It’s the fight the media is waiting and hoping for.
What better sport than to start an intra-party Republican presidential nomination fight almost 4 years before the next presidential election and 3 years before the primaries.
But it’s inevitable, so if not now, when to start the discussion?
Via National Journal, The Emerging Rubio-Ryan Republican Divide:
Lumped together as two of the youngest and brightest Republican stars, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio parted ways on the fiscal cliff with votes that reflect divergent strategies for building their party and political futures.
Ryan, who accepted tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans in order to avert a potential economic disaster, is betting that the path to power runs through compromise and governing. After anchoring a losing Republican presidential ticket widely perceived as hostile to middle-class concerns, Ryan heeded polls showing the public ready to blame the GOP if the deal fell through. The powerful budget committee chairman loyal to House Speaker John Boehner is mostly playing the inside game.
Rubio, who defeated a sitting governor on the back of the tea party movement, is largely playing the outside game. He rarely bucks the GOP’s conservative base – consider his recent votes against an overstuffed Hurricane Sandy aid bill and a United Nations treaty protecting people with disabilities — though an opportunity looms in the anticipated debate over immigration reform. Rubio appears more invested more in cultivating his national profile than in courting leadership on Capitol Hill.
Read the whole article before you vote. There are twists to this simplification.
It’s probably not fair for me to poison the vote, but you might as well know that Jennifer “Mitt Romney is dreamy and everyone else is evil and stupid” Rubin already is throwing herself in with Ryan:
Ryan is the conservative fighter/Rubio the show pony.. The 2016 argument.. Really what hard vote and legislation has Rubio ever contributed?
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) January 2, 2013
If you had to vote RIGHT NOW for a Republican presidential nominee, and the only choices were Rubio and Ryan, for whom would you vote?
(poll open until 7 p.m. Eastern today)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
One vote for Marco Rubio.
Until two days ago, I continued to believe Ryan was conservative. Now I’m almost waiting for Rubio to disappoint too. How about a governor who has improved his/her state with tax cuts and deregulation? And how about someone who doesn’t want to be president but agrees to run because we need a leader?
Agree 100%. I had a lot of faith in Ryan. How dare him vote for Bonehead’s crap sandwich after all he said as a candidate? I’m sickeningly disappointed with him. I no longer trust any of them, and I await the next betrayal, be it from Rubio or whomever.
There are some good governors out there, however, says Hope as she springs eternal.
I can’t say I appreciate the professor furthering the left’s bilge by sullying this great blog with their so-called “journalistic” attempts at fostering disunity.
Now everyone just hold on a minute.
Wasn’t it just last year (well, 2011) that everyone freaked out when Newt Gingrich criticized Paul Ryan’s economic plan, calling it “right-wing social engineering”? Paul Ryan was the great hero back then. He was the great hero during the election, even though he chained himself to the biggest $#!+ sandwich the party had to offer at the time.
Gingrich was the villain, seemingly shot, snakebit, and screwed during the early primaries. Then all of a sudden he came from out of left field (where Pelosi sat) and became the big hero again. There was a point during the primaries when people would’ve paid money to watch him debate Obama. Some remember when he was The Next Reagan back in the ’90s. I dumped Gingrich years ago, but he brought me back last year and I’m still with him.
We’re a finicky lot, and strategically it costs us dearly. Our big strategy is usually “pick the guy who can win” (almost virtually never does). We need to stop with the Rove School news-cycle-long tactical view, reacting almost mindlessly at every little upset, and instead cool our jets and take a long view. Strategy, folks. Resources. Goals. Perseverance. Patience. Enough of this whack-a-mole nonsense.
As for me, the jury’s still out on Ryan. If he isn’t coming up with his great ideas, who is?
You’re a Palinista.
Yes, and being a Palinista is a good thing! The more Sarah joins in the fight, the better we and our country will be!
Exactly! She was my choice in 2008, 2012, and will be in 2016. I can think of no other governor who has accomplished as much as she has in the same short period of time.
That article…it’s astounding what passes for journalism nowadays. Conservatives are “hard core,” they “run (moderates) out of office,” and the “majority” of people think that the GOP is “too extreme.” That was contained in only one paragraph. Sure is a lot of derision to stomach on only one cup of coffee. I guess I need to find some soma.
