Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

This “Not One Red Cent” blogger can fall in love with Marco Rubio again

This “Not One Red Cent” blogger can fall in love with Marco Rubio again

Pat Austin sees “the same things in Rubio that I saw in 2009”

SHREVEPORT –About six years ago, in May 2009, I received an outraged email from Stacy McCain. He had just learned that the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) had endorsed Charlie Crist in the 2010 Florida Senate race fifteen months before the primary.

As you may recall, Mel Martinez was retiring and so this was an open seat which as it happens had an up-and-coming, very promising conservative Marco Rubio vying for the seat against Crist.  Rubio was just out of his former position as Speaker of the House in Florida.

A host of other conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin, Erick Erickson and John Hawkins, also were furious that the NRSC would attempt to trump the voters in a state race and endorse Crist who had by that time already shown some allegiance to Barack Obama by supporting the stimulus plan.

The NRSC endorsement ignited a grassroots campaign for the charismatic and conservative Rubio, and the Not One Red Cent blog was born.  Within two weeks the blog had already hit thousands of readers.

I was one of the writers on that blog in those early days.

I’d like to believe that our writing helped propel Rubio’s campaign as he gained momentum and eventually dominated Crist in that election.  The blog was born on May 15, 2009 with Stacy McCain doing the first thirteen posts.  My first post was number 14 on May 16, 2009.

Within the week, Carol’s Closet was on board, as was No Sheeples Here and Doug Hagin.  We picked up a few others along the way.  In May 2009, we put up fifty-seven posts on Not One Red Cent; by the end of 2009 we had posted 146 times, but by the end of the year Rubio had picked up significant steam and was crushing Crist in the polls.

What initially sold me on Rubio, my first introduction to him, was that now famous farewell speech he gave when he left the House.

That speech was 7 minutes and 23 seconds of heart-felt brilliance.  He never used a prompter and the only time he used notes was when he read a quote from John Kennedy.  In that speech, Marco Rubio spoke passionately and from the heart about American exceptionalism.  He spoke openly and freely about God, too both of which earned him a standing ovation at the end of the clip.

After the election, conservatives were elated; we’d seen a couple of years of Obama then and the future looked bleak.  Rubio’s patriotism, passion, and personal story offered hope.  There was a new breed of Republican we could lift up!  Enough of Romney, McCain, and the other retreads!

But then came the Gang of Eight bill and conservatives turned on Rubio like Caius Cassius on Julius Caesar.  Traitor!  We should have known that sneaky Hispanic would try to slip through an amnesty bill!  He lied to us!

So, when Bill Jacobson asked a couple of weeks ago, “can conservatives fall in love again with Marco Rubio?”, I was really interested to see what kind of response he got.

It wasn’t pretty; the comments were terse and definite.

“No.” 

“Nope.  He sold out when he did the amnesty deal.”

“No.  Next question…”

One comment even accused Senator Rubio of flip-flopping on his pre-election immigration stance.

So.  Let’s look at that.

In May 2009, Beth Reinhard for the Miami Herald wrote:

In response to a question about immigration, Rubio dropped his previous pleas against harsh attacks on illegal workers. He said he would not have voted in favor of the legislation — backed by Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez — that would have allowed illegal workers to earn legal status, which he called “blanket legalization.”

“Nothing is more disruptive to legal immigration than illegal immigration,” he said. “We must secure our borders.”

No blanket amnesty was his position in 2009; “Secure our borders,” he said.

But the Gang of Eight bill proposed just that – amnesty for millions of illegals before securing the border. (Nobody really believed Washington would enforce border regulations).  Traitor!

No.  No traitor.

I fully agree with Byron York’s analysis of Rubio’s Gang of Eight maneuver:  he was simply trying to get out in front of Obama’s executive action:

“Here’s my big worry,” Rubio told me during an interview while the bill was making its way through the Senate. “I fear that if this thing fails, the president will basically say to anyone in the U.S. who has been here more than three years, who has not committed a serious crime…he’ll say, ‘We’ll do for you what we did for the DREAM kids.’ And the problem with that will be you will have 10 million people legalized in the United States by executive order, so that when there is a new president, if it is a conservative, a Republican, one of the first decisions they will have to make is whether to yank that status from those people and deport them. I cannot imagine a scenario where a future president is going to take away the status they’re going to get. I believe it’s what [Obama] will do. Maybe not all 10 million, but he’ll do it for six million.”

