About Rubio’s Oft-Repeated Criticism Of President Obama
[guest post by Dana]
At the GOP debate Saturday night, there was a brutal exchange between Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. During it, Rubio made a repeated observation and criticism of President Obama. It is a statement he has practiced many times, using it not only on the debate stage but on the campaign trail. And it’s an observation I agree with:
“Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world,”
Rubio repeated a variation of the same line at least four more times during the exchange.
Seeing an opening, Christie ignored the content of Rubio’s observation and criticism, and instead pounced on him as someone inexperienced, unprepared, and not able to do anything more than parrot himself, let alone handle the presidency:
“Look at this! There it is again! The guy, he doesn’t know what to say. He’s a robot. He’s got his 25-second speech. He’s got his canned answer followed by the 25-second campaign. There it is! There it is! You see it!”
Rubio looked like a chump, Christie looked like a bully. Because politics.
Anyway, when I watched the exchange, I wondered, instead of bulldozing Rubio, why didn’t Christie agree with his basic statement – that this president has indeed, willfully and with great intent sought to cut America down to size and transform our country into something unrecognizable? Certainly every presidential candidate would be able to acknowledge the truth of this, no? Given that I hadn’t heard or read anything about the exchange other than criticism of Rubio, it was a surprise to hear Rush talking about it today from a different perspective. One that echoed – and answered – my questions. While I don’t think it would have necessarily changed anything about the debate, it was good to hear something I had been thinking about delved into and fleshed out.
Rush first considered the few candidates who have been unafraid to voice their own similar criticisms of the president:
There are only two people that I’m aware of that are making a consistent point of this. Rubio, actually, is atop of this. Rubio and Cruz are the only two in the entire Republican field. Carly Fiorina may have said something like this occasionally. With Rubio, it’s a theme. With Cruz, it’s close to a theme. And the real question is: Why do the other Republicans in the field disagree?
Why do they not say it themselves, that Obama is doing what he’s doing on purpose and by design? That is a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed plan to transform America into something it was not founded to be. This is something crucially important to Republican voters. To people inside the Beltway, it’s kind of a chuckle. “There they go again, those right wingers!” To people inside the Beltway, to the elites, to the establishment, Obama’s just the latest Democrat to come along.
He’s no different than any other Democrat. “It’s just the Democrat Party, and they have a president.” They don’t see the country in crisis in any way. Not because of the economy, not because of immigration, not because of foreign policy. In no way are we in a crisis. And, as such, they don’t see what Obama’s doing as anything except maybe a young, inexperienced — this is Christie’s point — incompetent boob. Well, that’s not who Obama is. Rubio’s opponents are using it to disqualify him. “See! Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, and Rubio’s the same kind of guy, just a few short years in the Senate running for president. We can’t afford it.
Then the governors on stage were put under the microscope:
“Meanwhile, the governors! We’re the guys. We’re the tough guys. We’ve had to make tough decisions,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The governors will not admit who Obama is. The governors will not admit it, and Trump does not agree that Obama is purposely doing this.
And why wouldn’t they admit that this is indeed who Obama is, and has been since Day One? Why not jump at the opportunity before 13 million viewers to contrast their own vision for the country with Obama’s progressive transformation of America? Because it would have cost them. And they knew it:
They cannot agree that Obama’s doing it on purpose. They do not dare say that Obama’s doing it on purpose because they have all worked with Barack Obama, in one way or another, every one of these governors, many of them, and even a lot of Republicans in the House and Senate have worked with Obama to advance certain elements of the agenda.
We’ve worked with Obama on the spending bills. We have worked with Obama, or we want to, on amnesty and immigration. There are some on the Republican side who want to work with Obama when it comes to issues on the so-called War on Women. But when you have worked with Obama, when you have asked Obama to come to your state, and when you have embraced Obama and done everything you can to get assistance from Obama, well, you can’t turn around and then say Obama is purposefully trying to transform the country ’cause that makes you look like an idiot.
And worse, it would make them look like hypocrites who are guilty by association. (Of course, had the GOP Republicans not spent the entirety of Obama’s presidency betraying conservatives by consistently surrendering to the Democrats and compromising on the issues most important to the voters, there wouldn’t be any guilt by association.) But as it is, there is virtually no longer any daylight between GOP Republicans and Democrats. They’ve done it to themselves.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 2/8/2016 @ 7:40 pmObama got Christie Bruce Springsteen tickets. What did Rubio ever get him?