I don’t like Rubio or Ryan. My vote is for “C”, “None of the above”.
You poisoned my vote by quoting Rubin.
I’m really not excited about either guy. Ryan is a child of the establishment and an inside the beltway type, through and through. He was a staffer, a think tanker and now is an establishment Congressman. Rubio, while great in the battle versus Crist, is disappointing. Every time I hear him speak he talks in sweeping generalities. And where were either of them in the fiscal cliff fight? http://jews4randpaul.blogspot.com/2012/12/ryan-and-rubio-are-strangely-silent.html
I was a staunch Newt supporter but now I’ve come to notice that Rand Paul is the only one willing to fight for our constitutional protections. I’m hoping he can convince enough non-Ron Paul supporters to go to his side to make a real run for it in 2016. Because I don’t think we will get what we want if either Ryan or Rubio win.
Neither Ryan nor Rubio could win with the current leftist bias media climate.
Speaking of biased propaganda media and climate, Al Jazeera bought Al Gore’s Current TV.
And they wouldn’t let Glenn Beck by it because he wasn’t close enough to Current ideologically. Somehow al-Jazeera is. What a friggin joke.
That SHOULD be the headline of the month!
With the growing Hispanic demographic, the left wants to be sure to put illegal immigration and the right’s position on it front and center for 3.9 years of ridicule to ensure another ‘rat candidate election in ’16.
So far, Rand has my ear as I’m liking what I’m hearing, but as soon as he starts sounding like his father, I’m afraid I may not hang around; his father is a bit too weird for my liking.
What is a Jennifer Rubin? A new mixed drink?
Would Rubio have voted “no” if his vote really meant something to the outcome? They would have strong-armed him, and he would have done exactly as he was told. I was not for Ryan for VP because I always thought he was Establishment.
Romney was as establishment as they come and on the very left at that, left of Ted Kennedy. His claim to be conservative was a delusion, a figment of his handler’s imaginations. Romney used leftist Alinsky slash and burn tactics throughout the primary then pussy-footed through the real campaign.
The only good thing about Ryan was that he had a BUDGET and modified it after Newt made some suggestions.
At least he’s concerned about spending.
Rubio is only one step closer to being a constitutionally qualified than Obama.
Neither Obama’s alleged biological father nor his adoptive father, were ever citizens. Obama went to school as a foreign national, was sponsored by foreign interests in school, law school, in the purchase of his mansion and as a candidate.
At least Rubio’s father did become a citizen. Still, he’s still not a natural born citizen in the strictest sense of the word, since his father was not a citizen.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen since his father was not a citizen when he was born.
Rubio’s parents were in the US at the permission of the US Govt when Rubio was born, therefore Rubio qualifies under the 14th amendment as nbC.
You are incorrect because the 14th amendment does not even mention natural born citizenship. It only addresses citizenship.
Senator Jacob M. Howard the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment described the clause as excluding “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Rubio’s parents were clearly foreigners/aliens and as such he cannot be a natural born citizen.
As a follow-up, I challenge Professor Jacobson with his astute legal prowess to look into the legality of Marco Rubio qualifying for Pres or VP. The media has successfully confused the greater public by equating “born on US soil” to being a “Natural Born Citizen”. Also, a Naturalized Citizen does not equate to Natural Born Citizen either. There is a distinct difference, and the media knows they must ignore it.
I may be called a “Birther”, but I’m first and foremost a Constitutionalist. Our founding fathers were educated mostly by their own determination to become enlightened (they studied history, read great writings, openly debated their beliefs, and most importantly they feared God). They didn’t attend politically fashionable schools to gain clout. They were guided by principles and morals and didn’t want to make a career out of politics.
I like Rubio, he’d make a great cabinet post, but I couldn’t vote for him because he is not qualified.
I would have agreed with you, but you said you like Rubio.
ryan isn’t great but I could vote for him.
will never vote for rubio.
ever.
What a knot-headed question…!!!
Rubio and Ryan sit in two different houses of Congress, and have two very different roles to play.