He was 100% prescient on that.  That’s exactly what Obama is going to do. Rubio knew this before Obama threatened to use his pen and phone.  Yes, it’s an unsavory idea to give amnesty when so many others follow the rules and become citizens the right way.  I agree with you. But face it – it’s going to happen.  Obama’s got that pen and he’s going to do it.  And what Republican president is going to undo that?

It’s not that Rubio changed position on immigration so much as that Obama has forced his hand, the hand of any Republican that wants a realistic shot at regaining control of this country and righting the wrongs of the past six years (soon to be eight, and Lord only knows what the next two years hold).

I hear you:  Ted Cruz wouldn’t have made that deal!  He’d have never stood up there with Chuck Schumer, Lindsay Graham, and John McCain!

Probably not, and that’s why I don’t think Cruz, as much as I love him, stands a snowball’s chance in hell at the White House.  Just my two cents.

This is Rubio’s position today on immigration:

What I would do if I was president, the first thing I would do is, I would ask Congress to pass a very specific bill that puts in place E-Verify, an entry-exit tracking to prevent visa overstays, and improve security on the border. Once we achieve that, step two would be, we would modernize our legal immigration system, less family- based, more merit-based.

And then the third step would be to pass the bill that goes to the 10 million people that are here, or 12 million that are here illegally. If they have been for longer than a decade, they have to pass background check, they have to learn English, they have to pay taxes, they have to pay a fine. And they would get a work permit.

And after a substantial period of time in that status, assuming they haven’t violated any of the conditions of that status, they would be allowed to apply for legal residency, just like anybody else would, not a special process. And after you’re a legal resident, after a number of years, by law, you’re allowed to apply for citizenship.

It’s a long process. It’s a reasonable process. It’s a fair process. But it has to happen in that order. And it begins with serious enforcement measures.

I’ve got no problem with that.  Background check?  Yes.  Learn English?  You bet.  Pay taxes?  Absolutely.  A series of permits and applications with both an entry and an exit system?  Works for me.  Legal for a number of years before citizenship?  Yep.

And if he’s elected, can he do it?

I think he can.

So, my old friend Bill, can conservatives fall in love with Rubio again?

This one can.

I love his passion; I love his patriotism, I love his belief in American exceptionalism.  I love that he believes in the Tenth Amendment.  Issues like gay marriage or education issues should be left to the states.  He’s against Common Core.  He wants to loosen massive government regulation which now controls every aspect of our lives from light bulbs to the lunch your kid gets at school.  I love his support for Israel and his belief that we should not negotiate with Iran.  I love his quick mind and his ability to think on his feet.

For this original Not One Red Cent blogger, I still see promise in Marco Rubio and I still see the future.  I see a man that can work with both sides of the aisle; I see a man that can attract votes from all demographics.  I see a man that might look younger than he is, but has the wisdom of experience and the experience of leadership.  I see a man with a compelling personal story and a man that can rekindle a patriotism and love of country that we haven’t seen in a long, long time.

If people will listen to him, if they’ll give him a chance, if they’ll quit waiting for Reagan to rise from the grave, I think they’ll see the same things in Rubio that I saw in 2009.

Promise.

The future.

—————————–

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

DINORightMarie | April 23, 2015 at 9:11 am

I’m sorry – for you; who can trust him after his Gang of 8 betrayal?!

He will do whatever it takes to be on the crony establishment insider’s A-list. Like too many before him, he sold his honor, his reputation, his political “soul” to the McConnell GOP establishment – on a very hot, key issue he SWORE he would not support during his Senate run.

That’s a death knell for me, and most of us in the non-NRSC-insider clique.

A key issue for values voters is personal integrity. Rubio got caught “doing the Arafat.” Arafat was infamous for saying one thing in English, and something opposite in Arabic. Rubio was caught, denied it, and then admitted he had said something completely different about amnesty on Spanish language TV than his English pronouncements. He has many compelling virtues and an inspiring history. However, this one issue is so important that there can be no room for doubt in a candidate.

    In a sad way, I’m glad I’m not the only one who was thinking this. At the very least, he did nothing to head off that impression at the pass.