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 7:49 pmRepublicans, Democrats: same, same.
navyvet (c33501) — 2/8/2016 @ 7:52 pmI don’t disagree,
MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:10 pmBut there was a more proximal point that Christie wanted to make,
Which was that 1st term senators make lousy presidents.
Megyn Kelly put the Rush/Rubio/Cruz/”Our” point before Christie tonight and his reply was,
No one buys that.
I understand that, MD. I guess my point is that it was also Christie backing away from that which would expose him to another sort of criticism. And one which he could ill afford.
Dana (86e864) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:15 pmRubio and Cruz should continue to bang that drum. Loudly. Repeatedly.
JD (f36f05) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:18 pmI think we largely agree.
Yes, Christie is not about to identify the underlying problem with Obama.
MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:20 pmChristie’s point is far more nuanced than pointing out the inexperience of a junior Senator, but he made a mess of things and turned into a bully in the process. The point is that Rubio isn’t telling us what he thinks, he’s unable to speak extemporaneously on the issues, and instead resorts to canned, memorized sound bites. And like Obama with an internal teleprompter, he’s very good when he sticks to the script. Unfortunately, this type of preparation doesn’t allow Rubio moments like Cruz had with that farmer in Iowa, and as such he’s starting to worry many Conservatives that he doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. And that is a far more damnable point than being robotic.
Sean (221079) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:30 pmSean,
I don’t think it’s that Rubio doesn’t believe what he says, but rather there’s nothing underneath what he says. he doesn’t strike me as someone who thinks too deeply about things. Therefore, if he had the opportunity to talk to the farmer the same way that Cruz did, I’m not convinced he would understand the impact it could have, both on the farmer and on Rubio himself. Christie can’t help being a bully in the same way Rubio can’t help but be shallow. It’s who they are.
Dana (86e864) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:53 pmRush money from the R.N.C. Old golden mikey needs to get off his azz and speak honestly who he will back. Not much of a show lately. He would be better off playing cuts of the white comedian for 3 hours. Perhaps tomorrow will be better. Ha, ha. Rubio is burnt toast. He won’t qualify as a v.p. candidate.
mg (31009b) — 2/8/2016 @ 8:57 pmSean,
Did you see Rubio’s response regarding ISIS? That’s not a canned response. He’s the best extemporaneous speaker we’ve got. He doesn’t stumble over words, or say, “Uhhhh,” or “You know what I’m saying…” and “Ummmm” like most people in the public sphere.
Have you ever heard any of his radio interviews with Hugh Hewitt? Hewitt doesn’t give him the questions in advance.
Rubio’s light years away from Jerry Ford talking about how “there’s no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe.” Or Bob Dole talking about himself in the third person. Or George H.W. Bush talking about “this, this, this vision thinngg.” Or George W. Bush, saying, “Uhhhhhhhh….uhhhhhh….”
Donald Trump has zero executive experience of the kind that Christie was referencing. Zero. But I don’t see Christie making an issue of that. Trump’s the guy in first place in the polls—why isn’t big tough Christie attacking him? Certainly, Rubio ought to have planned out a response to an anticipated attack by Christie. But if Rubio had one, you guys would be whining that he had a rehearsed response to an attack he knew was coming in advance. (LOL)
I like Cruz and I like Rubio. I also like Fiorina. I don’t harbor hatred for any of the other candidates, although I think Trump is a bully and by definition has been a Democrat for many years. I really don’t understand why Reagan’s 11th Commandment has been so brutally ignored.
I mean, this whole “robot” thing…Christ, Ronald Reagan was the last nominee we had who could actually string three coherent sentences together that had noun-verb agreement.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:05 pmDIABLO…
why bother?
redc1c4 (ecde6a) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:18 pmRubio/Rush/Ailes/Kelly/Sammon/2016
mg (31009b) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:30 pmCash Money, Homey.
Cruz Supporter, Ford was a fighter direction officer.
Whatever else I have a large regard for the man on that basis alone.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121339,00.html
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:36 pmI’m not a Rubio fan, nor detractor. This stuff is nonsense. Christie is desperate and large.
Gus (a084f0) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:38 pmFox has more to lose than any other cable news network. Let the dominoes fall.
mg (31009b) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:43 pmDVNotch
Kasich-3
Trump-2
burnie-4
mg (31009b) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:59 pmbill and his wife-o
Gerald Ford doesn’t get near enough credit.
https://worldhistoryproject.org/1946/2/23/gerald-ford-is-honorably-discharged-from-the-us-navy
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:10 pmGod. d@mn.
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:14 pmWho here commenting has that kind of pedigree?
