running who I think would make a fine president, it doesn’t look like any of them are breaking into the double-digits.
Rubio’s impressed me by being smart, thoughtful and willing to stick his neck out in trying to tackle important and difficult issues. I didn’t agree with the Gang of Eight’s proposal on immigration reform and I’m glad that Rubio walked away from it but I don’t hold it against him that he tried to make the effort to craft the best deal he could. If anything, I think it’s made him more circumspect about similar deals which is why he’s wisely talking about taking any sort of amnesty off the table and focusing on enforcement and fixing the problems in our current immigration system that make it so difficult for people who are trying to follow the rules like we say we want them to. If he could get something like that passed and signed into law, I think it would do a lot to diffuse the immigration issue and build some goodwill among Latino and other non-white voters that Trump is undermining.
That's possible. But it's also possible that he was burned by this episode, and far less likely to go down that path again. Sometimes it's the kid that burned his hand on the frying pan who is less likely to reach up on the stove.
I'd buy that --- but there is about 30 years of track record here of Dems rolling conservatives.
Promise $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes under Reagan. They never deliver.
Promise to enforce border security after Reagan grants amnesty. Never did it.
Promise $2 in tax cuts for every $1 in tax hikes under Bush. Never happened and they attack Bush for breaking his word.
Vote FOR the Iraq War in 2002 and then IMMEDIATELY turn around and oppose it under Bush II.
At a certain point, you have to blame Charlie for constantly falling for Lucy's tricks.
But Hillary is the sort of Democrat I can't abide--not only is she incredibly crooked, she's incredibly incompetent, meaning government will be run as poorly and as venally as possible. On top of that, she always favors military force, and opposes civil liberties every time it matters. Her character is terrible. I wouldn't want a Republican like that in the White House either.
That's all Dems. I've heard Dems, for years, saying "Republicans hate the government and seek to run it as terribly as possible".
Yet Republicans run it better than the Dems do. The Dems are really inept --- and KEEP WANTING TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER.
Why more Republicans don't use Reason's photo of the police stomping on a college kid with the caption over the kid of "Wanted more government" and the police saying "More government"
I'd say he's done more than Obama, and even his immigration misstep shows that he was willing to put his neck out on something (Obama did not do this in his pre-presidential career). Plus, Rubio had a longer and more distinguished state legislative career as speaker of the Florida house.
His effectively quitting --- but not resigning --- his Senate seat is a problem for me. You can allow the governor to name a new Senator since you don't want to run again.
I would ask him why he thinks he is a natural born Citizen (since he is not, because he was born to non US Citizen parents).
"His effectively quitting --- but not resigning --- his Senate seat is a problem for me. You can allow the governor to name a new Senator since you don't want to run again."
I hold that against him. I'm not sure what FL's laws are for replacing Senators and if this has anything to do with the GOP keeping the seat, but either way, if you aren't going to make an effort at your job you need to step aside.
"At a certain point, you have to blame Charlie for constantly falling for Lucy's tricks."
I'd feel that way if Rubio went through with a bad deal and got screwed on it. But signalling interest in a deal and backing out when it became clear it was going to be a bad deal (or less charitably, when his own base reacted badly to it)? I think this makes him less likely than otherwise to oppose such deals in the future.
I will point out that while symbolism shouldn't matter, it does, and having a son of Hispanic immigrants lead the opposition to Hillary's extreme pro-amnesty position can be far more useful in the general election than otherwise.
"My own preference is to have a governor run for President because they’re more likely to have experience doing thinks like picking the right people to serve in important positions, setting a mission and driving it to completion, negotiating with legislative bodies (which at some point will be in control by the other party), etc. which are the things that a President actually does."
That's my thought--someone who knows how to handle public opinion, opposition parties and his own party's political factions, to do so withing legal and constitutional restraints, to manage a state budget and have to face voters for your record--all of these are crucial in presidents. We have had great presidents who were never governors, and terrible presidents who were, but in terms of pre-job training there's really nothing better.
Blogger Mick said...
I would ask him why he thinks he is a natural born Citizen (since he is not, because he was born to non US Citizen parents).
This is a damn good question. His parents, I believe, were naturalized as US citizens after he was born.
I'd feel that way if Rubio went through with a bad deal and got screwed on it. But signalling interest in a deal and backing out when it became clear it was going to be a bad deal (or less charitably, when his own base reacted badly to it)? I think this makes him less likely than otherwise to oppose such deals in the future.
I'd hope so. But my faith in Republicans learning a lesson (or, honestly, actually believing what they claim to believe) is really, really low after the 2014 elections.
I will point out that while symbolism shouldn't matter, it does, and having a son of Hispanic immigrants lead the opposition to Hillary's extreme pro-amnesty position can be far more useful in the general election than otherwise.
Telegenically, he's a dream candidate. Handsome, young Hispanic man with an attractive wife. He talks the game well. His story is impressive (far more than Hillary's attempts to fake a middle class upbringing).
I just question how much he believes this stuff.
It's why I have a desire to see Cruz win --- doubt he will, but I'd like it. Because I do believe he believes what he says and he knows how to back it up amazingly well.