      Rick in reply to JBourque. | April 23, 2015 at 11:53 am

      Wish we were an English-only country, at a minimum with respect to all things dealing with government: all government offices, all government notices, all ballots, all campaign literature and speeches, government schools, excepting foreign language courses as second languages.
      The multiple language crapola is dense here in California.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Tregonsee. | April 23, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    In a recent double interview with hispanic media – one in spanish, the other in English – the Spanish version spoke at length on immigration while the English version did not address immigration whatsoever. I’d love to hear a good reason for that.

“I see a man that can work with both sides of the aisle; I see a man that can attract votes from all demographics.”

This is where you lose me. I don’t care if the next Republican president works with both sides of the aisle. I would like to see ten judges nominated for every one Obama has appointed. Those judges should be appointed even if it takes “The Nuclear Option” to do it. Then the Obama nominees can be relegated to traffic court or somewhere where they can’t cause trouble. I want to see prosecutions of all illegal activities by this administration. Like the communists that were indicted by a Grand Jury and never prosecuted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activists-cry-foul-over-fbi-probe/2011/06/09/AGPRskTH_print.html

Leftist prosecutors are running around Wisconsin harassing law-abiding people and not prosecuting real (communist) criminals.

I want to see Sotomayor and Kagan impeached for their refusal to recuse themselves, or, in the alternative, add two more Conservatives to the bench. Make it 4 for good measure.

The Leftists in this administration are using judicial forfeiture to confiscate cash deposited in banks by law-abiding citizens. I want illegal aliens to face the same forfeiture. Take the money they are illegally earning or getting from the government and they will go home all by themselves.

I don’t want to hear any more talk about how they are here to stay. I certainly will not listen to any talk of amnesty until a fence and moat are installed. There can be no discussion about their rights here, until their government allows U.S. Citizens the right to own property in Mexico. Without reciprocity, there can be no discussion.

As far as I am concerned, this invasion is a violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and as such, an Act of War. And if they don’t like it, they can petition the U.S. government for statehood.

This little racist rant of mine in no way puts Obama Care on the back burner. Let’s “deem” that repealed, too.

The last round of immigration debate was a good chance to fix the laws, but the red-faced screamers like Michelle Malkin failed to deliver. The reason is, they declared every measure short of active deportation of all illegal aliens was “amnesty,” and even though they stopped a bad law, they could not get anything enacted in its place.

What a shame.

Ted Kennedy deliberately left a hole in our immigration laws, by refusing to put in place a guest worker program, which is a tried and true solution for illegal immigration, and which both Republicans and Democrats recommended at the time, precisely to avoid the foreseeable problems with the current law.

Enacting a law where ordinary people come here just to work is not “amnesty.” It is fixing a deliberately unreasonable part of our law.

I agree wholeheartedly that the path to citizenship should not be through an illegal act, and the law that allows birth tourism, as well as the notion that the only consideration for immigration should be existing family ties, should be changed.

We need to correct a law that has been bad for decades. We can make the question of citizenship be decided on a case-by-case basis, with a presumption that illegal entry into the United States is the equivalent of a decision to opt out of citizenship. In my opinion, people who come here illegally have chosen not to subject themselves to our laws, and neither they nor their offspring (even if born here) are not eligible for citizenship.

So, is anybody prepared to read up on this? Can we put an end to Ted Kennedy’s deliberate inculcation of chaos at our borders?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Valerie. | April 23, 2015 at 10:13 am

    “The last round of immigration debate was a good chance to fix the laws, but the red-faced screamers like Michelle Malkin failed to deliver.”

    I’m sorry, is Michelle Malkin a US senator or US House rep? Why do you ignore the entire US Congress to blame Michelle Malkin of all people?

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | April 23, 2015 at 10:31 am

    The reason is, they declared every measure short of active deportation of all illegal aliens was “amnesty,”…
    ——————————————–

    I’ll call bullshit on this. Put up your links.

    Seems like someone is hysterical here, but it ain’t Malkin.

      riverlife_callie in reply to Ragspierre. | April 23, 2015 at 4:30 pm

      Exactly, Rags. The red-faced screamer Valerie lost me when she called Malkin a red-faced screamer. Anything she said after that was just white noise.

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | April 23, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Enacting a law where ordinary people come here just to work is not “amnesty.”
    ——————————-

    Well, no, and nobody says it IS amnesty. It IS crappy economics from the standpoint of unemployed American citizens, however.