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:15 pmThe Greatest Generation. Then they went and spoiled it all by birthing the Baby Boomers.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:22 pmFord was a decent president, but I’d still have voted for Reagan if I’d been old enough.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:22 pmThere’s a lot of people who accused Reagan of being a lightweight and a dummy prior to his election. They accused him of being nothing but a frontman or a pitchman for the puppeteers who really intended to run the White House, should he win the election. And they said he had good hair, and a nice face, and was charming, and was good at memorizing the script that those puppeteers had placed in front of him. (Almost sounds like 2016 all over again.) In fact, there’s some people who’ve called themselves “Reaganites” during the past 30 years who admit now that they underestimated Reagan prior to his election. Dick Cheney’s one of them.
Reagan made some mis-steps in his record as Governor of California. By the same token, I think Rubio ‘gets’ that the Gang of 8 is infuriating to a lot of the base.
Reagan was a big ideas guy. He believed in the over-arching limited government, strong national defense, free markets approach, but he left the details and policy structure to the numbers-crunchers and policy wonks. Of course, that’s how he ended up with Iran-Contra, because Poindexter, North, et al, were attempting to hammer out “the details.” And they got duped by some bad actors from Iran. It happens.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:23 pmI just don’t think people should underestimate Rubio’s intelligence. Nobody who speaks that well is a dummy. And you don’t ascend to Speaker of the House in Florida by age 34 if you’re a dummy. Did you people see his response about ISIS in the New Hampshire debate? He was a treasure trove of details AND big-picture strategy. He studies this stuff. Like Reagan, I think he’s a big-picture guy who ascribes to limited government, strong national defense, and free markets. Are there some blemishes—like the sugar subsidy—yes. But lobbying is a part of representative democracy. It’s also freedom of speech. And of course since 1913 when Senators began being popularly elected by voters rather than the state legislature, it really has accentuated the demand for a Senator to have a war chest courtesy of lobbyists. Rubio needs money to campaign in a big state like Florida. Big Sugar gives it to him. If there were enough people who gave him five bucks to REJECT Big Sugar, he’d probably do it. But most people don’t give money to politicians. Also, let’s keep in mind that US Senators are not representing “the national interest,” rather, they’re representing the interests of their constituents (theoretically, of course, although direct election of Senators invites lobbying money from lobbyists everywhere.) So, if there’s a demand by enough Floridians (who donate money) to subsidize sugar in Florida, a Senator in Florida is likely going to strongly consider supporting it.
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Nevada are probably the swing states that will decide the next President. We need a nominee who can connect with voters in those states. And in many of those states, it may just come down to a few key suburban counties which decide if the state goes red or blue.
Ford would have been tough to caddie for.
mg (31009b) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:24 pm#18 Steve57,
I’m talking about public speaking—not resumes.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2016 @ 10:33 pmI’m not discounting Jerry Ford’s impressive resume. There’s a big percentage of the electorate who votes for President based on “likability” and/or the impression they get when they see/hear them speak. Most of our GOP nominees during the past 40 years have not been great public speakers. George H.W. Bush flew in WW2. I honor that. But he wasn’t a great public speaker. Dole lost the use of his hand when he was injured in Italy, I believe. But he wasn’t a great public speaker. It is what it is. On the other hand, Clinton and Obama didn’t have as impressive resumes, but they connected with voters in their public engagements. They won, so they got to govern.
We need a nominee who can connect with voters.
Christie to Megyn Kelly tonight, “No one buys that.”
He was just being a lawyer at an argument. Never admit there is any merit to what the other side says, no matter how reasonable it is. That’s how I saw it. It’s desperation time for him, so he’s pumping out the false bravado.
I actually kind of like Christie, but he’s definitely #3 on my list behind Cruz and Rubio.
DakotaBoy in Iowa (38a59e) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:04 pmGoing with someone whose stances are for sale (As Cruz Supporter points out with Rubio’s sugar subsidy problem – thanks for doing that CS) is a great way to get the kind of corruption we like to criticize democrats for.
Likability ratings? Ben Carson tops most polls for that, with Carley Fiorina second, so maybe that’s a point in their favor?
What we don’t need is someone who has the Romney problem; coming across as canned, inauthentic, and as was often said about Romney, robotic. And I think we all know who has that problem, and he had it even before the debate. That, as 2012 proved, didn’t work out so well.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:16 pmRomney was 64 then, Rubio is 44 now. Romney was a candidate for retirement, a used-up burned out old man, like McCain before him. Rubio is at his prime with a lot of life still left in him. (Cruz too, I ain’t saying nothing against him.)