But I think Rubio most likely will win. He'll be second and third place in enough locations to basically be the Dark Horse pick. I doubt he'll win a ton of races --- and if Trump crushes him in FL, then this is null and void --- but I think he'll do well enough to slide in.
I would ask him why he thinks he is a natural born Citizen (since he is not, because he was born to non US Citizen parents).
It doesn’t matter when or even whether his parents were US citizens since he was born on US soil.
@damikesc
Good assessment. Here's a pretty decent article (for the WaPost) that says Cruz has a good shot at the nomination. He appears to be a better fund-raiser (so far) than Rubio. Cruz is a little more to the right than I am, but I like him.
But, frankly I don't really know if Cruz or Rubio or someone else has the best shot against Hillary in the General.
I propose a mutual pledge. If Cruz wins the nomination, I will support and vote for him in the General. In exchange, if Rubio wins the nomination, you do the same. Whaddya say?
Blogger Mick said...
"I would ask him why he thinks he is a natural born Citizen (since he is not, because he was born to non US Citizen parents).
This is a damn good question. His parents, I believe, were naturalized as US citizens after he was born".
Rubio was naturalized at birth due to birth "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (8 US Code S. 1401 (1)) within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, due to his parents legal resident status. His parents did not naturalize until Rubio was 4, in 1975, 19 years after arriving here.
The Original Common Law of the US (natural law or law of nations) defines natural born Citizen as one born in a country of parents who are its citizens.
I like Rubio, although he is not "my candidate" (I don't have a candidate since Walker fizzled). The video shows why and how he is an appealing person, particularly compared to the phoney Hillary!
I am concerned about Rubio's participation in the "gang" for immigration reform, and particularly about the probablity that he allowed himself to be suckered by the Dems. However, if Rubio is the GOP's presidential candidate, and he is elected, that makes it more likely that the Republicans will maintain control of both houses of Congress, so the anti-amnesty side will have the ability to blunt pro-amnesty reforms even if Rubio supports them. In contrast, if Hillary! is elected, it will be Katy bar the door (so to speak) for amnesty.
The only GOP guys I won't vote for is Bush and Kasich. Rubio is not my first pick, but outside of immigration, he is solid.
@The Godfather
In contrast, if Hillary! is elected, it will be Katy bar the door (so to speak) for amnesty.
It's good to emphasize this. If Hillary wins, we are getting a boatload of amnesty.
@damikesc
Yeah, my thought is Rubio is pretty solid, but succumbed to the elites when he joined the Gang of 8. What about pushing for Cruz! He addresses your concerns and can win the nomination.......
All along there has been only one important fact- HRC is a corrupt politician who is going to be the democratic nominee.
I don't care hoe butt hurt you are, or will be, about any possible republican nominee are you going tell me that replacing RBG, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy with four young clones from the Kagen/Sotomayor school is what you want?
That would make it easy for me to know who you really are.
"I don't think a leftist Democrat in the White House in and of ittself is so bad--on the one hand they have a chance of being reasonable on civil liberties and avoiding unnecessary wars"
WTF?
damikesc said...
"The only GOP guys I won't vote for is Bush and Kasich. Rubio is not my first pick, but outside of immigration, he is solid."
Rubio was a dream candidate. I remember his Senate campaign in Florida. He was awesome. Then he sold out to the CoC.
Immigration isn't the biggest deal to me. To be honest if they just started arresting the criminals that come up and deal with the crime wave they are causing I would be fine. My family used to run an orchard and guess who I worked with during high school. They work hard and are good people. I still play soccer, which they take very seriously, in their league.
But.
Rubio showed that he will play ball with the donor class. He directly contradicted a campaign promise so he could push donor wishes and get donor money. At this point he cannot be trusted.
Brando said...
"I don't think a leftist Democrat in the White House in and of ittself is so bad--on the one hand they have a chance of being reasonable on civil liberties and avoiding unnecessary wars, and on the other hand their more damaging proposals won't come to pass as long as the GOP controls Congress."
So Obama sicks the IRS on his political opponents and he is reasonable on civil liberties. His DOJ is clearly racist. He already started 2 wars, is about to send ground troops into Iraq to complete his humiliation there, and has a gunship trolling around China's man-made islands. The debt ceiling increase to 19.5 Trillion dollars and constant use of continuing resolutions to pass budgets seems to get through the GOP controlled congress just fine.
This is why we can't have nice things.
"So Obama sicks the IRS on his political opponents and he is reasonable on civil liberties. His DOJ is clearly racist. He already started 2 wars, is about to send ground troops into Iraq to complete his humiliation there, and has a gunship trolling around China's man-made islands. The debt ceiling increase to 19.5 Trillion dollars and constant use of continuing resolutions to pass budgets seems to get through the GOP controlled congress just fine."
I hope you're not under the impression that I consider Obama good on civil liberties or avoiding unnecessary wars. My comparison is between Hillary (who is awful on both counts) and someone like Sanders (who at least plausibly could do better, though we'll never find out). Obama has proven to not have much trouble violating civil liberties or use military force willy nilly.
Post a Comment