Both appear to have a lot of guts and a lot of principle.
Amen.
I’m finding it odd that a deal where the Democrats claim “victory” that ends the payroll tax cut, which most low wage earners see the most, is somehow a good deal for the little guy.
Oh, great. Three years for the Democrats and the Republicans-who-hate-real-live-Republicans to trash the two best candidates on the horizon.
This is your friendly, neighborhood Liberal warning you that neither of these men will survive the process. (See the Paul Ryan is Not A Conservative point, above.)
if rubio is considered one of the best and brightest then we are truly a nation of fools.
See what I mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w
Milton Friedman, reminding us of what so many forget…
And…get used to it…there are pickers of nits who CANNOT seem to appreciate any not-perfect person in office.
It make me wonder rather often how we get people as good as we do to expose themselves to the kind of abuse they face.
Not voting. Let them cancel each other out. I’ve had it — no more complaisant, clueless establishmentarians.
Palin or Rand Paul.
Pepe Fanjuls owns much of the cane sugar production in Florida. He was an early supporter of Rubio who hosted fundraisers early in Rubio’s campaign for senate. Fanjuls was a big supporter of Rubio before most of us who don’t live in Florida had ever heard of him.
When it came time to vote on sugar subsidies most Tea Partyers voted against continuing them, including Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson.
Rubio was the only Tea Partyish senator to vote to keep the corporate welfare in place benefitting Fanjuls.
Still, between the two, I’d have to go for Rubio. As far as I know, he’s only soiled himself with that one bad vote and he took a fair amount of flack for doing so. Ryan, on the other hand, votes establishment consistently. I use the Medicare Part D vote as a litmus test. If you voted against that when there was a Republican president, and Republicans controlled the Senate and House, then you are a man of principle. Ryan voted with his party to pass it. So did Boehner. Ironically, people we think of as RINOs, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, voted against Medicare Part D – on principle. Because it wasn’t paid for.
Okie dokie, so now let’s wait till some Journolist declares that “R” is to the right of Attila! Attila was a Socialist, a tribal leader dictator, just as bad as Lenin or Mao or Hugo.
Please, no more legislators! No senators, no representatives. Let’s stick with governors, (or V.P.’s in a pinch)
This!
I consider both Ryan and Rubio to be politicos rather than real conservatives. I’ll just have to wait until the 2014 elections to see which way the house and senate swing – conservative or spendthrift before choosing a potential candidate in 2016.
BTW, I support legal immigration; but I am against amnesty for illegal aliens from whatever country.
If my choice were Rubio or Ryan, well, I wouldn’t vote. Neither is Conservative. Both pays lip service to Conservative philosophy. Both are not to be trusted.
Rubio is the man who fiddled with Florida’s primary election dates to benefit Romney and exclude Palin. He’s also the one for whom amnesty is a high priority (what about the American citizens who voted for you to represent them, Marco?). Rubio makes a lot of noise, gives a good speech, and is very much like Christie in that respect. Just as I wouldn’t vote for Christie, I wouldn’t vote for Rubio.
My vote will not be sold for ethnic heritage and a nice story. I want principles. Conservative principles. I want someone who won’t lie to us, will stand firm, will uphold the U.S. Constitution, and will live and die by their oath of office.
That is neither Ryan nor Rubio, so no vote.
I am not inclined to give the media or lib pundits or anyone else the internecine fight on the right they are trolling for these days. Honestly, whoever Jennifer Rubin supports has ZERO influence on who I would support in 2016. I just don’t care what she thinks.
We have a deep bench and the Dems have their star sidelined with a concussion. Nevertheless, we are worlds away from the end of the game right now. There is plenty of time for our guys to stumble, fumble or otherwise knock themselves out of the game. Let’s not forget the real possibility the public develops a serious case of Dem fatigue between now and 2016 too. As some smart guy I know said on twitter yesterday, “BHO didn’t prevent depression, recession ended June 09 before his policies took effect.” Given that most people don’t feel as though we’ve come out of the last recession how will they react if we hit another before the end of the Messiah’s 2nd term? Then, of course, we have the bills for that free birth control scheduled to hit Julias where they live real soon too. There is a good chance any one of our candidates could run blasting BHO’s failed policies and coast to victory.
