ADVERTISEMENT

Marco Rubio’s big problem — and his party’s

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,440
62,556
113
Believe it or not, the Iowa caucuses are just over a month away. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — establishment darling and the cognoscenti’s assumed front-runner — is heading to Iowa for a bus tour, bringing along a shiny new endorsement from Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, head of the special committee on Benghazi. Can you feel the excitement?

Probably not, which is why this is an excellent demonstration of Rubio’s problem, and the problem the GOP is facing as the actual voting approaches. While everyone waits for the voters to finally figure out that they ought to be supporting Rubio, the only candidate who at the moment looks like he might be able to defeat Donald Trump is Ted Cruz. From the perspective of the party’s fortunes in the general election, that would be sort of like being cured of your electoral syphilis by contracting gonorrhea.

On one hand, it’s understandable that the Rubio campaign would try to make a big deal out of Gowdy’s support, since Republican politicians have been stingy with endorsements this year and Gowdy is well-liked among his colleagues on Capitol Hill. But when Trump dismissed the endorsement by saying that Gowdy’s Benghazi hearings were “a total disaster,” you could almost hear Republican voters nodding in agreement. The special committee was just one more iteration of the pattern that has Republican voters so disgusted with their Washington leadership: touted as the vehicle to bring down Hillary Clinton, it ended up backfiring and doing nothing but make Republicans look foolish. So once again, Capitol Hill Republicans overpromised and showed their constituents that they’re ineffectual. It’s hard to imagine that too many base voters, in Iowa or anywhere else, are going to say, “Well, if Trey Gowdy likes Marco Rubio, that’s good enough for me.”

For a contrast, look at the Iowa endorsements Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has gotten. There’s Rep. Steve King, who’s an embarrassment to the national party but is also perhaps the single most anti-immigrant member of Congress, a good thing to be right now (particularly given that immigration is Rubio’s area of greatest vulnerability among primary voters). There’s Bob Vander Plaats of the Family Leader, probably the state’s most influential evangelical activist. And there’s Steve Deace, the state’s most important conservative talk radio host. It’s an anti-establishment triumvirate, each with a genuine ability to bring voters along with them, all backing Cruz.

Of course, as much of a boost as a candidate can get from winning Iowa, it doesn’t guarantee anything, as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, the winners of the last two caucuses, can attest. (Little-known fact: both Huckabee and Santorum are running for president this year.) But unlike them, Cruz has laid a foundation in money and organization to take advantage of all the attention a win in Iowa would produce.

If you’re a Rubio supporter, you’re probably frustrated with the fact that your party’s base seems stubbornly unwilling to recognize Rubio’s obvious advantages for the general election. By now, a vigorous debate about electability should have been in full swing, with Republican voters trying to determine which candidate would have the greatest appeal to independent voters and do best against Hillary Clinton. But that discussion has been pretty quiet, for the simple reason that the voters don’t seem to care very much. They’re angry about the state of the country and they’re fed up with their party’s leadership, so telling them that Rubio has more crossover potential than Cruz isn’t going to be all that persuasive.

So Marco Rubio can have Trey Gowdy vouch for him, but at this moment, and for the purposes of the election’s first contest, it probably won’t do any good. That isn’t to say that things won’t change — it never hurts to remind ourselves that the voting hasn’t started yet, and there will almost certainly be a few twists and turns before the party picks its nominee. But the anger of the Republican base at the party’s leadership has all along been the driving force of this campaign, and that’s one thing that probably isn’t going to change. The question is who can best turn it to their advantage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...problem-and-his-partys/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
 
I still maintain that Rubio is really aiming at 2020.

He was my choice for this year, but lately he's looked like a whiny brat who can only argue with Cruz over miniscule parts of legislative bills that people like me know nothing about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
If they are angry with what their party is doing they are really going to be ticked when Hilary Clinton walks away with the election.

Ugg that means that of the two candidates that actually have a chance at winning the presidency this year the choices are between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Like I literally could not have hand picked two worse candidates from among those that ran for their party's nominations.

I hate our electoral system. I really really hate it.
 
He was my choice for this year, but lately he's looked like a whiny brat who can only argue with Cruz over miniscule parts of legislative bills that people like me know nothing about.

Rubio is banking his bona fides for 2020. He is positioning himself to challange HRC for her re-election if things go badly in her first term. If things go smoothly he will bid his time and look toward 2024.
 