    It also happens under current law at every border crossing in several states EVERY FLUCKING DAY. Mexican workers drive, walk or ride into the U.S. to work.

    What the hell are you thinking?

    Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | April 23, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    I’m compelled to do a bit to offset the down-votes because most of what Valerie says here is reasonable, e.g., “people who come here illegally have chosen not to subject themselves to our laws.” That is the nub of the issue, isn’t it? (I just think there’s a misplaced “not” in the following clause.)

    As for this — “Enacting a law where ordinary people come here just to work is not ‘amnesty.'” – it clearly refers to a guest-worker program whereby people can enter the country lawfully, presumably for seasonable labor like harvesting produce. Has anyone talked to crop farmers about how many U.S. citizens typically respond to ads for doing that kind of work?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | April 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      There are no ads. They snap up illegal immigrants. I conducted a DWI substance abuse assessment a fews weeks past for a woman here illegally working a NC tobacco farm nearby for the past couple years. Her niece acted as interpreter. She said her aunt was paid $2.25 per hour, cash, under the table.

      As for guest worker visas, anyone care to guess how many simply stay when the visa term runs out?

      Mensa in reply to Radegunda. | April 23, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      “Has anyone talked to crop farmers about how many U.S. citizens typically respond to ads for doing that kind of work?”

      Wait a minute. Before you go full “Doing jobs Americans won’t do” on me, these people are not just picking lettuce. They have taken over construction and other segments of the job market at a time when many U.S. Citizens are unemployed. This is not the time to say U.S. Citizens will not work. You might not want to pay $17.00 for a bag of carrots, but citizens will work. For the market to work properly, the cost will have to be passed on. That we can agree on. But that would make SNAP cards worthless, wouldn’t it?

      This really is about our representatives enlarging the pool of eligible voters. They would have me, as a voter, 4/5 of a person, and we know how well that turned out the first time.

      What is in this fiasco for U.S. Citizen voters? What do we get in return? What do we have to do to get some representation? Or better still, how do I become illegal so I, too, can be represented?

      Can anyone explain how amnesty helps the 80 million unemployed citizens of this nation?

        Radegunda in reply to Mensa. | April 23, 2015 at 11:58 pm

        I never said or implied that those people are only picking lettuce. I’m saying that an argument for a guest-worker program is not the same as an argument for amnesty and open borders — and the insinuation that it’s the same thing is dishonest.

        There are seasonable jobs (like picking strawberries in the hot sun) that are difficult to fill with U.S. citizens; even teenagers scorn to do them these days. If farmers are hiring illegals, it’s probably because the illegals are there asking for the work — and no one else is. Why not a legally regulated guest-worker system then?

        Some people have argued that the best solution is to import our food instead of bringing in (temporary) workers to harvest it — i.e. pave over our most fertile land and become dependent on other countries to feed us. That’s crazy.

          Mensa in reply to Radegunda. | April 25, 2015 at 8:03 am

          Obviously, you want to ‘cherry-pick’ my comment and not respond to the pertinent part- “How does this help the 80 million unemployed/underemployed Americans?”

          But be that as it were, I shall be delighted to respond to your allegation guest worker programs equates with amnesty and “the insinuation that it’s the same thing is dishonest.” But first, I must say your allegation falls short when you claim “I never said or implied that those people are only picking lettuce” then go on to allege “There are seasonable jobs (like picking strawberries in the hot sun) that are difficult to fill with U.S. citizens”. (as if the sun is cooler for illegals.) I was referring to construction and manufacturing jobs. But let’s take your premise. Why should illegal aliens only be relegated to jobs that U.S. Citizens won’t do? Are they some how less of a person because if the choice their parents made? That smacks of elitism. If they are good enough to pick the crops we eat why shouldn’t they be allowed to take construction jobs? Why not manufacturing jobs, jobs in the government or nuclear reactors? Maybe we should have the government issue 2 illegal aliens to every citizen to do the work we won’t do.

          Look, when you put a potato seed in the ground you get a potato. When you want to sell potatoes and you put 100,000 seeds in the ground, you better have a legal way of retrieving the product. If you don’t the crops are worthless. It is the same with any business- don’t make more than you can bring to market.

          This is not about Americans not wanting to work. This is about Americans not wanting to work for the wages they are offered. Bringing in strike-breakers from outside the country is the tactic employed to reduce costs. This tactic has other implications, though. Illegals, by their very act of coming here illegally, have shown they cannot be trusted to follow our laws. Including election laws. Election judges here in my state are forbidden to ask for ID from a voter. How do we know if a voter is a eligible if we are not allowed to ask? (I have an answer to this, but want you to think of more implications than just who will pick our strawberries.)

          This is the camel’s nose under the tent. Why shouldn’t they be fireman, police, or teachers? They could work for six months and go back and another can come and take the other six months. Think of all the money we would save on truckers alone!

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | April 23, 2015 at 2:17 pm

      How’d that down-vote offset work for ya? (lol, j/k)

        Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 23, 2015 at 11:46 pm

        Why the nastiness? I pointed out that Valerie made many comments that are clearly against unlawful immigration — and y’all pile on her (and then on me) because of her views on one single point: the merits of a guest-worker program for seasonable labor (or on Michelle Malkin).

        I’ve heard farmers say that few teenagers today (let alone adult citizens) will do the berry-picking and bean-picking jobs that used to be routine summer employment for many an American teen. I don’t buy the idea that all the non-citizens who are harvesting produce are displacing citizens who desperately want those jobs.

        By the way: I did quite well in math, so I had no expectation that my one up-vote would suffice to outweigh all the down-votes. LOL.

Henry Hawkins | April 23, 2015 at 10:16 am

Mr. Austin is welcome to his opinions, but this is just apologetics and an attempt to rehab Rubio. Rubio took a chance, it didn’t work out, his supporters were lied to, and now he’s paying a fair price for it.

1. We don’t need to fix any stinkin’ law; we need to ENFORCE the law!

2. I’ll never support “Benedict Arnold” Rubio.

Perhaps we should be more concerned about the fact that when York tried to “explain” Rubio by saying he was just trying to get out in front of Obama – Rubio said he could not imagine any president (himself included) reversing Obama’s (illegal) executive orders, which means that Marco Rubio could not imagine himself following the rule of law. He could not imagine himself doing anything else than leaving (illegal) executive orders in place, conferring on illegals rights they do not have by law, and forcing executive branch officials to follows Obama’s (now Rubio’s) illegal decrees contrary to law and contrary to their oath (and Rubio’s oath) to faithfully execute said laws. It is pretty sad when such comments are not seen immediately as outrageous and subversive of the rule of law!

“… Rubio’s Gang of Eight maneuver: he was simply trying to get out in front of Obama’s executive action: …” That is so thin.

When it happened I believed that Jeb Bush and Carl Rove were behind encouraging Rubio to join the Eight in order to wrong foot a potential 2016 rival. I still think so, but I also Do Not believe that Rubio will follow the will of the people as far as dealing with illegal aliens.

We the people have made our orders clear, no illegal amnesty till long after the borders have been proven secure.

Is that so hard? Stabilize the border and then takes as much time as necessary to deal with the illegal aliens that are here.

Rubio’s been a crony of Jeb Bush his entire political life.

Rubio’s been sucking up to ranking republicans, and disassociating himself from Tea party types for years, even though such people essentially elected him.

Rubio is kind of dumb and has zero experience in the non political real world.

He’s been a major disappointment for Florida, and I’m ready to support his challengers if he ever runs for the Senate again.

A long time ago I read something about a South American country where the people had to tie ropes around their waists in order to hang off cliffs so that they could grow food for their families because American fruit companies had gained control of all the rest of the land. They grew crops but exported everything to the higher markets in the US and let the people starve. Those people managed to elect a popular leader who planned on taking way land from foreign fruit companies and re-distribute it among the people. The American fruit companies complained to the CIA and they went down there and assassinated the popular leader.

I don’t know anymore then that about that story but I do know we have had think called the Monroe Doctrine and that makes me wonder why South American is not filled with thriving free market republics.

    riverlife_callie in reply to betty. | April 23, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Harry Reid, is that you? Did you know that I heard that Mitt Romney never pays taxes?

    Yujin in reply to betty. | April 23, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, I remember that. I was there with my very best friend Brian Williams. It was so sad. Eventually the people started eating their feet to survive. Luckily Brian and I were able to start a foot transplant program. People from Australia generously donated kangaroo feet. Using the kangaroo feet these poor people were able to jump through the plantations grabbing fruit from those evil Americans.

Everything that disgusts me about DC and the Republican Party, in particular, is embodied in a Gang of Eight that includes the likes of Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The fact that Marco Rubio saw fit to join that Gang, unfortunately, tells me everything I will ever need to know about him, regardless of his reasons for joining it. You are who you surround yourself with. Is he hopelessly naive or incredibly cynical? It doesn’t matter. He’s not a stupid man, he’s a free man and he made his choices.

That the issue of this ‘Gang’ happened to be immigration, perhaps the issue most crucial to our nation’s survival only makes his choices, his ‘pragmatism’ (I love that word!) so much worse. He was elected based on promises to do one thing on this issue and he did the opposite. He panders and lies on a scale even worse than most of the rest of his ‘Gang’. Think about it – Schumer, Durbin, they are more honest than Rubio.

He believes in America. Big deal. I believe in America too. But I believe that elected officials should be held to account. If they promise their constituents something, they should try to deliver, not act on some gauzy dream or gang up with some of worst characters in the Senate.

Schumer, Durbin, McCain, Graham. That’s all you you need to know about Rubio as president. He’ll be making deals with them because ‘he believes in America’. Dreamy, huh?

pablo panadero | April 23, 2015 at 11:24 am

Maybe if Marco Rubio had executive experience, he would not have made such a blunder with the gang of eight. That is why I am all in with Scott Walker. Under extreme pressure, he got results and kept his coalition together. He threw no one under the bus and persevered.

Marco can get some executive experience by being mayor of Miami, governor of Florida, or secretary of HHS in the Walker administration. Until he has that experience, he is too much of a risk.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | April 23, 2015 at 11:27 am

I’m just an amateur observer on the sidelines, but from my vantage point the corruption that has taken place at the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s tenure at State will likely strengthen Ted Cruz’s appeal the more rancid the corruption is revealed. Cruz has been running against the establishment of BOTH parties since before he was elected. Nobody has to try to convince his supporters to “come back home”. He’s been true to his word all along.

He reminds me of when people were urging Margaret Thatcher to abandon her principles and reform agenda and make a “U-Turn” back toward the status quo. She refused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I

I think Cruz will refuse to abandon his principles, too. He has taken on the “greybeards” every chance he has gotten despite tons of opposition from the media, Democrats and “greybeard” Republicans who like the status quo. Ironically, none of them matter. The people who matter are the 15% of voters who are not partisan ideologues. The people who took power away from Republicans in ’06 when the Iraq War went bad, gave Obama the presidency in ’08, then started putting the GOP back in charge of Congress in ’10 and completed the job in ’14 to try to put a restraining order on Obama’s agenda. And something tells me those people are not going to like the Clinton corruption. It does not mean they will like Cruz, but that’s what the debates are for and I think that’s when he will win them over.

But what do I know. The GOP primary voters have picked the wrong candidate every time except 1980 and 1984. They’ll probably pick wrong again. But they’ll do it without me.

“But then came the Gang of Eight bill and conservatives turned on Rubio like Caius Cassius on Julius Caesar. Traitor! We should have known that sneaky Hispanic would try to slip through an amnesty bill! He lied to us!”

It’s hard enough to push back against the lefties who want to paint conservatives as racist. Why do you do the same? I’ve never heard one word of criticsm for Rubio based on his Hispanic heritage, and I find it extremely offensive that you offer that as the basis for the criticism he rightly deserves and brought upon himself.

You have nothing to say here anymore, in my opinion.

Marco Rubio is an excellent speaker.
And of course I voted for him for Senator versus Crist.

But is that it?
That’s how you make your decision?
Based upon who is a good speaker?

My question for Mr. Rubio would have been, if your purpose is to stop Obama’s pen, if you knew you were going to piss off your base, then why do it? His choice to take a mug shot with Schumer, McCain, etc. is the very toxic behavior that he was elected to Not carry on in the first place. So my judgement of him has many layers. I judge him by the company he keeps. I judge him by his choice to stand with the very same people he was elected to fight in Washington. I judge him for not finding an alternative solution to making the case of stopping Obama’s pen. I think he needs to find out what kind of politician he wants to become and not let his past indiscretions define him. He’s young (and I don’t mean his age), easily influenced politically.