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:22 pmHaving lived almost my entire adult life a BART-ride from Nancy Pelosi’s district, I would argue that the behavior Obama and fellow liberals is unrelentingly purposeful. But does their understanding of the consequences of their action rise to the level of “knowing what they are doing?” I don’t think so; I’m inclined to side with Christie on this one. Let me explain why.
The underlying question is this: Do magical thinkers know what they are doing? It’s a good question. There’s no doubt that a magical thinker will behave in purposeful ways, but does that fully constitute awareness of the outcomes that will flow from those acts? Can a magical thinker accurately anticipate the outcomes of their actions? Clearly, the answer is no.
Why is that and does it matter? It is because, to liberals, outcomes are a secondary concern. The primary concern is one of virtue and virtue signaling. The only question to an Obama is “do my views and behavior comport with ‘enlightened’ ones?” Only within this limited view of culpability could one argue that Obama knows what he is doing, which is clearly not the argument Rubio was advancing. And to those of us who view moral action as something greater than the pursuit of poorly informed best intentions, it matters a lot.
By the way, Dana, Kasich’s comment about how he should be running as a Democrat is the perfect confirmation of your final point.
ThOR (a52560) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:45 pmRubio is a punk, canada crud is a sociopath, christe likes to hug obammy, juan bush is a momma’s boy,kasich a non enity like fiorina. Trump is da man!!!!
trumpet (ffd999) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:13 amDana, and this is why I don’t agree with our host and others who seem to think that Rubio is some kind of establishment stooge. Rubio knows full well just what kind of disaster Obama is leaving and how much will need to be done to pick up the pieces. Cruz or Rubio, I don’t care, if I cannot have Walker.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:17 amRubio/Ailes 2016
mg (31009b) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:18 amIf you want to talk about robots, go back and look a the transcript at how many times Christie asked the same question: “Why didn’t you [Rubio] persist with the [bad idea] of the Gang of 8 bill with its path to citizenship?” To which Rubio replied, every time “Because it was shown to be a bad idea, which could not pass in any event, and I stood corrected.”
Rubio, it seems, is a person who can learn from mistakes. Christie is a guy who, having seen an opponent make a mistake expects him to 1) continue to make it, or 2) admit he’s an idiot for not continuing to make it. The question was asked and answered and Rubio’s real problem was in not breaking through the badgering. Christie is a desperate politician throwing Hail Mary after Hail Mary and that was 4th down.
Come Wednesday, this won’t be Christie’s problem any more.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:19 amRubio/Curly 2016
mg (31009b) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:20 amRubio/Mo 2016
Rubio/Larry 2016
Your choice.
trump/putin 2016
mg (31009b) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:21 amCruz/Rubio would be interesting. Male hispanic voters aren’t too keen on the welfare state or abortion to begin with and for the Dems to trash talk two male hispanics would not go down well.
And Rubio is the kind of kinder/gentler VP that can succeed to a third term if things are going well.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:26 am#34: All aspects of The Donald.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:27 amCruz/Koch (either one of them) for maximum ‘sploding of lefty heads.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:27 amBetter still, Koch/Koch (they live in different states).
trump/putin
Please. Putin has class.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:28 amBecause it’s not like the New Jersey candidate never repeats himself, right?
Dana (86e864) — 2/9/2016 @ 6:14 am“Reagan was a big ideas guy.”
And I’d betcha dollars to donuts… oh, wait… Christie ate ’em…
Colonel Haiku (8f010c) — 2/9/2016 @ 6:26 amtell me again, how this is anything but ‘enemy action’
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/board-reverses-firing-of-another-va-executive/
narciso (732bc0) — 2/9/2016 @ 6:28 amReally, Kevin M? According to government statistics 41.6% of blacks, 36.4% of Hispanics, 17.8% of Asians and 13.2% of whites are on assistance. And in New York City 59,147 or 77.56% of the total babies were aborted by blacks and Hispanics who comprise 25.5% and 28.6% of the population respectively.
So I’d say your Hispanic male is very well apt to be comfortable with both welfare and abortion. Why do you think they vote democrat, because they’re attracted by Debbie Wassername-Shultz’ beauty?
Rev. Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 2/9/2016 @ 6:31 amBTW, 100% of “refugees” and “asylum seekers” are immediately placed on government assistance programs including food and housing. The democrats really know how to break in a new dependent constituency. The good news is after only one year that 100% sharply declines to only 86% since 14% died, were murdered by their fellow “refugees” or “asylum seekers” or were returned to the filthy sh!t hole they came from. However those dead and returned can still vote absentee for Hillary!.
Rev. Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 2/9/2016 @ 6:41 am#27 Arizona CJ,
I’ll be happy to have an on-going civil debate with you about Rubio as the primaries proceed. Your assertion that Rubio is corrupt because he supports the sugar subsidy is completely over the top. It’s not corruption, it’s just the wrong policy. Lobbying is an exercise in freedom of speech, as well as the freedom to seek redress from your representative. It’s just part of the process of representative democracy. Your inference that Rubio’s “for sale” is a little puritanical. Every Senator has a vote or votes on their record which we’d all roll our eyes at. As Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” Sugar is an industry in Florida, and he voted as an influential industry in his state lobbied him to vote. Arizona CJ, but how the heck do you know that Rubio doesn’t actually believe in the sugar subsidy as a good policy for Florida? Are you a mind-reader? (LOL) When you suggest his vote has been bought, you need to be able to make the case that he wasn’t intending to vote in favor of the sugar subsidy in the first place. That’s what BUYING a vote means.
Senators in farm states vote for subsidies for Big Agriculture, Senators in coal states have done the same for coal, I’m sure. Senators representing states that have had the defense industry (California, et al) have been lobbied by defense contractors for federal contracts to be awarded to the contractors in their state. This is just lobbying, dude.
As far as the likability aspect goes, that’s important. Just go back through each Republican VS Democrat nominees during the media age. The nominee who is believed to be more likable has won. Public speaking is a big part of that equation. Ford, the Bushes, Dole, McCain…they were all very underwhelming public speakers, particularly during the debates. We need someone who can give a two minute answer like the one Rubio gave on ISIS last Saturday night.
I totally agree that Romney lacked passion and conviction when he spoke. Rubio doesn’t have that problem. Of course, “likability” is a subjective call. You seem to dislike Rubio very much. But a lot of people find him to be very likable and an excellent if not the best extemporaneous speaker we have.
By the way, have you listened to his interviews by Hugh Hewitt? I’m sorry, but that’s not a robot.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2016 @ 7:55 amPatterico:
Because Christie’s whole point is that experience matters, and inexperience causes someone to make mistakes (beyond whatever ideology or malice would do, of course) If experience didn’t matter, then he’d be on the same plane with Rubio.
Rubio’s counter to this is that Obama did NOT make ANY (any is implied) mistakes because of ideology or malice.
This is not something Christie wants to agree to.
By the way, there’s actually a problem with Christie’s thesis, (that he has experience, unlike Rubio and Obama but nobody spotted it.
Rubo could have said that IF wxperience made somebody good, that Barack Obama would be very good by now.
But if, after seven years as President, which he has now, Barack Obama isn’t so great, and both he and Christie agree on that – I saw that, later in the debate, Christie gave a criticism of Barack Obama’s management capability NOW * – with the VA – then why should Christie be competent after seven years as Governor, which is what he’d have by the day he was inagurated???
Or does only the experience BEFORE somebody becomes president matter, and the pace of the presidency is too hectic to learn on the job?
Actually, mybe no amount no experience helps some people, and others need little or none.
This goes beyond ideology, or even bad campaign promises he wants to honor, but asserts that Obama is deliberately doing things to get a wrong result because he wants that the wrong result. Anything that goes wrong, he did on purpose. Rush Limbaugh has said something like this, and I guess Rubio liked it, or his campaign consultants liked it, because this is something Rush Limbaugh has said. It did sound familiar to me. But not to many or any of the political talking heads on TV.
And Rush Limbaugh repeated it yesterday:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/08/the_real_question_why_won_t_anyone_but_rubio_and_cruz_say_obama_is_destroying_the_country_on_purpose
Now I think that is not true. There is a little bit of truth in that Obama wants to diminish the international importance of the United States, but he has actually come around a little bit the other way now. He’s now saying America is the indispensable country. He saw that with ebola, which is kind of peaceful and not earlike thing. He recognizes our wealth and numbers means something.
Obama never wanted to destroy the country – what good would it do him? Transform? In a way people won’t like?
Wouldn’t he have had more success if that was what he was trying to do? I mean if he wasn’t also incompetent? But that concedes the point on incompetency! It argues that in addition to being incompetent, he wants to destroy this country, but he’s not succeeding because he’s incompetent at that.