I think I will wait to see who is in the best position as we get closer to 2016. In the mean time, I am way more concerned with what the scores of media types to the left of Jen Rubin are up to.
I find Rubio and Ryan to practically be the same person. I had to give Rubio the edge based on voting history but ultimately I don’t trust him anymore than I trust Ryan at this point.
I don’t yet know enough about how Rand Paul is different from his father. If he’s deviated on the right subjects then I would consider him.
We need more choices. Hopefully, someone new will emerge before the primaries.
S A A A A A A A A A A A R A H!
1. I’m sticking with my strong preference that before a politician seeks higher office, they should be reelected to their existing job by a greater margin than what they originally won it by.
That leaves Rubio out for 2016 though I acknowledge his political gifts: he became FL Speaker at a young age, and his run against Crist initially seemed quixotic. Also, Rubio’s proposed tax break for Olympic medal winners did not thrill me.
So by default, I’m voting for…Susana Martinez, subject to her reelection results. (“I’ll be damned! We’re Republicans!”)
2. As Newt indicated on Meet the Press, the real question is whether the GOP in its present form can win against a Democrat A-team no matter who the nominee is.
If the choice is Rubio vs. Ryan, Rubio wins. Rubio possesses the same positives Ryan has, but wasn’t attached to a “losing” ticket. Both speak well from the stump, from prepared texts as well as extemporaneously. Both are considered men of ideas. Rubio wins because of the newness factor, the possibility of reaching into a needed demographic. Rubio’s resume is actually better, having been Speaker of the House in Florida’s legislature, as well as being seen as a product of the Tea party.
I have noticed something though in the “conventional wisdom” after the 2008 loss vs the 2012 loss: Ryan, even though he was part of a losing presidential ticket, is considered a viable candidate in the next presidential cycle, but Sarah Palin was (and still is) considered NOT a viable presidential candidate. I smell hypocrisy.
Bah. Nonsensical nothingness. Rubio made a symbolic vote in a chamber where he could afford to with the vote 89-8 and Ryan simply could not. He is too much a leader in the House and he votes against the deal, it likely does not pass at all.
Nothing more.
I believe the immigration reform should not only be centered on illegal immigrants, but maybe first on those who live here legally and contribute their knowledge and expertise for many years and even decades, but still do not have basic rights. If the U.S. wants to stay competitive among other nations it is better to invest in innovations and attract more scientists and specialists, not to alienate them. Please support the petition http://wh.gov/QX76 to grant at least permanent residence to specialists who legally reside, work and pay taxes in the U.S. for more than 5 years.
Sorry, Prof. You won’t get me to vote in this one. I think Ryan is a turncoat but I could never support Rubio, much as I like him. He has a citizenship problem, too. His parents were not naturalized until four years after he was born.
No quarter on this one. Natural born citizen = born in the US of two parents who are US citizens.
Period.
Allen West or Sarah Palin.
I”ve got good news for you, creeper. If Palin is the candidate, you get BOTH Palin AND West. She loves that guy in the VP slot.
[…] Rubio v. Ryan (Reader Poll) (legalinsurrection.com) […]
Ryan showed himself to be an historically lousy national candidate. He added nothing to the 2012 race. He was a colossal bore and a world class loser as a speaker, prepared and extemporaneous, both. He was no better than Romney in dealing with tough issues and questions and explaining conservative positions in ways appealing to potential voters. He lacked excitement and stirred none. His presence on the ticket did not help in Wisconsin, much less the upper midwest, or even in his own district. He did not help pull out more conservatives or convince any more swing voters. And he did nothing to help raise money. All in all, the biggest dud running mate since Goldwater’s William Miller.
Rubio is still new and largely untested. But Ryan has been tested and failed utterly and abysmally.
Rubio does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born Citizen. That requires both parents being citizens at birth…no other parental status can lead to nbC if you think about it for even a short time. The clause is to prevent foreign influence in the office…and if BaCrock hasn’t shown you why we don’t want that, I don’t know what will.
Where are the conservatives that understand and follow the Constitution?
Scott Walker