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

FYI: looking for some background on Portman?

NRO has posted this piece from its 12 April 2012 issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295797/working-class-wonk-robert-costa

BuckeyeSam on April 14, 2012 at 7:52 PM

To be natural born, the only requirement is that the parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Place of birth doesn’t matter, not for the parents nor for the child.

Dante on April 14, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I don’t think that parental citizenship is even a condition. Being born in the USA is sufficient.

Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I like McDonnell, a lot. But he allowed his GOP legislature to consider that fricking invasive sonogram procedure before an abortion. Abortion is horrible, but requiring that procedure is beyond the pale. I realize that it somehow got snuffed out, but from here in the Midwest I think that made McDonnell look awful. Romney has enough trouble with women–and we recently got a gift on that score. Picking McDonnell would be taking several steps back.

I like the idea of Jindal.

As for Portman, stop dumping on him. He’s damned effective. Son of a small-business owner. Sure, private schools all the way, but his dad had him and his siblings sweeping floors in the business. I’d hate to lose him as one of our senators, because he’s a significant upgrade from his POS predecessor Voinovich. That said, I think Portman would appeal to a lot of educated suburbanites who are over their white guilt and who are looking for competence in an administration.

BuckeyeSam on April 14, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I’m not dumping on Portman, and honestly I haven’t heard him speak enough to assess his “presence.” And, yeah, losing a GOP vote in the Senate would not be good, especially given Kasich’s approval ratings in Ohio right now (I think it’s around 40%). That seat could be gone. I’d just like to see Romney pick someone about whom voters could immediately say, “Yeah, that guy could step in as president at a moment’s notice.” That comes back, probably, to Jindal.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Just tell us he’s worse than Hitler and get it over with.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You are truly pathetic.

besser tot als rot on April 14, 2012 at 7:55 PM

truly pathetic is saying etch a sketch 15,000 times…so just you and Rick Santorum besser tot!

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Let’s see, Rubio is out, McDonnell is probably out, Christie is a long-shot at best, West is also unlikely, that leaves who exactly? Martinez, Jindal, Ryan, or maybe this boring Portman fellow that no one has ever heard of.

Susana Martinez would be my bet, at the moment anyway. Helps (possibly) pick up a few votes in a few states that Romney really needs to win to beat Obama. Jindal is busy as gov, and picking Ryan would likely force Romney to actually back a reform agenda during the campaign, which is highly unlikely.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Romney/ Ryan 2012
Romney/ Ryan 2016
Ryan / Rubio 2020
Ryan / Rubio 2024
Rubio / Bush. 2028
Rubio / Bush. 2032

George P Bush

Sparty on April 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Voters aren’t necessarily looking for themselves in a presidential or vice presidential candidate; they’re looking for someone who can lead all Americans.

Hmmm, maybe the LSM just assumes, you know, from the last time around.

IrishEyes on April 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

For those of us who aren’t going to go watch the video, do you want to just give us a name? :-)

SoRight on April 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Well others have since answered it, but unless you’re in a rural area without broadband or something I have to suggest to everybody to go listen to it themselves. (2hrs,14) It is something that needs to be heard. This isn’t a common rehearsed series of talking points. Jindal speaks with a true passion that shows his personal indignation for the disastrous policies of this administration, and what they have done to the people of Louisiana.

If he is chosen for VP, the leftist media will laugh and point to the 2009 SOTU response as reason to claim he is a dull pick. Then they will be horrified as he proves them dead wrong, to the delight of the rest of America.

Gingotts on April 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Ryan would likely force Romney to actually back a reform agenda during the campaign, which is highly unlikely.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Where do you come with this garbage? Mitt has worked pretty closely with Ryan on his entitlement and budget reforms. In fact, when you look at Ryan’s plan and Mitt’s there isn’t much day light between them. Both want premium support for health care and raising SS benefit ages gradually. Both want the corporate tax reduced to 25% along with a territorial tax. It’s no accident. They have had a meeting of the minds for a long time.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Why does it bug you so much for people to point out that Romney flip-flops on every issue? Even his own campaign staff admit he doesn’t mean what he says, when he says it.

You should just accept that you are going to have to spend the next 7 months defending the word of a man, who lies every time his lips move.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Let’s see, Rubio is out, McDonnell is probably out, Christie is a long-shot at best, West is also unlikely, that leaves who exactly? Martinez, Jindal, Ryan, or maybe this boring Portman fellow that no one has ever heard of.

Susana Martinez would be my bet, at the moment anyway. Helps (possibly) pick up a few votes in a few states that Romney really needs to win to beat Obama. Jindal is busy as gov, and picking Ryan would likely force Romney to actually back a reform agenda during the campaign, which is highly unlikely.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Jindal spoke at C-PAC this year, and before the NRA last week. I think he’s auditioning for the job. But the exorcism thing will rear its ugly head. So we’re back to Ryan — and the reform agenda everyone wants! If Walker wins his recall, Ryan really rises on the list.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

oh I can’t stand mittens Buckshot, he flips more than a grill guy at Wendy’s.

I just can’t stand unoriginal stupid and dumb idiotic retArded statements that people say over and over, thinking they’re clever.

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I just can’t stand unoriginal stupid and dumb idiotic retArded statements that people say over and over, thinking they’re clever.

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:05 PM

And yet you continue to visit Hot Air :-)

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Romney was pretty adamant that the Nominee couldn’t run on an entitlement reform platform and win the General election. This was one of his main attacks on Rick Perry, mostly centered around doing away with Social Security.

Why would Romney now want to run on a platform of reform, when he didn’t think it was a winning strategy as recently as last September-October?

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM

oh I can’t stand mittens Buckshot, he flips more than a grill guy at Wendy’s.
DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Well, that’s good to hear then.

I was a grill-person at McD’s years ago, do they actually flip burgers at Wendy’s? They don’t at McD’s. All clamshell cooking, cooks both sides of the burger at once.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:11 PM

And yet you continue to visit Hot Air :-)

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM

hey! I pretty sure I resent that ;)

I try to be original…others regurgitate. Regurgitation – meh, kinda gross.

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM

yeah, I cooked at Wendy’s, they grill there…fresh never frozen beef too. Good shite.

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

***

I’d just like to see Romney pick someone about whom voters could immediately say, “Yeah, that guy could step in as president at a moment’s notice.” That comes back, probably, to Jindal.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I like Jindal too. Indeed, I think he’d be great. I like that he got in Obama’s grill over the Gulf oil spill.

I just didn’t care for the way Portman got dump on a day or two ago in a thread. Although he’s pretty darn conservative, he’d be very difficult to cast as some crazy man–especially here in Ohio. The minute a Dem were to come here to scream that Romney-Portman would be the end of the world as we know it, I suspect that Ohioans would say, “You’re phucked.”

In the end, I want what’s best. Again, Jindal would be great–excellent executive experience. Remember him in 2008 in the summer run-up to a big storm system? It wasn’t Katrina by any measure, but he seemed to have extraordinary command of the situation.

But we need Portman on the national scene for years to come.

BuckeyeSam on April 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

funniest Wendy’s training video ever - grill skillz

DHChron on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Wrong. Wrong. And double wrong! He jumped on Perry for trying to eliminate SS, putting it back entirely to the states, not for the fact that he wanted to reform it. Mitt has said from the start that he wants to increase the benefit age, gradually, and rework the benefits increase indexation. The difference between Mitt’s and Perry’s plan is that Mitt can actually get his through Congress and Americans will not revolt against his proposals.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Another grossly distorted batch of reasoning in a HotAir posting today. What’s in your folks’ water?
Ms Korbe posits two conditions, NEITHER of which were explicitly stated by Rubio. And both of which are ridiculously further away from any Occam-like interpretation.
Rubios says he’s not because he’s either been told he’s not on the short list, or he’s decided not to accept the nomination. Anything else being read into it tells more about the spun-up mind of the tea-leaf reader.

rayra on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Wrong. Wrong. And double wrong! He jumped on Perry for trying to eliminate SS, putting it back entirely to the states, not for the fact that he wanted to reform it.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Lie.

besser tot als rot on April 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I don’t know, Perry didn’t really say anything about SS that people don’t already know about, it is a ponzi scheme, and Reagan said pretty much the same things about SS that Perry was saying in September.

Romney was hitting him hard on the grounds that Perry couldn’t win the General by pushing entitlement reform as it would scare away voters. And I think his rhetoric in the debates against Perry in 2011 will make it hard for him to run on the Ryan plan in 2012 without looking like yet another flip-flop, but I suppose we will see one way or another how it plays out.

Martinez still seems a more likely choice for Veep, though, if only for demographics. Plus Ryan seems more useful in other roles than Veep.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Etch-a sketch, etch-a- sketch, etch-a-sketch, etch-a-sketch ……….
Hehe

angrymike on April 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

besser tot als rot on April 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Dishonest, but at least it was pithy.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM

don’t think that parental citizenship is even a condition. Being born in the USA is sufficient.

Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Parental citizenship is what makes one natural born. And you are reading the 14th incorrectly. Note the part I highlighted.

Dante on April 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Dante on April 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

All people born here, aside from diplomats who have immunity, are subject to our jurisdiction.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

MITT/ANNE 2012

gerrym51 on April 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM

MITT/ANNE 2012

gerrym51 on April 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM

While I’m sure she would love to join Mitten’s ticket, isn’t Coulter a bit too abrasive? :)

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

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.

……two words explain this.

JEB
BUSH

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

You forget to use bold text in your insane rant this time. Not feeling well?

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

ROMNEY / PORTMAN 2012

You made a believer out of me.

And to help the campaign I gots a linky here with some pics for Romney to put on the signs and bumper stickers.

http://www.google.com/search?q=natalie+portman&hl=en&prmd=imvnsol&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XRmKT7m_HqPi2QXBs_CBCA&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=625

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

by popular demands.


Romney………..PRO-CHOICE (in his own words).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmeHnWPbY4

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM

ROMNEY / PORTMAN 2012

You made a believer out of me.

And to help the campaign I gots a linky here with some pics for Romney to put on the signs and bumper stickers.

http://www.google.com/search?q=natalie+portman&hl=en&prmd=imvnsol&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XRmKT7m_HqPi2QXBs_CBCA&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=625

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Look, it’s hard enough to get me to vote for a liberal Rino right now; if you think I’m ever going to vote for some Vegetarian Hollywood leftist, you’ve got another thing coming!

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM

That said, I think Portman would appeal to a lot of educated suburbanites who are over their white guilt and who are looking for competence in an administration.

BuckeyeSam on April 14, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I agree completely with this. I caught a little of Portman on C-span the other day and was impressed. He is very well spoken and I can see his appeal to the business man/woman. Very relatable. I’d back that 100%.

And he’s a kayaker :-)

DoubleClutchin on April 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

All people born here, aside from diplomats who have immunity, are subject to our jurisdiction.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

That’s incorrect. Otherwise, why bother including it in the amendment? Regardless, that speaks of citizenship, not natural born citizenship, which is the Constitutional requirement.

Dante on April 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Don’t argue w/ birther garbage.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

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.

Please, for sanity’s sake, let’s not have any more analysis like this at Hot Air. It is embarassing. Now that Romney is the de facto nominee, he is moving ahead in the polls, exactly as many of us predicted he would. The Romney-can’t-beat-Obama/Romney-won’t-attack-Obama meme has been completely destroyed over the last week. Romney has barely gotten started and Obama, the MSM, and the campaign team are spinning and on the defensive. I can’t wait until after the convention, when the gloves really come off.

There is a third option that Tina conveniently forgot to mention. This poster

rayra on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

figured it out. Rubio has already been told, either by the Romney camp, or by the GOP powers in the know, that he is not being considered. I vote for this option, given Rubio’s language:

“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.”

In fact, we could easily posit a fourth option, in which Rubio thinks that Romney will win the election, but that he will not be along for the ride.

Santorum is gone, Tina. 2016 is a long way away. Time to get with the program, or just go all in and say you are supporting Obama this time around. This passive-aggressive Romney bashing is unseemly.

Mr. Arkadin on April 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Wrong. Wrong. And double wrong! He jumped on Perry for trying to eliminate SS, putting it back entirely to the states, not for the fact that he wanted to reform it.

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Wait a second. I thought Mittbots were all about the Tenth Amendment. Does that ONLY apply to the individual mandate? How…convenient.

ddrintn on April 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

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.

Tina Korbe hit a new low. The first 2 commenters to agree with her were ddrintn and besser als rotten totten.

Basilsbest on April 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Tina Korbe hit a new low. The first 2 commenters to agree with her were ddrintn and besser als rotten totten.

Basilsbest on April 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Yeah, I was pretty surprised by Tina’s shot there, too. Pretty dumb analysis. Santorum grief hangover, I think. Hopefully it will pass.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Of course he won’t be the Vice President. Barry is going to get himself another term with Biden.

lonestar1 on April 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

“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.”

What kind of policies?

Missy on April 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Only the true messiah would deny he is the messiah!

cluemeister on April 14, 2012 at 10:53 PM

… frowny face.

Book on April 14, 2012 at 10:56 PM

If it’s Jindal or Portman, I’m not sure where Portman is clearly better than Jindal at this point. (I admit by bias.)

5 years of Governing experience vs. 2 years of legislative experience.

Ethics and Education Reform packages vs. no major passed legislation.

Open Governors seat in Red State if elected vs. Open Senate Seat in Swing State if elected.

Pre-Med and Biology at Brown, and Masters in Health Policy from Oxford in England vs. Anthropology at Dartmouth and JD from Michigan

(Both heavily accomplished, but key being both likely earned their admission in comparison to Bush and other past Presidents who went to the Ivies)

In addition, Jindal has experience dealing with at least two natural disasters, and his resume along gives him a wider range of policy experience than Portman at this point.

There is no reason why you would take Portman unless your afraid of the top of ticket being upstaged or you have a deep fear of Jindal saying something bad (which is unlikely).

Bluray on April 14, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Portman? Boring. I thought it might be McDonnell, but the master’s thesis will be a disaster at the national level, especially as it’s only from 1989. Looks like it’s Christie, Jindal or Ryan.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Overrated. If it was going to hurt him it would have hurt him during the Governors Race because WaPo was doing front page coverage on it.

Bluray on April 14, 2012 at 11:36 PM

To be natural born, the only requirement is that the parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Place of birth doesn’t matter, not for the parents nor for the child.

But they were not US citizens when he was born, though they did become citizens later. Same with Jindal.

cheetah2 on April 15, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Bluray on April 14, 2012 at 11:30 PM

I agree. The only edge Portman has over Jindal is that he’s from a swing state and Jindal isn’t, but Jindal is still the better choice.

GOPRanknFile on April 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Good to hear. It might be possible that he held firm on some conservative agenda item in talks with Romney and Romney told him to get lost. At least, that would be my favorite reason for him saying he certainly is not going to be the nominee.

astonerii on April 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM

But they were not US citizens when he was born, though they did become citizens later. Same with Jindal.

cheetah2 on April 15, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Yes, I know.

Dante on April 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I still thick Dick Chaney was the best VP pick in the last 50 years; he didn’t win a state or a constituency. But he did add real depth to Bush’s ticket and helped him win the Presidency. Romney should pick someone like that . But who is the current equivalent of Chaney?

RedSoxNation on April 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM

This was the strangest political blog I’ve read in a long time. I am begining to hate the weekends around HA…

lovingmyUSA on April 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM

We can assume that Rubio meant to imply he wouldn’t join the 2012 GOP ticket under any circumstance

And I don’t blame him. Who would want to be a part of an administration that will destroy what’s left of the GOP brand?

JeffVader on April 15, 2012 at 4:03 AM

JeffVader on April 15, 2012 at 4:03 AM

Kind of a drama queen, aintcha? “DESTROY” the party? Really…good grief..

lovingmyUSA on April 15, 2012 at 4:41 AM

In the final surge to the ‘centre’ the ticket will be Romney/Reid 2012.

Annar on April 15, 2012 at 6:59 AM

Portman? Boring. I thought it might be McDonnell, but the master’s thesis will be a disaster at the national level, especially as it’s only from 1989. Looks like it’s Christie, Jindal or Ryan.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Overrated. If it was going to hurt him it would have hurt him during the Governors Race because WaPo was doing front page coverage on it.

Bluray on April 14, 2012 at 11:36 PM

The Virginia electorate is far different than the national electorate. They couldn’t get traction with the thesis in the state, but it will get lots of attention at the national level.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I am so sick and tired of every GOP darling du jour I could spit (except for Rick Perry of course). Okay, so it’s the GOP and RNC who keep pandering and posturing, but in this case, Rubio is correct, if one parses hither and yon, on more than one point:

1.) Mittens will have to be very lucky to beat Dear Leader,
2.) Marco Rubio is not experienced enough,
3.) Rubio has a LOT of time to make his case and mark nationally,
4.) He’s right re: the “conventional, albeit misguided, belief that Hispanics vote as a block, much like blacks, is not true,
5.) What does Marco think about Ozzie Guillen being suspended for expressing affection for Fidel Castro? The private market exercising its prerogative, OR, a miscarriage of justice vis á vis “free speech”?
C’mon, Marco … Inquiring minds want to know.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Why does it bug you so much for people to point out that Romney flip-flops on every issue? Even his own campaign staff admit he doesn’t mean what he says, when he says it.

You should just accept that you are going to have to spend the next 7 months defending the word of a man, who lies every time his lips move.

Buckshot Bill on April 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Well Said.
Why trash Slappy for the same thing that Willard does every day too?
There’s a word for that.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Jindal. Portman. Jindal. Portman. Jindal. Portman. I think it’s down to one of those two.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Jindal. Portman. Jindal. Portman. Jindal. Portman. I think it’s down to one of those two.
Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:02 AM

As long as it doesn’t require Jindal to make any speeches, that could work.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Dang, I thought Bobby Jindal was born to naturalized citizens. So under the provision of the Constitution requiring the President and VP to be natural born citizen, neither he nor Rubio can take the VP office. BTW this is not a birther issue but a constitutional issue for those of us who believe it is a contract with the citizens of our country, not some living document. If IT is a living document then I suggest ALL contacts such as your marriage contract, mortgage or any other contract can be abridged at your will.

It is time that the SCOTUS rule on this directly, but so far the courts seemly won’t touch it since it has been used against Obama. The leadership of the US and the media failed America when they did not address this natural born constitutional issue with Obama during the campaign, regardless of any other issue, and force a SCOTUS ruling. I imagine the court may have sided with the living constitution idea on this ruling, thus allowing Rubio or Jindal to become VP or President down the road; that would be good if for no other reason while I would disagree with the decision.

The fact that McCain was born in the Canal Zone was used in a lame attempt by the Democrats to challenge him. Worse is that usually under the law, a person illegally in a positron of responsibility if found later ineligible, whatever they did is null and void. Can you imagine if that is legally correct and applied to Obama now.

Obama was not properly vetted and our county could pay a price for that sloppiness. Likewise Jindal and Rubio should be vetted on the natural born citizen issue, if they are to run for VP or President. I would, given half a chance force this issue, since the Constitution is more important than the career of a single individual. I have already written Romney on this issue for whatever that is worth.

amr on April 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I have never been that impressed with Marco Rubio. Let’s face it, if his name was Mark Smith and he was a WASP Senator from Nebraska, he would not be considered for VP.

That being said, I am even less impressed with Rob Portman. Zero executive experience (no,running the OMB for a few months while increasing the deficit doesn’t count), zero charisma, and virtually no connection with the conservative movement. If Romney is dumb enough to pick this guy, he deserves to lose.

Norwegian on April 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Darn. Wish he’d teased/played footsie with my dreams a little while.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on April 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Of course Rubio won’t be VP …

Boy hasn’t “paid enough” dues to his masters in the establishment GOP and let’s not forget … the STENCH of the TEA PARTY is still all over him!

But don’t worry – as long as this guy continues to support the establishment by using his BALLS to make it appear that they have balls – eventually he’ll be invited to sit down and eat at the establishment table.

Duh – that’s the way this works.

HondaV65 on April 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Why would Romney pick a running mate from a red state? He needs leverage in a purple or blue state. Rubio, Portman, McDonnell, Christie or Martinez would give him that. Martinez would not only help him win a swing state, she would help him with Latinos and with women generally. Rubio would certainly help win FL, a must-win state. My guess is it’s Rubio.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Why would Romney pick a running mate from a red state? He needs leverage in a purple or blue state. Rubio, Portman, McDonnell, Christie or Martinez would give him that. Martinez would not only help him win a swing state, she would help him with Latinos and with women generally. Rubio would certainly help win FL, a must-win state. My guess is it’s Rubio.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I think Christie is likely in the mix, too.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The whole meme that Romney “can’t win” is ridiculous–and has been from day one. He’s got what most Americans want–economic know-how, a fix-it psychology and impeccable credentials. Besides, he wants it. He will do what he must to win–raise money, fight hard, get down and dirty. What I like about Romney is he combines ruthlessness with decency. He’s a ruthless politician–but a relatively nice guy otherwise.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Rubio wouldhave done a lot to cover up Mitt’s weaknesses. Mitt will pick some middle of the road guy like portman. Mitt will not a llow himself to be outshone on stage like Palin did to McCain. And to find someone more boring and uninspiring that Mitt is hard work. Give the vp selection committee some time. I’m sure they are looking for the next quyale as we speak.

\

unseen on April 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Mitt couldn’t beat McCain. He may win this time because Obama is that bad but it will be a very close victory if it occurs. I don’t like saying anything is a 100% given. Mitt may win or he may not but the evidence suggests he will not.

unseen on April 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I forgot Ryan. So it’s Rubio, Portman, Christie, McDonnell, Martinez and Ryan–all blue or purple state possibilities.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:41 AM

It would be funny if Mitt picked Mitch Daniels. Two of the most uninpsiring politicans I have seen for a long time.

unseen on April 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM

The problem with Ryan is his budget which is difficult to explain in sound bites and which Obama will use to scare voters.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Tina~ don’t give up your day job go become a mind reader. Epic fail….

Buy Danish on April 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Mitt couldn’t beat McCain. He may win this time because Obama is that bad but it will be a very close victory if it occurs. I don’t like saying anything is a 100% given. Mitt may win or he may not but the evidence suggests he will not.

unseen on April 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

What has not beating McCain got to do with anything? Winning in the primaries is not a good measure for how a candidate will do in the general. Reagan lost to Ford in the primaries and was viewed with suspicion by red state conservatives who didn’t like his compromises as governor of CA. Rudy was ahead in all the polls against Obama and Hillary. He was ahead in NJ and PA. But he couldn’t get traction in the primaries either. The primaries prove nothing–except that conservatives are often pretty dumb politically. They are quick to chase after losers like Bachmann and Cain and Santorum–but look a gift horse in the mouth if he’s from somewhere outside their red state comfort zones.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

To become….typing on kindlefire has its limitations ….

Buy Danish on April 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

You can earn the ‘Hispanic’ vote by buying it.
Give them enough free goodies they’ll vote Democrat.

Badger40 on April 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Ford was a sitting POTUS.

unseen on April 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

May we please remove Gov. Christie from the list of potential Veeps? If anyone should be considered for #2 it’s Rick Perry. To suggest otherwise is pert’neer insulting to the Man, but it’s par for the wimpy RNC I guess.

As For …

Obama was not properly vetted and our county could pay a price for that sloppiness. Likewise Jindal and Rubio should be vetted on the natural born citizen issue, if they are to run for VP or President. I would, given half a chance force this issue, since the Constitution is more important than the career of a single individual. I have already written Romney on this issue for whatever that is worth.
amr on April 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

You mean the establishment candidate, the product of a polygamous cult in MEXICO?
(ya see … everyone can play that silly game)
hmmmmmmmmmm?

What I like about Romney is he combines ruthlessness with decency. He’s a ruthless politician–but a relatively nice guy otherwise.
writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM

You mean the wealthy schoolyard pud who pays OTHERS to fight FOR him?
No Thanks
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’m not sure why this 2nd time around there are still people who will consider not voting at all or even voting for Obama bcs Romney might well be the nominee.
I voted McCain the last time bcs I was ABO back then, & still am now.
Notice the SCOTUS picks Obama made?
Clearly there are lots of stupid people in this world.
Like it or not, we all know that the states let the SCOTUS decide what’s legit, Const-wise.
I’ll vote Romney this time BCS I don’t want BO.
Who knows if a SCOTUS seat would come up?
I’m seriously scratching my head as to why there’s so many dumb f#$%ing in this country.

Badger40 on April 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Jindal would probably be an OK pick as he is outside DC, perceived to be somewhat right of center, actually is a practicing Catholic as opposed the Pelosi/Biden phony type, and is perceived to be at least somewhat of a reformer.

Jindal’s problem: He comes off as TOO wonkish and too much a Beta-Boy Nerd.

He needs to….MAN UP!

He doesn’t need to parachute into Faluja so-to-speak.

But, he does need to stand with his chin up, shoulders back and carry himself as The Man. He needs to go ‘Alpha’ and be perceived not as a solution wonk, but a real leader. Palin, contrary to the media caricature, is a natural leader.

Jindal simply needs to lick the manhood issue, and people will probably give him a chance and maybe even not stay at home come November.

To Jindal: Get a Youtube of you hunting in Alaska with the Cuda and skinning your own game, or take a few swings at the batting cage with Albert Pujols (do not be seen playing cricket). Or, better yet, buy a purebred Rottweiler and enter it at Westminster.

Just make sure….you ….Man Up!

KirknBurker on April 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Clearly there are lots of stupid people in this world.
Like it or not, we all know that the states let the SCOTUS decide what’s legit, Const-wise.
I’ll vote Romney this time BCS I don’t want BO.
Who knows if a SCOTUS seat would come up?
I’m seriously scratching my head as to why there’s so many dumb f#$%ing in this country.

Badger40 on April 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

So …
Anyone who has what is called: p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e-s is “stupid”?
(Lord, help this country)
I refuse to sacrifice mine for ANYONE.
Your principle mileage may vary of course, but I’d sooner vote Libertarian than for Mittens.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Why does it bug you so much for people to point out that Romney flip-flops on every issue?

Because it’s irrelevant. What matters is his fiscal record over a lifetime. It’s just what the country needs to get back on its feet. Politicians flip-flop all the time–just ask Santorum.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Reagan lost to Ford in the primaries and was viewed with suspicion by red state conservatives who didn’t like his compromises as governor of CA.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Revisionist b.s. designed to associate Romney with Reagan. Distorting history for the purposes of advancing an agenda is a hallmark of lefties, you know.

Why does it bug you so much for people to point out that Romney flip-flops on every issue?

Because it’s irrelevant. What matters is his fiscal record over a lifetime.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

No, what’s relevant is his record as a governor. What’s irrelevant is Bain.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

You mean the wealthy schoolyard pud who pays OTHERS to fight FOR him?
No Thanks
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

A lefty talking-point if ever I heard one. But winning in politics is all about raising money–or haven’t you noticed? Romney has the smarts to do what’s necessary–including raising more money than Santorum or Gingrich. It’s no good to whine about negative ads if they’re not able to raise enough money to fight back with ads of your own. Are they the kind of men we want as our candidate–guys too inept to fight back? And it’s not just in raising money that he excels. He’s far better organized.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I still think Dick Chaney was the best VP pick in the last 50 years; he didn’t win a state or a constituency. But he did add real depth to Bush’s ticket and helped him win the Presidency. Romney should pick someone like that . But who is the current equivalent of Chaney?

RedSoxNation on April 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM

There’s one out there, but …
It’s a real man who would never be Willard’s number two.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

A lefty talking-point if ever I heard one. But winning in politics is all about raising money–or haven’t you noticed? Romney has the smarts to do what’s necessary–including raising more money than Santorum or Gingrich. It’s no good to whine about negative ads if they’re not able to raise enough money to fight back with ads of your own.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Be sure not to whine then when Team O with their much, much bigger coffers dishes out some Alinsky-type garbage against Romney. OK?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

“your own”= “their own.”

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Revisionist b.s. designed to associate Romney with Reagan. Distorting history for the purposes of advancing an agenda is a hallmark of lefties, you know.
ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

What’s “revisionist”? Reagan did sign into law what was at the time the most liberal legal abortion law in the country. It’s a matter of undisputed record.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Be sure not to whine then when Team O with their much, much bigger coffers dishes out some Alinsky-type garbage against Romney. OK?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

You mean Obama would be a lot nicer if we picked Gingrich or Santorum? I don’t think so. No matter who we nominate Alisky attacks would be a given. But the key for our winning would be to at least muster effective counter-attacks, something Romney alone is prepared to do. Besides, you give Obama too much credit. He won’t be the fundraiser he was in ’08. Romney will match him dollar for dollar–and be just as well organized.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

What’s “revisionist”? Reagan did sign into law what was at the time the most liberal legal abortion law in the country. It’s a matter of undisputed record.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Typical ‘bot diversionary tactic, another lefty hallmark. The stipulation wasn’t whether or not Reagan signed this or that law (about which, read this ), but whether, as the original comment stated, he was viewed with suspicion by conservatives in 1976-1980. Prove that statement true.

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Be sure not to whine then when Team O with their much, much bigger coffers dishes out some Alinsky-type garbage against Romney. OK?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

You mean Obama would be a lot nicer if we picked Gingrich or Santorum?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 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

But the key for our winning would be to at least muster effective counter-attacks, something Romney alone is prepared to do.

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

ONLY Romney can effectively counter Obama? REALLY? On what do you base that assumption?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

What’s “revisionist”? Reagan did sign into law what was at the time the most liberal legal abortion law in the country. It’s a matter of undisputed record.
whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The stipulation wasn’t whether or not Reagan signed this or that law (about which, read this ), but whether, as the original comment stated, he was viewed with suspicion by conservatives in 1976-1980. Prove that statement true.
ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So you’re saying conservatives loved it, they were for it?

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 11:29 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

You mean the wealthy schoolyard pud who pays OTHERS to fight FOR him?
No Thanks
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

A lefty talking-point if ever I heard one. But winning in politics is all about raising money–or haven’t you noticed?

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Uh Huh …
There ya go … the guy with the most money wins!
Well thought out, sir. /sarc
*cough cough*
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM

The stipulation wasn’t whether or not Reagan signed this or that law (about which, read this ), but whether, as the original comment stated, he was viewed with suspicion by conservatives in 1976-1980. Prove that statement true.
ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:22 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

So …
Anyone who has what is called: p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e-s is “stupid”?
(Lord, help this country)
I refuse to sacrifice mine for ANYONE.
Your principle mileage may vary of course, but I’d sooner vote Libertarian than for Mittens.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

What principles did Santorum espouse that appeal to you? More entitlement programs like NCLB and Medicare Prescription Drugs? Did you approve of his endorsement of Arlen Specter? 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

writeblock on April 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

So how does all that make Romney a conservative?

ddrintn on April 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3