Or is it the idea that:
A) As Adam Smith said, there’s great deal of ruin in a country, so he hasn’t succeeded in doing that, even though he is both trying to do so and competent at it.
OR
B) He’s nearly destroyed the country, but the election of a conservative Republican who is not a RINO, and not Donald Trump, can restore all or most of it, and make our country great again.
Anyway, it’s not that he has has destroyed the country. Nobody ever says doomsday has actually arrived – not even climate change or population bomb fanatics, although 10 or 20 or 30 years ago they said it would hapepn by now.
* re: Barack Obama STILL incompetent, evben with 7 years of experience according to Christie:
Of course for people who have never been president, you can only have experience outsiode the presidency, but Barack Obama now has experience as president – the same seven years Christie would have by January 2017 – only Obama was president and Christie was only Governor.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 2/9/2016 @ 7:56 amThe problem with Rubio is he doesn’t extend his “knows exactly what he’s doing” statement by attaching it to words along the lines of “because that’s the way leftists are” or “because liberals are clueless about reality.”
By avoiding the crucial labels of “liberal” (or, for that matter, “ultra-liberal”) or “conservative,” Rubio doesn’t step on as many people’s toes (ie, Americans who are leftists themselves or emotionally protective of liberalism) and also doesn’t violate the ethos of “please avoid talking religion and politics at friendly gatherings!” But that doesn’t help further candor in public conversation.
Rubio also suffers because regardless of what he does say or doesn’t say, he has the demeanor (the looks and voice) of someone who seems wet behind the ears.
Mark (f713e4) — 2/9/2016 @ 8:02 amAccording to government statistics 41.6% of blacks, 36.4% of Hispanics, 17.8% of Asians and 13.2% of whites are on assistance.
Yes, and part of this is that the current immigration system selects for welfare recipients. The illegals work, the legals are old and get SSI and Medicare. Fracked up.
But that’s New York, ant that’s mostly Puerto Ricans, which is far different that what you see in California or Texas.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 8:24 amRubio is a punk, canada crud is a sociopath, christe likes to hug obammy, juan bush is a momma’s boy,kasich a non enity like fiorina. Trump is da man!!!!
I cannot tell you how much this reinforces my opinion of Trump supporters.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 8:27 amWhy do you think they vote democrat, because they’re attracted by Debbie Wassername-Shultz’ beauty?
Or perhaps they just don’t like being called “wetback” or worse. I am always amazed by the folks who say that Mexicans are, simultaneously, all on welfare and taking all the good jobs.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2016 @ 8:30 am46: That should be Dana. dana wrote this post.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 2/9/2016 @ 9:00 amObama is fully cognizant of the destructive aspects of his agenda on the welfare and rights of Americans and on the structure of our federal government. He’s out to do as much damage to the nation as possible without exposing himself to an impeachment trial or to a lynch mob. The ground truth of it is as plain as the nose on your face, if you have the courage to judge his actions instead of his words.
Barack Obama is the greatest Islamic jihadi since Muhammad.
ropelight (f6c4db) — 2/9/2016 @ 9:04 amOr perhaps they just don’t like being called “wetback” or worse.
Or more likely for the same reason that large percentages of people in Mexico (and other Central and South American societies) vote for and favor liberals, if not leftists or ultra-liberals (versus, by contrast, ultra-conservatives). Moreover, I don’t believe the controversy of illegal immigration and heated rhetoric regarding non-citizens taking jobs and benefits exists in countries like that.
When people resist figuring out what makes most humans tick — namely their ideological predispositions — they’re more likely to lose sight of what ultimately is most crucial in why certain politicians and policies will either do well or struggle with a good portion of an electorate.
I’m looking at you, Karl Rove (etc).
Mark (8fe6db) — 2/9/2016 @ 9:16 amMost of them don’t speak enough English to know what the word wetback means, although they may understand it’s not a good thing.
ropelight (f6c4db) — 2/9/2016 @ 9:35 amWhy? Do you call them “wetbacks”?
Who says Mexicans are taking all the good jobs? That’s the first I heard if it. I always hear they’re “taking the jobs Americans don’t want to do”. Which certainly aren’t the good jobs, correct? And nobody claied Mexicans were taking “all” of anything.
That 36.4% is a national statistic, not a state statistic. And it doesn’t matter if they’re Mexicans, Guatemalan’s, Puerto Ricans (who are Americans therefore not immigrants) or anything else: they’re Hispanic. That’s the stat. Nor does it matter if they live in Texas, or Ohio: that’s the stat.
Rev. Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 2/9/2016 @ 3:21 pm