Marco Rubio: I’m not going to be the vice president

posted at 6:16 pm on April 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with CNN today, Marco Rubio said in no uncertain terms that he’s not going to be the vice president.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, widely speculated to be a top pick for the Republican presidential running mate, once again firmly denied he would join the GOP ticket.

“I’m not going to be the vice president,” Rubio said Friday in an interview with CNN en Español’s Ismael Cala. “I’m not.”

We have two options. We can assume that Rubio meant to imply he wouldn’t join the 2012 GOP ticket under any circumstances — OR — we can parse his words. He didn’t say he wouldn’t join the 2012 GOP ticket, after all. He said he’s not going to be the vice president. Maybe that means he’s still open to run with Mitt Romney — but he doesn’t think they would win.

Please, for sanity’s sake, let’s go with the first one. Rubio’s a rational guy. He wouldn’t voluntarily join what he thinks will be a losing ticket. So, Rubio must be saying he won’t join the GOP ticket. That, though, might stem from the fact that he thinks Mitt Romney won’t win. As the conventional speculation goes, perhaps he has his eyes on 2016.

He said something else in the CNN interview, though, that was even more interesting than his repeated assertion that he won’t be vice president. He suggested that he thinks the idea that a politician can “deliver” the Hispanic vote is an overrated one.

“I’ll tell you, the Hispanic vote has to be earned,” he said. “You can’t just put somebody on there and say, ‘This is gonna deliver it.’ You’ve got to earn it, and primarily I think you earn it through economic policies.”

This is some of the most refreshing political wisdom I’ve read in some time. Voters aren’t necessarily looking for themselves in a presidential or vice presidential candidate; they’re looking for someone who can lead all Americans.

Republicans and Democrats alike fall into the trap of thinking that voters are reducible to a single characteristic — their gender, their race, their income. How long will it take pols to adopt the personalistic norm — to begin to see people not as a means to an end (i.e. a means to their own election) and instead as people, to whom the proper response is love in its fullest sense of wanting what is right and best?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I think the long term up side for Marco Rubio at some time will include being President. However I think at this point Mr. Rubio needs some seasoning. Let’s be honest we are having to deal with a President who has no experience and we are all paying for his naivete as well as his ideological extreme views.

I would love to see Rubio at some point become the Governor of Florida. get the experience of real life decision making with responsibility for results.

I think the Republicans have a great group of young future leaders including Rubio, Walker, Haley, Susan Martinez, Brewer Christie,Jindal. Each of them needs more experience and it would be nice if they could add the experience of being re-elected.

DVPTexFla on April 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Did a Romney pay someone to beat you up? Is that why you are so angry? I shouldn’t judge though, you’re a patriot right? All the men in your family served in the military. Unlike those Romney boys you say weren’t raised right.

Rusty Allen on April 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM

LOL
At 6’4″ tall and 252 lbs. I didn’t have that problem.
I did however live in wussy Mormon country most of my life.
(you wouldn’t believe what girlyboys they are unless you are one of course)
BTW, sonny, Air Mobile Infantry Vet here. I have no tolerance for cowards.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

More diversion. The statement was that Romney’s negative ads and other negative campaign tactics were A-OK.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

They’re ok in my book. Ruthlessness is necessary if the good guys expect to win in the fall. Besides, it’s a myth that Romney has been the only one fighting nasty. Santorum and Gingrich have been just as nasty, if not more so. The only difference has been they couldn’t raise enough cash to push their nastiness in ads the way Romney has done. Santorum’s criticisms have been relentlessly harsh. Romney countered, only he did so much more effectively. The truth is neither Santorum nor Gingrich could raise the money necessary to win. And they couldn’t do this because the guys with deep pockets didn’t think they could win. That’s politics. Get used to it.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The truth is neither Santorum nor Gingrich could raise the money necessary to win. And they couldn’t do this because the guys with deep pockets didn’t think they could win. That’s politics. Get used to it.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

If the standard is the ability to raise money, then Obama is going to win and Romney is a dead duck. Get used to it.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

So you’re saying conservatives loved it, they were for it?
whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I’m saying prove to me that the original statement is true: that Reagan was viewed with suspicion by conservatives in 1976-1980.
ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:32 AM

That’s your argument with the other guy. You’d likely have a hard time arguing it either way. But I can well imagine that conservatives were not happy campers about Reagan’s actions as CA governor. If you look at the CA newspapers even before that – back at the time he signed the law – you’ll note that even in CA there was “the most controversial and emotional debate” in the legislature. I can’t imagine it was the liberals who opposed liberalizing the abortion laws.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Roger, The men in my family all serve as well. I wonder though, do you consider Santorum and his boys cowards What about Reagan and his sons? or is just that Romney’s kids are Mormons?