...the only candidate who at the moment looks like he might be able to defeat Donald Trump is Ted Cruz. From the perspective of the party’s fortunes in the general election, that would be sort of like being cured of your electoral syphilis by contracting gonorrhea.
Nailed it. Or maybe the other way around. Which is worse - between syphilis and gonorrhea, that is, Cruz is worse than Trump.

Speaking of gonorrhea, did you know there are now reports of antibiotic resistant strains of gonorrhea in the UK?

There's something to look forward to.
 
His ads are nauseating. We get it already your father was a Cuban immigrant and look at you now a presidential candidate.

He is probably best shot with the general population but he is such a yes man. He doesn't have a bone in his body to stand behind a position. Would prefer him to Cruz bc Cruz is f'n nuts.
 
He was my choice for this year, but lately he's looked like a whiny brat who can only argue with Cruz over miniscule parts of legislative bills that people like me know nothing about.
Actually that was a very smart move by Rubio. Doesn't matter to most who aren't Hispanic. But basically Rubio got Cruz to admit - on national TV - that he opposes ANY path to citizenship for illegals, EVER. Even people who think illegals should face a stiff penalty, have to leave the country, and have to go to the back of the line and wait years for a shot at citizenship find that unreasonable.

Cruz will have to soften that position. But now, when he does start weaseling, it will be obvious that he is weaseling, and Hispanics won't trust him.

The bill Rubio supported - the one that could have passed as a compromise, bipartisan bill but which was shot down by the Tea Party wing - wasn't actually a very good bill (in my opinion) but Rubio will get credit for being "reasonable" on the issue.

Jeb was also reasonable on the issue. I don't know if any other GOP candidates have any traction with Hispanics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
But basically Rubio got Cruz to admit - on national TV - that he opposes ANY path to citizenship for illegals, EVER.

I don't know if any other GOP candidates have any traction with Hispanics.

I know what you mean, but I was thinking of their drawn out exchange on national security eavesdropping. It was ridiculous and normal people learned nothing from it.

As for the Hispanic stuff, clearly a lot of people do not support an open border which is what we have now. Let the Republicans carry that issue, I'd say it might work out for them in the end. I mean, "mi abuela" is not winning the hearts and minds either.

You might be shocked at how many Mexicans in this country don't support an open border either. Regardless of what you hear Cruz, Trump, or anybody else say, the "tone" is we can't have an open border, but the Democrats sure want it because hey, give away stuff and hope for votes, right? Works with blacks, and Mexicans are kind of black too, aren't they?
 
I know what you mean, but I was thinking of their drawn out exchange on national security eavesdropping. It was ridiculous and normal people learned nothing from it.

As for the Hispanic stuff, clearly a lot of people do not support an open border which is what we have now. Let the Republicans carry that issue, I'd say it might work out for them in the end. I mean, "mi abuela" is not winning the hearts and minds either.

You might be shocked at how many Mexicans in this country don't support an open border either. Regardless of what you hear Cruz, Trump, or anybody else say, the "tone" is we can't have an open border, but the Democrats sure want it because hey, give away stuff and hope for votes, right? Works with blacks, and Mexicans are kind of black too, aren't they?
As far as I know, all major Dems are on board with a fairly closed border. Remember, they were on board with the immigration reform bill (along with Rubio, Jeb, McCain and others) that the GOP blocked in Congress - which did have major concessions in that direction.

I agree that the debate about surveillance stuff was unhelpful. Someone should have explained it better. If I had to guess, I'd guess Cruz was more right, but not necessarily for the right reasons. The changes (which Rubio favored) turned over a lot of power to the corporate telecoms and other private concentrations of power without actually reducing surveillance, as far as I can tell. At least when the NSA was doing it we had some (theoretical) control over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Well, in Iowa, views and positions don't mean anywhere near as much as organization and I've been reading the last couple of days that all the big name pols in Iowa (Dems and Reps) are very impressed with the Cruz organization. With the caucuses it's all about getting your people to go to the caucus. Most Iowans don't go because (like me) they hate them. It's a royal pain in the ass to go and when you get there, you find that some redneck southern governor or something has stacked all the caucuses so you might as well have stayed home. Which I have since 1992. I hate the caucus BS.

Anyway, it sounds like gonorrhea Cruz has the Republican caucuses locked up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT