Hmm: Marco Rubio schedules “major speech” on foreign policy

posted at 9:05 pm on April 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Every move he makes from now until Romney chooses a VP will be seen through the lens of veepstakes maneuvering, no matter what Rubio’s true motivation might be. That said, it’s hard to believe the timing of this announcement is a coincidence. Today was his first big photo op with Romney on the stump, and speculation about Rob Portman has been much hotter lately than speculation about Rubio himself. This looks like his way of reinserting himself into the conversation and blunting the criticism that he’s not yet ready to be president in a pinch. Foreign policy is as core an Article II function as it gets, so here he comes to show that he’s qualified:

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida will deliver what his staff bills a “major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy” this week, the senator’s office announced Monday.

Rubio, considered to be a top vice presidential pick for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, is set to speak Wednesday at The Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.

His remarks will focus on “whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21st Century,” his staff said in a statement, without releasing further details.

I’m keen to hear what he says this time because thus far Rubio’s distinguished himself as being a hawk in the neoconservative mold. Watch the second clip below of him making the case for nonmilitary intervention in Syria to help the resistance free the country from Assad. He’s right in line with McCain, Lieberman, Graham and other prominent Senate hawks on that. Is Romney willing to double down on interventionism by choosing him as VP when even a majority of Republican voters lately say they want out of Afghanistan? In one sense, there’s little risk to doing so since Obama’s hands are tied on the issue; the guy who ignored the War Powers Act to join a coalition in Libya isn’t about to knock anyone else for being too interventionist. (So hawkish is Rubio that he passed on a chance to criticize Obama for that in his WSJ op-ed on Libya last year, even though it’s the worst case of overreach in Obama’s experiments with executive power.) The question is, after 10 years of war, are there more votes to be had among centrists and indies by taking a more cautious line? What does having an outspoken interventionist on the ticket do to help Romney?

Should be interesting — especially his thoughts on how much longer to stay in Afghanistan.


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

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

/

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Ahem.

Note how I was mocking what someone else said…what someone else “brought up”, if you will.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

If Rubio is the VP nominee, I will not vote for Mitt.

JannyMae on April 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I don’t want Rubio either. Don’t know if I’d go that far though.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Romney/Rubio would be a very fine, winning ticket.

I’d also be happy with Portman or even Powell (if he can help us win)…

GO MITT!

bluegill on April 23, 2012 at 9:11 PM

You’re not a RINO; you’re a LIBERAL.

bw222 on April 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM

…neither!…….N U T S !!!!

KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Ahem.

Note how I was mocking what someone else said…what someone else “brought up”, if you will.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

No you weren’t. You brought it up. Regardless, you’re evading the point, which is it doesn’t matter if a person is foreign born; what matters is if they are a citizen at the time of their son’s birth. Additionally, the Constitution contains this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, …”

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

A person who has US citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of their birth is a natural born citizen, the status of their parents notwithstanding and your attempts to create law out of whole cloth is idiotic and I do not believe I am the least bit “creepy” for calling it that.

Do you realize how many of the founders of this country would not even qualify under your made-up definition?

The constitution does not say the progeny of US citizens, it says a natural born US citizen.

I would probably start with Lynch v. Clarke then maybe United States v. Wong Kim Ark and go from there. While the question has never been brought before the court in the context of a Presidential election, many courts including the Supreme Court have ruled that the children of foreign nationals born in the US are natural born US citizens. Even ones who have been taken out of the country as infants and return as adults later.

Your argument rests on a rather asinine premise that just because the Supreme Court has never raised the issue specifically in the context of a Presidential candidate, that the issue is somehow “unresolved”. The truth is that there has never been any question of the acceptance that candidates who were born in the US of foreign national parents were natural born US citizens. Only an idiot would attempt the argument, particularly after Perkins v. Elg where the Supreme Court did rule what a natural born citizen was and cited the US Attorney General in the Steinkauler case: “young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States”

So the Supreme Court has ruled in several instances that a person born in the US to foreign national parents can become President and is a “natural born citizen”.

Your attempt to create any notion otherwise is quite idiotic.

crosspatch on April 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

No you weren’t. You brought it up. Regardless, you’re evading the point, which is it doesn’t matter if a person is foreign born; what matters is if they are a citizen at the time of their son’s birth. Additionally, the Constitution contains this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, …”

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Well, he’s not 250 years old, so I guess the part you highlighted doesn’t apply. And the courts have ruled that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. So, yeah, I’m evading your point since it’s completely irrelevant.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Well, he’s not 250 years old, so I guess the part you highlighted doesn’t apply. And the courts have ruled that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. So, yeah, I’m evading your point since it’s completely irrelevant.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I think when Lourdes’ assessment that you’re in high school at best was being generous.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

crosspatch on April 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You shouldn’t cast stones in calling people idiotic, especially if you’re going to cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Always enjoy your posts.

massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Same here. Is it me or are the threads more enjoyable without all the trolls. I find it easy to communicate when I’m not distracted by them.

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I think when Lourdes’ assessment that you’re in high school at best was being generous.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I think you’ve run out of arguments, so you’ve decided to attack me. It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking you’re the mature one here, but if it makes you feel better, you believe what you want.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Always enjoy your posts.

massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Same here. Is it me or are the threads more enjoyable without all the trolls. I find it easy to communicate when I’m not distracted by them.

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Sorry when I read that back it didn’t read quite right. Looks like I’m being a smartazz. I enjoy your comments also. I don’t mind good honest exchanges. ; ) I still don’t miss the trolls though. Imagine if they were all walked to the door. That would be……….

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I think you’ve run out of arguments, so you’ve decided to attack me. It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking you’re the mature one here, but if it makes you feel better, you believe what you want.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM

You go right ahead and think that.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM

You go right ahead and think that.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM

OK. Have a good one.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

You shouldn’t cast stones in calling people idiotic, especially if you’re going to cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Just citing cases where the court has ruled that a person born here is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the nationality of their parents.

There’s no real room for argument on the issue, the courts have long ago decided the issue.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

I am saying that anyone who believes that a person born here to foreign national parents can not be President doesn’t know what they are talking about because the court has stated or cited others who state that they certainly can.

So while nobody has ever been stupid enough to actually bring such a case, if one did, it would last all of about five minutes.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Just citing cases where the court has ruled that a person born here is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the nationality of their parents.

There’s no real room for argument on the issue, the courts have long ago decided the issue.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Native born and natural born are not the same thing. You are confusing the two terms.

JannyMae on April 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I am saying that anyone who believes that a person born here to foreign national parents can not be President doesn’t know what they are talking about because the court has stated or cited others who state that they certainly can.

So while nobody has ever been stupid enough to actually bring such a case, if one did, it would last all of about five minutes.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Nope. This issue isn’t settled. You don’t know the difference between native born and natural born, and there are cases pending.

JannyMae on April 24, 2012 at 1:52 AM

JannyMae, the notion that a person born here from foreign national parents can not serve as President has already been cited by the Supreme Court. Not in that exact context mind you, but a statement that said exactly that was cited in another case where a child was born in this country to foreign born parents and was attempted to be deported.

Your argument exists between your own ears and no place else. Rubio is perfectly qualified to be President of the United States. If someone were to wish to challenge that, if they could find a lawyer to take the case, the hearing would last about 15 minutes and probably be decided on the spot by unanimous decision because the decision was, for all practical purposes made already.

Anyone arguing that a person born here of legally resident foreign national parents can not be president is simply a moron.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 2:24 AM

We have already had seven Presidents elected whose parents were foreign nationals when they were born. I don’t know how many Vice Presidents and candidates pver the years meet that category. The argument is simply asinine on the face of it.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Are there any legal scholars, Republican or Democrat, who have come out stating that Rubio is eligible? It’s best not to rely on anonymous mobies and idiots on this matter.

It’s time for congress to do one of their unconstitutional adjudications of Rubio’s constitutional eligibility such as they did regarding McCain. Get in touch with your rep and senators and get this started. Coburn co sponsored sen.res.511 so let’s see if he’ll get this ball rolling.

Buddahpundit on April 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM

We have already had seven Presidents elected whose parents were foreign nationals when they were born.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Are you still not acknowledging the grandfather clause?

Buddahpundit on April 24, 2012 at 2:48 AM

Just citing cases where the court has ruled that a person born here is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the nationality of their parents.

There’s no real room for argument on the issue, the courts have long ago decided the issue.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

There is nothing in that case ruling about natural born citizen.

Dante on April 24, 2012 at 7:58 AM

We have already had seven Presidents elected whose parents were foreign nationals when they were born. I don’t know how many Vice Presidents and candidates pver the years meet that category. The argument is simply asinine on the face of it.

crosspatch on April 24, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you see the part I quoted in bold above?

Dante on April 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM

This is completely not relevant to any issues, but the visuals don’t look so good, at least in the picture here.

How tall is Rubio? He looks like a little kid standing next to Romney. If that is the visual that will constantly be presented, I think just from that aspect, it should be a no-go for Rubio. I note that you can’t find his height listed anywhere online, which indicates to me that he is not very tall.

I know this is stupid stuff, but it is the kind of thing that moves votes.

Plus, if Romney picks Rubio, that almost by definition means he is going to cave on some kind of amnesty to illegals – which means I won’t be voting for Romney. I was set to begrudgingly vote for Romney, but that is one step too far. it won’t win him any Hispanic votes and will be terrible policy.

Monkeytoe on April 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I like them both (Mitt and Marco) and will certainly be voting for Mitt and ___________, whoever the VP will be. I just can’t shake the feeling that the visual image of the two of them together (difference in stature, etc) is so reminiscent of Adam West and Burt Ward as Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson.

Captain Scarlet on April 24, 2012 at 9:11 AM

If Rubio is not interested in being VP, then why is he making so many speeches and giving so many interviews when he knows he’s going to be asked about it? I don’t see where he’s done anything in the Senate. It doesn’t matter to me who runs with Romney. I’m voting against Obama as I was told I have to do as a conservative. I’m with Glenn Beck on this one when he says, at least Romney’s not a Communist.

lea on April 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I don’t believe Rubio is eligible either. But, this may be another way to get the SCOTUS to define “NBC”. Let Mitt select Rubio as a running mate, then a bunch of Constitution-loving Conservative Republicans sue the Romney campaign and the RNC.

Dexter_Alarius on April 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM

For everyone denigrating the so called 911-Truther’s of the right, I would simply like to add that if you rewound to ANYTIME prior to the election of Barack Obama and asked someone to try and define in real terms the difference between natural-born, naturalized, etc., and the constitutional requirements therein, the absolute majority of Americans would be going with what the birther’s claim today.

Not that Obama was born anywhere but in America, but that his father had dual national loyalty, etc.

Or to put it another way, if the Republicans had been the ones in 2008 running a Presidential candidate with a non-citizen father, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

So thorough is the dissemination of misinformation and the law is what WE say it is!, I really don’t know if there is much that could save us, one way or the other.

preallocated on April 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Monkeytoe on April 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Romney is 6’2, and Rubio looks about half a head shorter standing next to him, so he’s 5’9-5’10.

Jon0815 on April 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Is that a pic of Ozzie and Ricky Nelson?

verbaluce on April 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

As a culture, I suppose, the decline began when we began to wonder what the actual definition of is, is. I feel that from that point forward there were no sharp edges on any legal instrument, only what you could whittle it down to mean in your case. I mean, wasn’t that the true groundbreaking of our palette of greys? Nothing is more right than anything else. The perversion of our language, customs, laws, etc., has reached a scale I never thought possible.

preallocated on April 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

if you rewound to ANYTIME prior to the election of Barack Obama and asked someone to try and define in real terms the difference between natural-born, naturalized, etc., and the constitutional requirements therein, the absolute majority of Americans would be going with what the birther’s claim today.

I’d like to see what BO (Before Obummer) text books said on the subject. Anybody out there have any old school texts on the Constitution or American Government?

Dexter_Alarius on April 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

if you rewound to ANYTIME prior to the election of Barack Obama and asked someone to try and define in real terms the difference between natural-born, naturalized, etc., and the constitutional requirements therein, the absolute majority of Americans would be going with what the birther’s claim today.

preallocated on April 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

It’s comments like yours that make me embarrassed for our side!

The legal precendent that existed WELL BEFORE Obama held that “natural born citizen” meant someone who is entitled to the rights of citizenship at the time of their birth.

It is different than “native born” in this way: someone could have been born to US Citizens outside the US. For example, George Romney (yep, Mitt’s dad, who ran for president!) is a natural born citizen and not a native born citizen because he was born in Mexico to American citizen parents.

You people act as if interpretations of the Constitution were changed for Obama. They weren’t. LONG AGO several SC decisions had already defined “natural born citizen” as described above.

The people trying to change legal consensus/precedent are the birthers.

You people are embarrassing us! It is a stupid, pointless issue. The best you people can say is that judicial consensus over the last century with regard to the “natural born citizen” clause is wrong, and even that wouldn’t even be worth your time. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe you people really are racist, after all. I never bought the racist claim in the past. Or maybe you guys just like thinking that you supposedly know some secret information or conspiracy that the government is supposedly trying to suppress?

You guys are free to go on and on about Rubio’s family history till you’re blue in the face, but others are just as free to point out what a silly waste of time it is. I don’t think you’re as dangerous as the 9/11 truthers, but I do think that similar mocking/ostracism is in order here. It’s nothing personal.

bluegill on April 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Rubio is a good candidate but he is like a child compared to a real man like Allen West. Not only is West battle-hardened, he also has years of wisdom and experience over Rubio. Plus I think he will be intriguing as a VP because he will say and do very un-PC things and won’t hesitate to take the fight to the enemy.

Allen West for VP

thinkagain on April 24, 2012 at 10:18 AM

The little troll in the White House knows his second term chances are going by the waste side. This is when he is even more dangerous

The Latest Rasmussen looks bleak for The One

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Mitt Romney earns 48% of the vote, while President Obama attracts support from 44%

A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) at least somewhat disapprove.

Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Conservative4ev on April 24, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Rubio as VP….LOCK IT UP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpHHtl8gC4

dthorny on April 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Is the article saying it is wrong that Rubio is actively seeking the VP nod ? Quals are there as the Speaker of the FL House and it would be fun to watch the Left try and denigrate him as a Minority and popular in a swing state.
Marco can spell P o t a t o e too.

democratsarefools on April 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

As long as Romney wins in 2012, I am prepared to be cool with Rubio, Ryan, or any of the other guys who had said NO to VPOTUS consideration in the past.

Everything changes should Obama get the second term. Anything he does that can be reversed will still take generations to do so. Let THAT sink in, campers.

We need to win without cheating, and with numbers big enough to beat back any legal challenges. No more fooling around here.

Here is hoping that America gets it together in 2012 so that we end up with “A New Hope,” and not “Revenge of the Sith.”

itzWicks on April 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The only problem is that it is Dick Morris going all over the place saying “It has to be Rubio” and I don’t always trust Morris’ judgment. Romney tends to be swayed and he needs to sit down and really make a wise choice. I agree with the person, however, who said that if he was stronger this wouldn’t be such a problem.

congma on April 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

The only problem is that it is Dick Morris going all over the place saying “It has to be Rubio” and I don’t always trust Morris’ judgment. Romney tends to be swayed and he needs to sit down and really make a wise choice. I agree with the person, however, who said that if he was stronger this wouldn’t be such a problem.

congma on April 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Condi v. Hillary?

joey24007 on April 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

How far the U.S. has fallen when a sitting U.S. Senator’s only reason from observers to give a major address on any topic is part of a plan to get nominated as VP candidate.

joey24007 on April 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM

It’s comments like yours that make me embarrassed for our side!

bluegill on April 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I didn’t know your side was capable of being embarrassed, blueboy.

Post a list of the constitutional experts of any political stripe who claim Rubio is eligible.

Buddahpundit on April 24, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You’re welcome to think that. Still, the courts continue to tell people asking the questions to go away and after three years, none of these reasonable people can even find a reasonable lawyer to help them. After a while, you have to think that maybe the court thinks the whole question is unreasonable. Keep in mind, the courts never ruled that Reagan wasn’t born on Mars. So go ahead and try to get a ruling on it and tell me it’s a reasonable question while they’re throwing you out.

Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM

The courts have told people to go away because only a state Attorney General has the authority to question the qualification of a sitting president. The sitting president is now a candidate again.

DFCtomm on April 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM

It’s a crying shame that the likes of Obama has ruined things for Rubio. While Rubio was FL House Speaker, he is far more qualified to be POTUS than Obama was (and still is) I voted for Rubio in 2010 (and Allen West too – how lucky am I?) and was a Romney supporter since I voted for him in the 2008 FL GOP Primary. After Rubio won, my first reaction was ROMNEY-RUBIO 2012. Of course, I was laughed at. After seeing the plethora of qualified GOP possible Veeps, I still support Marco for the job but, either way, this Senator has one helluva future. Good for him…..

BabysCatz on April 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3