Rusty Allen on April 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I think the long term up side for Marco Rubio at some time will include being President. However I think at this point Mr. Rubio needs some seasoning. Let’s be honest we are having to deal with a President who has no experience and we are all paying for his naivete as well as his ideological extreme views.

He’d be running for v.p., not president–so the need to be as well prepared as the top guy is not as imperative. Should the presidency fall to Rubio by some catastrophe–assuming his ticket got elected– he’s got more than enough smarts and experience to rise to the occasion. But right now the deal is to choose a candidate who will help win the general election. No other consideration is more important when choosing. Right now there’s a need to take FL. Without those 29 electoral votes, the election would be lost. Rubio would definitely help in this regard. Besides, he’s articulate, he speaks Spanish fluently, he’s charismatic, he’s conservative. What’s not to like?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

If the standard is the ability to raise money, then Obama is going to win and Romney is a dead duck. Get used to it.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I don’t buy into your premise. Obama’s had trouble raising cash this time around–which was why he announced candidates lower down were on their own, that his campaign wouldn’t be able to help them out. So it’s not clear he’ll have more cash on hand than Romney.

Of course money’s not the only standard, but it’s one of the most important and effective. Another would be good organization. Santorum and Gingrich fail in both departments. Still another standard is having a record to run on–which Obama hasn’t got.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

That’s your argument with the other guy. You’d likely have a hard time arguing it either way.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Considering that Reagan was for all intents and purposes THE leader of the conservative movement at the time, you’ll have a hard time arguing that conservatives viewed him with suspicion. Which you still haven’t done. Unsurprisingly.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

It would be a mistake for Rubio to be on the ticket this time around–similar to calling up a young prospect to play in the Major Leagues before they are ready. I like Rubio a lot, but I don’t want to see him brought into the fray prematurely. Besides, we need his leadership in the Senate.

The Republicans have a pretty deep bench from which Romney can make his choice. Personally, I think that Jindahl should be the guy. He has a solid resume and he is extremely accomplished for such a young man. And he is smart, with solid expertise in health care and energy–two key issues in this cycle. He’s already locked horns with Obama once before during the BP oil spill, and he cam out on top. He will be a great help to Romney during the campaign, and a fine vice president after Romney is elected.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM

So how does all that make Romney a conservative?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Here’s his record according to Club for Growth:

Governor Romney’s single term contained some solid efforts to promote pro-growth tax policy. In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%—a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002…

Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state’s $1.2 billion rainy day fund. While there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature…

As governor, Romney pushed for important changes to Massachusetts expansive welfare system. Although federal welfare reform passed in 1995, Massachusetts was woefully behind, relying on a waiver to bypass many of the legislation’s important requirements. Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts’ welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.

According to Powerline, these achievements are reminiscent of Scott Walker’s record. His record on regulation was also very good:

He also vetoed a “card check” bill that would allow unions to organize without a secret ballot election. As governor, he often clashed with the knee-jerk anti-business Legislature over his attempts to ease Massachusetts’ regulatory burdens. Though some of his largest undertakings were ultimately crushed by liberal opposition, Governor Romney deserves praise for attempting to change the relationship between government and private enterprise for the better. These efforts include:

* Pushed to revamp the Pacheco Law, a union-backed measure that makes it nearly impossible to privatize or outsource state services
* Aggressively pushed to deregulate Massachusetts’ “Soviet-style” auto insurance industry. Massachusetts is the only state in which the government mandates maximum insurance rates and requires insurers to accept every applicant
* Called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school
* Proposed measures to eliminate civil service protection for all municipal workers except police and firefighters and exempt low-cost public construction jobs from the state’s wage law
* Proposed easing decades-old state regulations on wetlands
* Proposed easing pricing regulations on Massachusetts retailers
* Signed a bill streamlining the state’s cumbersome permitting process for new businesses
* Eased regulations for brownfield development
* Vetoed a bill limiting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to Massachusetts consumers, calling the legislation “anti-consumer”

The claim that Romney is not a true conservative when his entire life has been spent balancing budgets and putting failed enterprises in the black is what’s truly amazing. Some of you diehard Romney-haters refuse to accept reality. Romney’s exactly what we need in the presidency–a doer, not a Bush “team-player” like Santorum or a blowhard like Gingrich.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

ddrintn on April 15, 2012

Back at work. Good for you.

CW on April 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM

The claim that Romney is not a true conservative when his entire life has been spent balancing budgets and putting failed enterprises in the black is what’s truly amazing. Some of you diehard Romney-haters refuse to accept reality. Romney’s exactly what we need in the presidency–a doer, not a Bush “team-player” like Santorum or a blowhard like Gingrich.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

This is a pretty specious remark. There are plenty of Dem businessmen that understand how to balance a budget. Romney’s business career points to his ability as a technocrat and a turn-around artist, and say zip about his conservative bona fides.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM

This is a pretty specious remark. There are plenty of Dem businessmen that understand how to balance a budget. Romney’s business career points to his ability as a technocrat and a turn-around artist, and say zip about his conservative bona fides.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Or in other words, it’s one thing to balance a budget and quite another to actually hold dear to conservative ideals. Although the biggest issue this time is economic issues, it’s still a good thing to keep in mind. If Romney wants to only be conservative on financial stuff, he’d darn better stick to it.

MelonCollie on April 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

He’d be running for v.p., not president–so the need to be as well prepared as the top guy is not as imperative. Should the presidency fall to Rubio by some catastrophe–assuming his ticket got elected– he’s got more than enough smarts and experience to rise to the occasion. But right now the deal is to choose a candidate who will help win the general election. No other consideration is more important when choosing. Right now there’s a need to take FL. Without those 29 electoral votes, the election would be lost. Rubio would definitely help in this regard. Besides, he’s articulate, he speaks Spanish fluently, he’s charismatic, he’s conservative. What’s not to like?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

How do you know that Rubio has the ability to be president? Really–without making up a narrative–what in his background says he is up to this? It is way too soon for him. He is a first-term senator.

It isn’t at all clear that Rubio actually could help electorally. Veeps rarely help electorally. And his Spanish-speaking skills won’t help him win any votes that the Republicans weren’t already going to win. Cubans aren’t Mexicans; aren’t Dominicans; aren’t Salvadorans; etc.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Or in other words, it’s one thing to balance a budget and quite another to actually hold dear to conservative ideals. Although the biggest issue this time is economic issues, it’s still a good thing to keep in mind. If Romney wants to only be conservative on financial stuff, he’d darn better stick to it.

MelonCollie on April 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

If I had to bet, I would wager that Romney doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body. Depending on your own ideological bent, this observation could be a scathing indictment of his candidacy. At the end of the day, I think that a vote for Romney would be a vote to put a competent executive in the WH, and a vote to remove the incompetent left-wing ideologue that currently resides in the WH. From where I sit, this would make Romney a clear upgrade over what we now have.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It would be a mistake for Rubio to be on the ticket this time around–similar to calling up a young prospect to play in the Major Leagues before they are ready. I like Rubio a lot, but I don’t want to see him brought into the fray prematurely. Besides, we need his leadership in the Senate.

I agree he’s not ideally ready for the presidency, though he’d be up to the job if it were foisted upon him. But that’s not likely to happen, all things being equal. Right now the need is to win FL–and he helps with that.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Some of you diehard Romney-haters refuse to accept reality. Romney’s exactly what we need in the presidency–a doer, not a Bush “team-player” like Santorum or a blowhard like Gingrich.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Maybe if Romney wouldn’t have spent so much of his past running away from Republicans in his remarks to the press and others… but nah – we should ignore all that, right?

beatcanvas on April 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I agree he’s not ideally ready for the presidency, though he’d be up to the job if it were foisted upon him. But that’s not likely to happen, all things being equal. Right now the need is to win FL–and he helps with that.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM

No, he doesn’t significantly help win Florida. Rubio won’t get Romney any votes that Romney won’t get anway. Name one VP candidate that actually proved decisive in the electoral contest. Romney should just pick somebody that can help him run his administration.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM

If I had to bet, I would wager that Romney doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body. Depending on your own ideological bent, this observation could be a scathing indictment of his candidacy.

Maybe, but I think it’s much more a scathing indictment of the party that’s running him. But your milage may vary.

At the end of the day, I think that a vote for Romney would be a vote to put a competent executive in the WH, and a vote to remove the incompetent left-wing ideologue that currently resides in the WH. From where I sit, this would make Romney a clear upgrade over what we now have.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I think that’s a fair assessment. We’ll have to fight tooth and nail to motivate him more than the liberals will, but at least it’s an upgrade from someone that couldn’t be motivated short of an Act of God.

MelonCollie on April 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM

If I had to bet, I would wager that Romney doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body. Depending on your own ideological bent, this observation could be a scathing indictment of his candidacy.

Maybe, but I think it’s much more a scathing indictment of the party that’s running him. But your milage may vary.

The scathing indictment of the Republicans will come if they can’t beat Obama. Winning elections is the primary measure of the effectiveness of a political party.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Tina butchered that logic. I can always tell Tina’s writing because she makes outlandish conclusions. Rubio isn’t going to be VP because he wants to run for President when he has more experience.

ArkyDore on April 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM

How do you know that Rubio has the ability to be president? Really–without making up a narrative–what in his background says he is up to this? It is way too soon for him. He is a first-term senator.

It isn’t at all clear that Rubio actually could help electorally. Veeps rarely help electorally. And his Spanish-speaking skills won’t help him win any votes that the Republicans weren’t already going to win. Cubans aren’t Mexicans; aren’t Dominicans; aren’t Salvadorans; etc.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Rubio was Speaker in the FL House, not just another representative, and he was the crown prince of the FL Tea Party–so he is very well-known and popular in FL politics. It’s something of a stretch to suppose his candidacy would not mean at least a few extra points in the final election tally in that state.

And I’m well aware a Cuban is not a Mexican, etc. I was addressing his candidacy electorally in terms of FL, not nationally–though he’d help there as well. Just making ads in Spanish would help despite ethnic differences. But it’s the vote in FL I was addressing primarily.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM

No, he doesn’t significantly help win Florida. Rubio won’t get Romney any votes that Romney won’t get anway. Name one VP candidate that actually proved decisive in the electoral contest. Romney should just pick somebody that can help him run his administration.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM

LBJ.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM

That’s your argument with the other guy. You’d likely have a hard time arguing it either way.
whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Considering that Reagan was for all intents and purposes THE leader of the conservative movement at the time, you’ll have a hard time arguing that conservatives viewed him with suspicion. Which you still haven’t done. Unsurprisingly.
ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

As I said, that’s your beef with another commenter, not me. However, the only option then is that they accepted he had made the most liberal abortion law in the nation – at that time – the law of Califonia, not holding his actions as governor against him. Abortions in CA went from a total of 518 in 1967 to 100,000 per year during the remaining years of his two terms.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Rubio was Speaker in the FL House, not just another representative, and he was the crown prince of the FL Tea Party–so he is very well-known and popular in FL politics. It’s something of a stretch to suppose his candidacy would not mean at least a few extra points in the final election tally in that state.

And I’m well aware a Cuban is not a Mexican, etc. I was addressing his candidacy electorally in terms of FL, not nationally–though he’d help there as well. Just making ads in Spanish would help despite ethnic differences. But it’s the vote in FL I was addressing primarily.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM

In other words, Rubio has no executive experience, and was a major local political figure. This is pretty thin gruel.

I’m pretty sure that the Republicans can cut Spanish-language ads whether or not Rubio is on the ticket. Rubio probably would be willing to cut the ads himself, even if he wasn’t on the ticket. Cubans are going to skew towards Romney and non-Cuban Hispanics will tend to vote Democratic, and Rubio’s presence on the ticket won’t significantly alter those trends.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM

This is a pretty specious remark. There are plenty of Dem businessmen that understand how to balance a budget. Romney’s business career points to his ability as a technocrat and a turn-around artist, and say zip about his conservative bona fides.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Didn’t you bother to read the Club for Growth comments I posted? Or Powerline’s? How many Dem businessmen-politicians would refuse to raise taxes or would consolidate agencies or would cut back on spending or would lower capital gains rates? How many would veto embryonic stem cell research, for that matter? He may be just a “technocrat and a turn-around artist,” but isn’t that exactly what we need right now?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

LBJ.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM

lol! 303-24=279. Try again.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM

In other words, Rubio has no executive experience, and was a major local political figure. This is pretty thin gruel.

Winning FL is not “pretty thin gruel,” it’s the whole ball of wax. Whatever we can do to win that state is a huge deal.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Didn’t you bother to read the Club for Growth comments I posted? Or Powerline’s? How many Dem businessmen-politicians would refuse to raise taxes or would consolidate agencies or would cut back on spending or would lower capital gains rates? How many would veto embryonic stem cell research, for that matter? He may be just a “technocrat and a turn-around artist,” but isn’t that exactly what we need right now?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I was only commenting on your argument that Romney’s business career portends some kind of politcal conservatism. It doesn’t. I haven’t said a word against Romney’s candidacy. I’ve been a Romney supporter throughout most of the primary process.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Winning FL is not “pretty thin gruel,” it’s the whole ball of wax. Whatever we can do to win that state is a huge deal.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Rubio’s resume is pretty light on exp[erience/accomplishments. Winning FL isn’t thin gruel, your recounting of Rubio’s background is. Having Rubio on the ticket is neither necessary nor sufficient to win Florida.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM

LBJ.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM

lol! 303-24=279. Try again.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Wrong again. JFK won Texas in 1960 by 50% to Nixon’s 48%, thanks to LBJ. So a v.p. candidate does indeed matter when it comes to winning an important state. That was my original assertion regarding Rubio–which you claimed was not the case because v.p. candidates supposedly don’t matter. In fact, they do.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Rubio’s resume is pretty light on exp[erience/accomplishments. Winning FL isn’t thin gruel, your recounting of Rubio’s background is. Having Rubio on the ticket is neither necessary nor sufficient to win Florida.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM

When did I say it was necessary? I said it would help. And it would. FL is a must-win state for Romney. It may well be he can win without Rubio’s candidacy. But if it comes down to the wire the way it did for Bush and Gore, then he’d be wise to consider Rubio.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM

we just lost the election guys. without rubio we can’t the latino vote. its growing in size every election. without that, the gop is doomed for years to come.

gemini on April 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Wrong again. JFK won Texas in 1960 by 50% to Nixon’s 48%, thanks to LBJ. So a v.p. candidate does indeed matter when it comes to winning an important state. That was my original assertion regarding Rubio–which you claimed was not the case because v.p. candidates supposedly don’t matter. In fact, they do.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Wrong again? I haven’t been wrong yet this afternoon. And 303-24 is 279. This is indisputable. Kennedy would have won in 1960 without Texas. Moreover, Texas had been a solidly Democratic state dating back to the Civil War, with the exceptions voting for Eisenhower and Hoover. It isn’t at all clear that Johnson demonstrably altered this dynamic. The fact that Texas was as close as it was doesn’t help your argument.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Rubio will one day be going for the top spot on a Presidential ticket. He has no interest in losing as Romney’s VP or being the true Conservative on the ticket attacked by the establishment rinos as they did to Sarah Palin.

RJL on April 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I was only commenting on your argument that Romney’s business career portends some kind of politcal conservatism.

In fact it does. But running for governor of MA is not the same as running for governor of TX. It takes imagination to appreciate the difference and to make the necessary political allowances.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Wrong again? I haven’t been wrong yet this afternoon. And 303-24 is 279. This is indisputable. Kennedy would have won in 1960 without Texas. Moreover, Texas had been a solidly Democratic state dating back to the Civil War, with the exceptions voting for Eisenhower and Hoover. It isn’t at all clear that Johnson demonstrably altered this dynamic. The fact that Texas was as close as it was doesn’t help your argument.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Texas may have been Democratic going back to the Civil War, but Kennedy was a Catholic–and that did not sit well with Southern voters at the time. He lost Tennessee, he lost Virginia, he lost Mississippi, he lost Alabama, he lost Florida. But the larger point–the essential point is that vice presidential choices can win vital states that presidential candidates would not otherwise win. LBJ helped Kennedy win Texas and Texas would have been decisive had Joe Kennedy not purchased a win in Illinois and had Kennedy not won Hawaii by a mere 115 votes.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Here’s his record according to Club for Growth:

Romney’s exactly what we need in the presidency–a doer, not a Bush “team-player” like Santorum or a blowhard like Gingrich.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Ummmm…have you ever looked for any similar plaudits for the other (former) candidates and compared their conservatism with that of Romney? No.

As I said, that’s your beef with another commenter, not me. However, the only option then is that they accepted he had made the most liberal abortion law in the nation – at that time – the law of Califonia, not holding his actions as governor against him. Abortions in CA went from a total of 518 in 1967 to 100,000 per year during the remaining years of his two terms.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM

As I said, that was revisionism on his part. As you said, no it wasn’t. And you can’t demonstrate diddly otherwise other than throwing in a red herring.

The point is, Reagan in the mid-70s didn’t have to have a little claque running around trying constantly to convince people he was a conservative. Reagan’s ideology was unquestioned. Romney’s isn’t.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Ummmm…have you ever looked for any similar plaudits for the other (former) candidates and compared their conservatism with that of Romney? No.

Yes, I have. I checked out Santorum–he’s from my state in fact. He was always big on earmarks, he enthusiastically supported big government programs such as No Child Left Behind and Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drugs initiative. What posters like you fail to appreciate is that Santorum, like Bush, is actually not a true fiscal conservative. Santorum’s strengths are in the same areas as Bush’s–on national defense and on social issues. But he’s exactly what we don’t need to be running the government this time around. Bush and Santorum were part of the problem–as was Gingrich who is ideologically all over the place. A lot of Romney-haters go around calling him a moderate and a rino whereas in truth he’s more conservative than their favorites who are actually populists who have little appreciation for free enterprise solutions and who turn first to big government to solve problems.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Reagan’s ideology was unquestioned. Romney’s isn’t.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM

It’s questioned unfairly. If you can’t accept the evidence that he governed the most liberal state in the Union largely as a conservative, then you’re not reachable by logic.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM

The point is, Reagan in the mid-70s didn’t have to have a little claque running around trying constantly to convince people he was a conservative. Reagan’s ideology was unquestioned. Romney’s isn’t.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM

That is not true..there were people who doubted Reagan’s conservatism in the mid 70s…after all, there were times as Governor of California that he was known to compromise and take positions that some people were not happy about.

But then some people are never happy.

I think the truth is that Romney could govern as a conservative President and there would still be people who question his ideology..they will never give him the benefit of the doubt and they will always hold him to a different standard than they would most candidates. They like it that way..

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Tina, Maybe Rubio does not want to be VP because he is not an egomaniac and he thinks he is not ready yet for national office. The fact that he does not want to run, does not have to mean that he thinks Romney will lose.

He has said all along before we even knew who the nominee would be that he was not interested in being VP. He always made that plain. So, I take him at his word, he is not interested in the job. Why speculate beyond that?

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Yes, I have. I checked out Santorum–he’s from my state in fact. He was always big on earmarks, he enthusiastically supported big government programs such as No Child Left Behind and Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drugs initiative.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM

So did Romney. At least Santorum didn’t have a massive state health care program bearing his name.

It’s questioned unfairly. If you can’t accept the evidence that he governed the most liberal state in the Union largely as a conservative, then you’re not reachable by logic.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM

But the point is, it’s questioned. And it’s questioned for a reason. There wasn’t any question as to where Reagan stood.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM

That is not true..there were people who doubted Reagan’s conservatism in the mid 70s…

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Like who? Do you have any references to share?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM

That is not true..there were people who doubted Reagan’s conservatism in the mid 70s…

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Like who? Do you have any references to share?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19831216&id=P6UfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OdYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2969,2813692

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM

That is not true..there were people who doubted Reagan’s conservatism in the mid 70s…

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Like who? Do you have any references to share?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19831216&id=P6UfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OdYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2969,2813692

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Sorry, but 1983 wasn’t the mid 70s. There were quite a few conservative critics of Reagan after the budget deals with Congress in his first term.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:38 PM

OK then. Let him give the keynote at the convention and bring on Paul Ryan.

alchemist19 on April 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Sorry, but 1983 wasn’t the mid 70s. There were quite a few conservative critics of Reagan after the budget deals with Congress in his first term.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Thanks for the newsflash, slick. Now, go look up “pedantic” in the dictionary.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

OK then. Let him give the keynote at the convention and bring on Paul Ryan.

alchemist19 on April 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I really like the idea of having Rubio give the keynote address! For my part, I prefer to have Ryan in the House. I really don’t want to give the Dems any room to attack the fitness of our VP pick, and I don’t think that a congressional representative is a good choice for an executive job. I don’t want anything to distract from Obama’s miserable record.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Reagan had promised, if nominated, to name Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate, in a bid to attract liberals and centrists in the party. This move backfired, however, as many conservatives (such as Senator Jesse Helms) were infuriated by Reagan’s choice of the “liberal” Schweiker, while few moderate delegates switched to Reagan. Helms promptly began a movement to draft Conservative Senator James L. Buckley of New York as the presidential nominee.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/1976_Republican_National_Convention

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM

But the point is, it’s questioned. And it’s questioned for a reason.

No politician running in this cycle is a “true” conservative who supports all three branches of conservatism–social and economic as well as national defense. Not one is without blemishes that have compromised his or her conservatism. But that’s what politicians do–they compromise–so it’s unfair not to look at the whole tenor of a politician’s governance, not just one or two issues. Doing that, I think it’s fair to say Santorum, for instance, has a big spending, big government record that would be anything but helpful in this election cycle, no matter how much he may spin the truth In a time when the economy is the fundamental issue that separates our agenda from Obama’s, this should matter. It’s hardly fair to give Santorum et al. a pass, while we nit-pick Romney’s impressive record.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Rubio hasn’t said he wouldn’t take the job if it’s offered. He’s just saying it won’t be offered. He might be more than happy to accept if he’s mistaken.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Sorry, but 1983 wasn’t the mid 70s. There were quite a few conservative critics of Reagan after the budget deals with Congress in his first term.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Thanks for the newsflash, slick. Now, go look up “pedantic” in the dictionary.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Your panties in a wad because I point out the obvious? Slick?

Reagan had promised, if nominated, to name Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate, in a bid to attract liberals and centrists in the party. This move backfired, however, as many conservatives (such as Senator Jesse Helms) were infuriated by Reagan’s choice of the “liberal” Schweiker, while few moderate delegates switched to Reagan. Helms promptly began a movement to draft Conservative Senator James L. Buckley of New York as the presidential nominee.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/1976_Republican_National_Convention

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Uh, sorry slick. Hate to be pedantic, but that’s a criticism of Reagan’s naming a moderate running mate, not a questioning of Reagan’s own ideology. Good grief.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Your panties in a wad because I point out the obvious? Slick?

Oh, boohoo. Did I hurt your widdle feewings? If something is obvious, then there’s hardly any merit in pointing it out. Although for you pointing out the obvious might be considered an achievement.

Uh, sorry slick. Hate to be pedantic, but that’s a criticism of Reagan’s naming a moderate running mate, not a questioning of Reagan’s own ideology. Good grief.

No, you aren’t being pedantic this time. Now, you’re being purposely obtuse and disingenuous, moveing the goalposts that you set up. So sorry for you.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM

What principles did Gingrich espouse that you admire? Fidelity in marriage? Global warming? Playing footsy with Nancy Pelosi? People like you make my head ache. Don’t you see how by demanding perfection you risk getting something far worse than Romney–another term for Obama?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Pushed for reduced spending to balance the budget. Pushed for welfare reform. Contract with America to get the first House run by Republicans in 40 years. Worked to impeach Clinton, and Clinton should have been impeached, it would have set a precedent that watching Obama should have been set. Worked to move power back to the people and the states. Telecom deregulation. Was to the right of Reagan on many issues, if you are going to argue against Reagan, arguing from the right is the best place to do it from.

astonerii on April 15, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Rmoney™/Gingrich 2012!

Bmore on April 15, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Rubio is a really smart man and is refusing to run because he knows he is not eligible. He knows the rules call for a natural born Citizen and he can’t qualify due to his parents not being citizens at his birth. He is a citizen but that is a different category than required.

If some of you posters can’t use common sense to understand these rules and the logic behind them, please do a little research on what SCOTUS said about natural born Citizens.

1andyman on April 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

1andyman on April 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Really? Like, really? LOL!

alchemist19 on April 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Rubio is a really smart man and is refusing to run because he knows he is not eligible. He knows the rules call for a natural born Citizen and he can’t qualify due to his parents not being citizens at his birth. He is a citizen but that is a different category than required.

If some of you posters can’t use common sense to understand these rules and the logic behind them, please do a little research on what SCOTUS said about natural born Citizens.

1andyman on April 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

I’m pretty sure that is incorrect.

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the
term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the
Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington
during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief
“devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy
European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and
scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of
independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with
respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states,
from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the
soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as
noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the
United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to
citizens.
In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the
document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law”
since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.” LINK

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM

No, you aren’t being pedantic this time. Now, you’re being purposely obtuse and disingenuous, moveing the goalposts that you set up. So sorry for you.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Riiiiiight. To recap:

That is not true..there were people who doubted Reagan’s conservatism in the mid 70s…

Terrye on April 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

And in your frantic Googling and Binging you just came up with the fact that Jesse Helms and others were upset over Reagan’s naming Schweicker as projected running mate.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM

And in your frantic Googling and Binging you just came up with the fact that Jesse Helms and others were upset over Reagan’s naming Schweicker as projected running mate.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Frantic? You really are an imbecile, aren’t you? I was intrigued by your question about whether Reagan had been attacked from the right during the seventies, and so I looked around to see if I could find any contemporary resources. I simply shared the links, because I thought that they were interesting. The fact that you’re too dense to understand that is none of my concern. Make of this whatever you wish.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Frantic? You really are an imbecile, aren’t you? I was intrigued by your question about whether Reagan had been attacked from the right during the seventies, and so I looked around to see if I could find any contemporary resources. I simply shared the links, because I thought that they were interesting. The fact that you’re too dense to understand that is none of my concern. Make of this whatever you wish.

ghostwriter on April 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

So on what basis was Reagan “attacked”? That he was a moderate? People criticized his choice of Bush Sr as well, but didn’t call him a moderate.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Maybe if Romney wouldn’t have spent so much of his past running away from Republicans in his remarks to the press and others… but nah – we should ignore all that, right?

beatcanvas on April 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Exactly.
Mittens is more of a finger-in-the-wind guy than BillyJeff was.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Maybe if Romney wouldn’t have spent so much of his past running away from Republicans in his remarks to the press and others… but nah – we should ignore all that, right?

beatcanvas on April 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Yup. Only one thing matters–defeating Obama. Romney was always the best man running who had the temperament and the judgment and the money and the organization and the smarts and the experience to do the job. He’s now our candidate. Time to stop griping and nit-picking and get on board the band wagon.

Personally I don’t give a hoot what Romney said once in order to get elected in the most liberal state in the Union. He did what he had to do–got elected–in order to do what he does best–govern effectively. Fixing what’s broken is what he does and has always done. What good does it do to keep harping on his flaws?

writeblock on April 16, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Smart man, that Rubio.

He would be even smarter if he were to actually DO some of the things he implied during his initial campaign run. Great speakers are one thing, but great coalition builders and legislative architects are something else.

Let’s see him accomplish things before we foist him on a ticket.

itzWicks on April 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3