I thought it was interesting you singled out Ted Cruz. Maybe he’s really resonating with the people and he’s starting to scare his opponents, who knows? I like Ted Cruz because yes, he would have NEVER joined the gang of 8 and I think that’s awesome. You would never question if he would have made that egregious error because despite Rubio’s reason for doing it, Cruz would never turn on his base like that without making a solid case and getting their approval. His message of Washington is broken and I’m going to do something about it is resonating. His stand to repeal Obamacare, whether he succeeds or not, is epic. His plan to abolish the IRS is pretty orgasmic, in my opinion. The concept of filling your taxes on a postcard???? WHY is it not believable? Because no one in Washington would even dare to try. When he talks about immigration his first words are always secure the border. He has cajones, ya gotta give him that and you need cajones to take on the establishment because THAT”S where the money is and where there is money, there’s corruption. So, say what you want about the wacko bird because when he and Mike Lee tried in December to make the case against Obama’s amnesty:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395145/knives-come-out-senators-cruz-and-lee-andrew-c-mccarthy

It proved to me that Cruz is not afraid. And that’s who I want in a leader, not someone who doesn’t know who he really wants to be yet.

We should have known that sneaky Hispanic would try to slip through an amnesty bill!

I don’t buy it.

I certainly read nothing from any conservative pundit which bore any resemblance to this statement. That sort of vileness is a characteristically Liberal aberration—in fact, one of the things which makes modern Liberalism genuinely intolerable.

And locally, while the LI amateur commentariat has some weirdos and a couple of genuine jerks, I’d be very surprised if it has even one who is so primitive as to attack Rubio in this way.

In short, this is not the venue for selling your damaged goods.

    I noticed this line, too. It’s rather sad that some conservatives have to engage in accusing conservatives of RAAACISM for not supporting Rubio. He brings out the progressive in his supporters, I guess.

    The flip side of this is that, reading the comments, it’s clear that Rubio being Hispanic has zero to do with our opposition to him. If it were that, as is strongly suggested here (“sneaky Hispanic,” indeed!), then why would the very conservatives who do not support Rubio be so strong in their support of Cruz? It’s a nonsense argument that undermines the entire Rubio cheerleading squad.

You included in your post my comment from the earlier thread, “No”.

Let me refresh that for you: Hell NO.

Nothing you have written has changed the nature of Rubio. He is an unprincipled politician, content to say what he perceives will garner him votes, and legislate to curry favor with the “elite”. He will sell out those who elected him.

Henry Hawkins | April 23, 2015 at 1:43 pm

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW, MR. AUSTIN?

“It’s not that Rubio changed position on immigration so much as that Obama has forced his hand”

I stopped reading here because the point is so completely ridiculous. Is it really that impossible for a Republican to conceive trying to stop Obama from doing something that most Republicans (the voters, anyway) oppose?

And how exactly can you be forced to do what you know is bad, if someone’s not actually holding a gun to your head?

This is a phony argument, put up in defense of a phony candidate.

I have to say I’m conflicted. Reality rears its ugly head, how do you deport 10 million people, many who have lived here decades? Mind you, I’m not advocating for amnesty, just wondering how one goes about doing that?

Personally, I’m all for deporting Congress. They made this mess and the ones in there now will NEVER do anything about it. The problem begins and ends with us, the voters who keep letting them get away with it.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to JoAnne. | April 23, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    One idea is “attritional deportation” (as opposed to massive roundup), wherein what would essentially be a bench warrant is issued for every identified illegal immigrant. Over time, this idea holds, illegals would be caught and deported in a slow trickle, but eventually all would get netted one way or another.

    Ragspierre in reply to JoAnne. | April 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    An eVerify program with teeth for employers proven to knowingly have violated its terms, PLUS prohibition of welfare state benefits to illegals would yield a mass self-deportation in the space of a few years.

    Barry in reply to JoAnne. | April 24, 2015 at 1:32 am

    Henry and Rags have given you the answer. It’s simple really, they come here to work or receive benefits. Take away the freebies and put employers in jail that knowingly hire illegals and, presto, the problem is solved. They will sneak back across the border on their own.

Juba Doobai! | April 23, 2015 at 7:43 pm

Usually, Pat, people are reticent to proclaim they haven’t learned anything new in six years and for good reason: they’re saying they don’t process information analytically and draw new conclusions in light of changes in facts, however slight.

What was your reason for making such a proclamation?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend