Rubio passes on NRSC chairmanship

posted at 9:21 am on November 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

As Republicans consider the party’s future and how to confront the demographic shifts made plain by Tuesday’s election, Florida Senator Marco Rubio‘s name has emerged as perhaps the 2016 candidate of GOP destiny (although, I would also like to just throw this out there, hem hem).

Rubio maintained all along that he had no desire to become Mitt Romney’s running mate, and doesn’t appear to have ever made it to the short list — but with our new situation (ugh, same as the old situation), and with Democrats having picked up a couple of seats, minority Senate leadership was wondering if Rubio wouldn’t put his conservative star-power to use with the 2014 mid-terms in mind, via RCP:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been courted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to take over the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2014 midterm season, but the freshman lawmaker declined the entreaty, sources told RCP. …

The sources, who are familiar with Rubio’s decision, said the junior senator had mulled the leadership role for some time. As he often points out, however, being the father of four young children sometimes keeps him away from the campaign trail.

…Rubio is a star fundraiser who was able to pull in hundreds of thousands of dollars for Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid, a skill that would be a boon to the Senate campaign committee. Of course, he can still be used by the NRSC to raise money, but he wouldn’t have to deal with the party’s divisive primaries as one of its leading strategists.

As Ann Coulter pointed out in her column this week, “just as the laws of elections generally mean the incumbent president wins, they also mean the party out of the White House typically stages a big comeback in midterm elections.” Depending on how the coming fiscal-cliff death-struggle goes down, and of course on how President Obama’s governing pans out, it’s possible that Rubio’s popularity won’t be necessary in picking up GOP Senate seats (…but, then again, after Tuesday night…who knows anymore). Regardless, Rubio’s already got all the national exposure he needs, and he may have other plans in mind.


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

Good for him…

OmahaConservative on November 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

We don’t need star power we need organizational power. The GOP has to learn how to match the left’s GOTV efforts.

William Amos on November 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Rubio should distance himself from any rnc hierarchy. The stench of incompetence will destroy him.

portlandon on November 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

We don’t need star power we need organizational power. The GOP has to learn how to match the left’s GOTV efforts.

William Amos on November 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I expected Mitt, of all people, to be the candidate who would do this, and do it in spades. That he apparently did not is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

petefrt on November 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Erika I am intrigued by your suggestion of Gov. Martinez. I think the world of Marco Rubio but I think we have seen the result of a president with no executive experience. Will have to investigate further.

HoustonRight on November 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM

“just as the laws of elections generally mean the incumbent president wins, they also mean the party out of the White House typically stages a big comeback in midterm elections.”

Um, like 1998?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

We don’t need star power we need organizational power. The GOP has to learn how to match the left’s GOTV efforts.

William Amos on November 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The closest thing we have to unions on the left are churches and religious organizations. What did we offer them this year?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I’m a bit concerned that Rubio would put family before politics.

What has this nation become when a man actually cares about spending time with his kids? A nation of racists and homophobes, that’s what.

Bishop on November 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Marco Rubio is no ear to ear grinning Michael Steele. He seems to be aware that the party just wants to use him to say, “Look we’ve got Hispanics too!”, and declined.

He has many talents and capabilities on his own.

Boomer_Sooner on November 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Well.. Of course, we wouldn’t want to do that. It would involve actual work and might lead to exposure as a lightweight. Better to practice smiling and polishing our one speech for the RNC convention in 2016 so we don’t call for more gov’t when accepting the nomination.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

What are Rubio’s qualifications for any leadership position? He is handsome, a good family man, an articulate speaker, has non-white skin, is born abroad, and has ties with his party’s establishment? I thought we already tried one like that…

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

“Rubio is a sellout! Vote Loosertarian!” -Dante

Akzed on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Plus he knows as well as anyone that he can be a start today because they want a Hispanic face, but all he’s got to do is even make a tiny action to actually support Hispanics or try to address immigration reform and the Republican base will “Chris Christie” him faster than you can say gracias.

The Republican party wants a face, but not policy changes behind it. It won’t work.

Boomer_Sooner on November 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

1998 was a weird election because of impeachment. I’d hope that the House won’t go there with Obama. Just ride it out.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

What are Rubio’s qualifications for any leadership position? He is handsome, a good family man, an articulate speaker, has non-white skin, is born abroad, and has ties with his party’s establishment? I thought we already tried one like that…

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Actually, he was born in Miami, but his parents weren’t American citizens.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

“Rubio is a sellout! Vote Loosertarian!” -Dante

Akzed on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I wonder why your party keeps losing elections.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Rubio knows that recruiting candidates to run for senate is a hard, thankless job. Asking people to run to let themselves be open to character assissination by the Dems.

Wethal on November 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I expected Mitt, of all people, to be the candidate who would do this, and do it in spades. That he apparently did not is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

petefrt on November 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Yup.

the_nile on November 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Rubio was not born abroad and neither was Obama. Jeez.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I’m a bit concerned that Rubio would put family before politics.

Bishop on November 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Remember part of the Reagan formula for success? Bring in a bunch of good people and delegate

ShainS on November 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM

What are Rubio’s qualifications for any leadership position? He is handsome, a good family man, an articulate speaker, has non-white skin, is born abroad, and has ties with his party’s establishment? I thought we already tried one like that…

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM.

If you’re referring to heading up the NRSC, isn’t that job basically about raising money and getting out the vote for Republican Senate candidates? If so, Rubio would do a fantastic job of that.

As for President, he does have a thin resume. Even serving one full term in the Senate by 2016 won’t really mean much considering he’s in the minority and will almost certainly remain so past 2014(barring a complete economic collapse that gets blamed on the Dems) which means no committee chairmanships or major legislation with his name on it.

Now obviously that doesn’t mean he can’t get elected President(Barack Obama, anyone?), but I like to think we have higher standards for our candidates than the Dems. Then again, we may be so desperate to retake the White House by the time 2016 rolls around that we set that aside and line up behind Rubio. I do think he’s got as good a shot as any Republican out there right now.

Doughboy on November 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

As Ann Coulter pointed out in her column this week, “just as the laws of elections generally mean the incumbent president wins, they also mean the party out of the White House typically stages a big comeback in midterm elections.

Step 1 of fixing the GOP: Drop the idea that we lost because incumbents always win.

Ford lost. Carter lost. George H.W. Bush lost. Out of the last 7 presidential elections in which an incumbent was running, the incumbent lost 3 of them. A 4-3 record of incumbents winning does not mean “the incumbent generally wins.”

Romney lost because he was a moderate and did not sufficiently turn out the Republican base. Period. You want to win the presidential race in 2016? Nominate a conservative. And stop trying to explain all the reasons Romeny lost that lay the blame on someone or some thing other than Romney.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Actually, he was born in Miami, but his parents weren’t American citizens.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Removed the irrelevant part for you.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

NRSC is basically a junior leadership position. It generally goes to first termers who show promise. It’s sort of dumb for him to pass it up politically. There are quite a few vulnerable Ds out there. Recruit a few good, interesting candidates and you have some success. They support you in your 2016 run. Mentoring new members is why Ryan has so much power in the House. He has junior members like Aaron Schock following him around.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Removed the irrelevant part for you.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It’s relevant if he wants to be VP or P.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

We don’t need star power we need organizational power. The GOP has to learn how to match the left’s GOTV efforts.

William Amos on November 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM

With all due respect. Winning nationally by 2% I don’t think speaks volumes to the dems GOTV effort. They were marginally better in that regard but did much better at pandering.

reddevil on November 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The closest thing we have to unions on the left are churches and religious organizations. What did we offer them this year?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

We offered them Mitt Romney, a good and God-fearing man. The candidate was clearly acceptable to them, they voted for him en masse. What is it they were asking for that they were not given? Pro-life? Check. Liberation from oppressive Obamacare regulations? Check. What did they ask for that they did not get in Mitt Romney?

rogaineguy on November 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Actually, he was born in Miami, but his parents weren’t American citizens.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Removed the irrelevant part for you.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It is about as relevant as that dust-covered but living, breathing document we historically refer to as “The Constitution of the United States of America”.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Umm.. It basically doesn’t matter where his parents were born. It only matters where he was born. Jeez, people don’t get how this makes them look.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I expected Mitt, of all people, to be the candidate who would do this, and do it in spades. That he apparently did not is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

petefrt

But does part of that not fall on the state GOP’s as well?

Zaggs on November 8, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Maybe Rubio doesn’t want to be POTUS one day, maybe he doesn’t give a flying rip about being the focus of future candidate speculation.

Still, that raises troubling questions such as why Rubio would put his own family and desires before the needs of the Party.

Bishop on November 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Umm.. It basically doesn’t matter where his parents were born. It only matters where he was born. Jeez, people don’t get how this makes them look.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The media will point out Rubio’s legitimacy issue, never doubt that, and will laugh you out derisively when you point them to Obama’s questionable biography that they ignore. That’s how it works.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Umm.. It basically doesn’t matter where his parents were born. It only matters where he was born. Jeez, people don’t get how this makes them look.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM

And people who are ignorant of the Constitution don’t know how their ignorance makes them look.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

No actually they won’t go there. Rubio will just be tarred a lightweight.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Let the man represent his state and raise his family.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I like Susanna Martinez way more than Marco Rubio.

txmomof6 on November 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I have seen the explanations on this by the several of the Founders writings and there is a case to be made for both interpretations. I am surprised that the Supreme Court has had a ruling on this.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Ot:
Just heard on the radio that folks are requesting bill Clinton to oversee the fiscal cliff talks

Ummm we just elected dear leader

I can’t believe it

cmsinaz on November 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

this is a good move on his part. the nrsc backs the incumbent no matter how terrible. by passing he wont put himself in the position of having to support the next crist or spectre even if its unwillingly.

chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The closest thing we have to unions on the left are churches and religious organizations. What did we offer them this year?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The fiscally-conservative counterpart for the unions is supposed to be the Chamber of Commerce, which supposedly represents the interests of small businesses. Unfortunately, unions have two unbeatable advantages: their membership is not voluntary, and they can use collective “bargain agreements” to suck straight out of Fedzilla’s teat.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Don’t need someone charismatic to run the NRSC. 99% of the public doesn’t know or care who the NRSC chair is.

All we need is someone to recruit good candidates to run, and not the Akins and Mourdocks and Angles and O’Donnells of the party.

AngusMc on November 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The closest thing we have to unions on the left are churches and religious organizations. What did we offer them this year?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Why should they be offered anything?

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Ot:
Just heard on the radio that folks are requesting bill Clinton to oversee the fiscal cliff talks

cmsinaz on November 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Just assign Congresswoman Kristi Noem to conduct the negotiations. Ol’ Bee-Jay will be too busy drooling to oversee anything.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

And people who are ignorant of the Constitution don’t know how their ignorance makes them look.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Please tell me where the Constitution defines the term “natural born citizen.” I know it has a requirement that a president be a natural born citizen, but I don’t see anywhere that it explains what that means.

Now, I know you claim it means that their parents have to have been citizens of the United States. And, honestly, I can see the argument for that position. But I can also see the argument for the position that if you were born on US soil, as Rubio was, that you are a natural born citizen. And the latter view is, frankly, the one that has been adopted anytime the issue came up, such as in court decisions.

In any case, you can argue that my definition of the term is wrong, but to say that I am “ignorant of the Constitution” when the Constitution contains no definition of the term what-so-ever is something of a leap.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Rubio’s a big government RINO with a huge minority chip on his shoulder. He can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. Arrogant on November 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

You guys just don’t get it — and you’ll never get it, from all I see.

The very fact that Rubio’s name would “repeatedly” come up lays bare foolishness that is conservative thinking today.

You don’t need a figurehead. You had one. We didn’t buy his BS.

You don’t need a “charismatic minority” leader. You’ve had several. We didn’t buy their BS either.

You don’t need more radical rightists. You’ve had thousands, and they’ve been soundly rejected — repeatedly.

You need to alter your principles, not simply rebrand them. We through all your BS. But you’re not listening, never will …

bifidis on November 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

it is NOT a junior leadership position at all. its controls a sizable amount of money and has plenty of influence.

chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Um, like 1998?

Valkyriepundit on November 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If you think 2014 is going to be like 1998, I have some stock tips. for you.

The economy is in the toilet *now* – Obama’s policies haven’t even really kicked in yet. 8% unemployment has just been from capital investors being scared of the future. The president isn’t popular and if he or a member of his administration is under impeachment, it’ll be for murder, not sex fibs.

HitNRun on November 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Please tell me where the Constitution defines the term “natural born citizen.” I know it has a requirement that a president be a natural born citizen, but I don’t see anywhere that it explains what that means.

Now, I know you claim it means that their parents have to have been citizens of the United States. And, honestly, I can see the argument for that position. But I can also see the argument for the position that if you were born on US soil, as Rubio was, that you are a natural born citizen. And the latter view is, frankly, the one that has been adopted anytime the issue came up, such as in court decisions.

In any case, you can argue that my definition of the term is wrong, but to say that I am “ignorant of the Constitution” when the Constitution contains no definition of the term what-so-ever is something of a leap.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The Constitution is not a dictionary. Why would you expect to find a defintion in it? There were very real people and texts that were influences on the Founders/Framers, one of whom was Emerich de Vattel and his Law of Nations. John Jay implored Washington to change “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. Shortly after, New York library records show that Washington checked out Vattel’s work, and the clause was subsequently amended. The courts are not what decides the issue; what decides the issue is what the ratifiers believed it to mean.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Arch. Heh
:)

cmsinaz on November 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You need to alter your principles, not simply rebrand them. We through all your BS. But you’re not listening, never will …

bifidis on November 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Translation: We have amassed enough leeches that will vote for Beelzebub himself if there’s a free phone involved, so you better bend over and suck it.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

It also generally goes to a newer member who is up and coming. That’s how people get into the Senate or House leadership.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It’s relevant if he wants to be VP or P.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

It is?

VegasRick on November 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

you are entirely wrong on many areas. the courts have consistently held that a person born in the united states is a “natural born citizen” regardless of parents citizenship. if congress wants to address at that point what the courts say will be moot but not until.

and as the what the “ratifiers believed it to mean” thats horsecrap also. its what the text actually says that counts not what they thought it meant. and the founders werent all in agreement on what the various sections meant anyway. constitutional disagreements arose from day one even among those who wrote the document.

chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Jim Demint has a sterling recorded recruiting and vetting conservatives. He would make a fantastic NRSC Chairman.

parteagirl on November 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You need to alter your principles, …

Then they aren’t “principles”.
No, we just need to do a much better job of articulating why our principles are better than the Dems’ (if they had any), and do a much better job at GOTV efforts.

Dexter_Alarius on November 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM

really this group needs to be disbanded and its functions taken over by the national party. well the functions that include recruiting candidates. after 2010 when it supported crist and spectre in the primaries its proved itself to be worthless, promoting incumbents over the good of the party.

chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM

you are entirely wrong on many areas. the courts have consistently held that a person born in the united states is a “natural born citizen” regardless of parents citizenship.
chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Um, no.
What the courts have consistently held (and only since the 1920s or 30s) is that a person born in the US is a citizen at birth. That is an entirely different animal than a “Natural Born Citizen” in the context of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

And also, those courts are violating the intention of the drafters of that Amendment by completely ignoring the part about being “… and under the jurisdiction thereof”.

Do some reading on the subject. I’d recommend Minor vs Happersett and US vs Wong Kim Ark.

Dexter_Alarius on November 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

After I got my ass handed to me on a platter two elections in a row, yeah, the first thing I would do is spend time and energy wishing and wondering who could my party run next instead of examining why what my party put forth to the voters in both elections got shat upon so mightily.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I’d like to see my senator, Rand Paul, as the NRSC Chairman.

NoNails on November 8, 2012 at 10:37 AM

you are entirely wrong on many areas. the courts have consistently held that a person born in the united states is a “natural born citizen” regardless of parents citizenship. if congress wants to address at that point what the courts say will be moot but not until.

They have not.

and as the what the “ratifiers believed it to mean” thats horsecrap also. its what the text actually says that counts not what they thought it meant. and the founders werent all in agreement on what the various sections meant anyway. constitutional disagreements arose from day one even among those who wrote the document.

chasdal on November 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Horsecrap? So when Madison and Jefferson told us to look to the ratifiers and the ratifying conventions – the people who actually agreed to the Constitutution and debated over the clauses – for understanding, it was just “horsecrap”? Yes, it is exactly what the people who ratified the Constitution believed it to mean that matters. They are the ones who agreed to the formation of the federal government in their terms.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The Constitution is not a dictionary. Why would you expect to find a defintion in it? There were very real people and texts that were influences on the Founders/Framers, one of whom was Emerich de Vattel and his Law of Nations. John Jay implored Washington to change “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. Shortly after, New York library records show that Washington checked out Vattel’s work, and the clause was subsequently amended. The courts are not what decides the issue; what decides the issue is what the ratifiers believed it to mean.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The fact is: the Constitution is the law of the land. Not the Federalist Papers. Not any book by any President or Founding Father. If you want to tighten or loosen the restrictions on presidential requirements, pass and ratify an amendment that EXPLICITLY states the requirements and CLEARLY defines what “natural born” means. Until then, the courts are on the side of Rubio et al.

Personally, I think it’s stupid that a person’s qualification for Presidential candidacy has to depend on his/her parents’ citizenship status. If Rubio was born here, he’s in play. Period.

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

After I got my ass handed to me on a platter two elections in a row, yeah, the first thing I would do is spend time and energy wishing and wondering who could my party run next instead of examining why what my party put forth to the voters in both elections got shat upon so mightily.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The “why” is very well known, dude. The Republicans promised less free shit than the Democrats. These days, it’s a real bummer in the eyes of an average voter.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The fact is: the Constitution is the law of the land.

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

That is exactly my argument. But to dismiss the influences and ignore the debates during the conventions is foolish.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Also.. Bad candidates and lady parts.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Rubio was born in Miami.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM

good for Marco

stay away from the republican establishment

personally I think he would make the ideal vp
but we will need to have a canidate with ideas, ideas and pizazz come out of the cesspool of the RNC

audiotom on November 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Still, that raises troubling questions such as why Rubio would put his own family and desires before the needs of the Party.

Bishop on November 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

That’s crazy talk. Of course he puts his own family and desires before the needs of the Party, that is the moral thing to do. And why the hell are you capitalizing Party as if you live in Stalinist Russia?

Is this supposed to be sarcasm or irony? If so, that did not come through.

Grames on November 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The “why” is very well known, dude. The Republicans promised less free shit than the Democrats. These days, it’s a real bummer in the eyes of an average voter.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM
——–

“free shit”

ha ha ha ha

As long as you continue to operate at a self-imposed information disadvantage, you will lose.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM

More free stuff! Binders! Lady Parts!

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Kind of O/T, but I think this needs to be stated over and over.

The demographics and general philosophy of this nation have changed so much so that I do not believe conservatives and libertarians have any recourse in re-establishing our constitutional republic through federal elections. I believe that the only option left to our side is through an application of the 10th Amendment with a check on federal power by a gov of a powerful state.

Lets take one issue as an example: federal environmental regulations via the EPA. We spend our time and money pushing candidates at the federal level who will manage, defund, or abolish these bureaucracies with little chance of ever seeing this occur. If a conservative president and congress ever went forward with these measures they would more than likely be done politically due to the media and the national electorate. Key term national.

Now, if a governor of a large state simply made a statement that they did not recognize federal authority in regards to its state energy regulation and actually took physical measures to remove the infrastructure of said federal bureaucracy how would the federal government respond? Yes, they could physically try and reinstate them and risk an actual confrontation, but that would be a very big gamble. It is important that the state asserting its right have an electorate that would support these measures.

I believe this measure would open up the flood gates for governors of all states to start applying their sovereign state rights. This may be liberal social issues is some states and fiscal and regulatory issues in other states. The bottom line is the perceived authority of the federal government will have been checked.

I believe the best state to challenge federal authority would be the state of Texas. It is a large state that has a populace that is passionate about its state especially given the fact that it was its own sovereign country prior to joining the union.

We will never right the ship by going head to head in federal elections. This last election proved that even more. The tool, the 10th amendment, is available we just need to find the right governor, issue, and time to apply it.

Meat Fighter on November 8, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Those calling Rubio a lightweight having been paying attention. I bet Charlie.Christina thought he was a lightweight.

terryannonline on November 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Who ever takes the job has some really big shoes to fill. Sen John Cornyn has done the job. Just look at his record over the last 4 years. The list of losing candidates he has produced is amazing. No better example than what he did in the Charlie Crist mess in the primary aganist Marco Rubio. Let’s hope Texas retires him in 2014.

RickinNH on November 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Those calling Rubio a lightweight having been paying attention. I bet Charlie.Christina thought he was a lightweight.

terryannonline on November 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I won’t call him a lightwight; I’ll call him what he is: a neoconservative, big government statist.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

This is pathetic identity politics. Within the Latino community Rubio is widely considered a coconut.

/Geraldo

CorporatePiggy on November 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

We have a Constitution, we have laws, I am sorry that ignoring them seems to be a viable choice of governance. It’s not.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM

And Rubio’s big awesome accomplishments in the Senate are what exactly?? The dude’s a lightweight. When he gets some actual accomplishments, we’ll talk. And also a substantive speech with an actual governing vision rather than recycling the same one.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Meat Fighter on November 8, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You have a good point but hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled against the states on the EPA? And how long will the option last when Obama changes SCOTUS to a liberal rubber stamp?

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM

We have a Constitution, we have laws, I am sorry that ignoring them seems to be a viable choice of governance. It’s not.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM
———

What part of the constitution is being ignored?

This one?

“a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization (which includes churches) may not “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

Oh wait – that’s the IRS code. Sorry.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I don’t know you, but just what I read on this blog, I bet you are hated by your coworkers. Eat lunch by yourself a lot?

threeinone on November 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Rubio was not born abroad and neither was Obama. Jeez.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Since you have so eloquently linked these two men’s births together as equals, let me provide a little separation …..

Unlike Obama’s 1961 birth certificate digital image, Rubio’s 1971 certificate won’t contain six distinct Adobe PDF layer’s.

Carnac on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM

(although, I would also like to just throw this out there, hem hem)

I read an interview with Susana about the possibility, and she said that she’s not interested (for now, at least) because she has a mentally disabled sister that she wants to be able to take care of. But I’ve still got hope too! She did give a great speech at the convention.

Liberty 5-3001 on November 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM

The Constitution is not a dictionary. Why would you expect to find a defintion in it? There were very real people and texts that were influences on the Founders/Framers, one of whom was Emerich de Vattel and his Law of Nations. John Jay implored Washington to change “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. Shortly after, New York library records show that Washington checked out Vattel’s work, and the clause was subsequently amended. The courts are not what decides the issue; what decides the issue is what the ratifiers believed it to mean.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The ratifiers are not some monolithic group. If we say that what decides the issue is “what the ratifiers believed it to mean,” you’ve set up an impossibility because on virtually every issue of Constitutional law we might come up against, different ratifiers believed different things.

Also, I know you will hold to your dying breath that what the courts say is irrelevant. But it’s simply not true. You can kick and scream about how the courts are not supposed to play the role of arbiter all you want. But they do. Until such time as the Constitution is amended to reign their power back in, or the states grow the necessary backbone to assert their rights, what the courts say about the Constitution is what is going to be followed. That’s a fact.

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I don’t see Martinez as Prez. material. Nice lady however.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM

ince you have so eloquently linked these two men’s births together as equals, let me provide a little separation …..

Unlike Obama’s 1961 birth certificate digital image, Rubio’s 1971 certificate won’t contain six distinct Adobe PDF layer’s.

Carnac on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM

However, in both cases, no one cares…

Shump on November 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Since you have so eloquently linked these two men’s births together as equals, let me provide a little separation …..

Unlike Obama’s 1961 birth certificate digital image, Rubio’s 1971 certificate won’t contain six distinct Adobe PDF layer’s.

Carnac on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM
——

Another reason you lost.

You never learn do you.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You have a good point but hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled against the states on the EPA? And how long will the option last when Obama changes SCOTUS to a liberal rubber stamp?
Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM

The point is that by routing it through the courts you are already folding your hand. The sumpreme court is not the final arbitrtor on constitutionality. Our current culture belives they are, but they are not.

“There is not a syllable in the Constitution which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitutde in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every state”
-Alexander Hamilton

When the states sued the federal government over the Affordable Health Care Act they already lost. They should have stated that the federal government has no authority in this arena and simply not complied. Make the federal government forcably carry out their laws. Force a constituional crisis.

I’m sorry, but it is the ONLY recourse for consititional conservatives and libertarians. The alternative is to contiue to in the paradigm of national elections and lose and ultimitely become have a party like the Tories of the UK.

Meat Fighter on November 8, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Those calling Rubio a lightweight having been paying attention. I bet Charlie.Christina thought he was a lightweight.

terryannonline on November 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

.
Well…….
What we learned Tuesday was that the Nov. 2010 Mojo could not be sustained. Give the Media some credit for this, but it was up to we the people to keep the torches lit. Tuesday night we found out that no one had noticed the torches had gone out.

But if Rubio were to run for Senate again in this climate, it may be a surprisingly different story for him.

I always thought 2010 was a change in course…..and not just a bump in the road of this downward spiral toward a socialist state to be known as the USSA.
I’m thinking maybe it was one of those bumps Ocommie mentioned he had to deal with.

FlaMurph on November 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Another reason you lost.

You never learn do you.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You mean like the socialists (NDP) is essentially the Government of Quebec?

Taking any advice from you is like taking the advice of a homeless man on a good hotel.

We lost for a number of reasons, but the main one is the media controls the narrative. Until we rectify that we will continue to lose. Case in point Benghazi versus Big Bird. Which does the public know more about and which is more important to the country?

Until we figure this out not a thing will change.

Then we have to work on ourselves. I have seen the same arguments the last few days that I saw in 2008. Yet here we are again. What are WE willing to do, to not have, to fight for.

*shrug*

Pretty bad when Canada has a more conservative government and growing population. Then again, they have no where else to go but up. Right, Dave?

kim roy on November 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Probably still would have run.. Hope! Change! and empty slogans work well. However, this doesn’t mean he isn’t a lightweight.

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Romney lost the following demos: Latinos, African Americans, Single Females, the Youth Vote and Catholics.

While the GOP has made some inroads in getting politicians in some of these groups into positions of power, it lacks the ability to energize the groups that counts: Voters.

The Democrat Machine will simply point and shout “Token!” or “Uncle Tom!”.

If the GOP can’t rally volunteers and voters in these demos, you can forget about 2014 and 2016 and others…

GadsdenRattlers on November 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM

We now have Ted Cruz in the senate and he is excellent.

monalisa on November 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM

That is exactly my argument. But to dismiss the influences and ignore the debates during the conventions is foolish.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’m not saying we should ignore the influences or debates. I’m just saying only the Constitution should carry the weight of law, and if we want to specify or clarify the terms it mentions, we should do so by the amendment process, and THEN we can end debate on what “natural” means or what have you. If Congress has the authority to classify that (per the last part of the 14th Amendment), they should pass a law spelling out whether or not citizens born of non-citizens under American jurisdiction can run for President, and we can deal with it then.

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

All we need is someone to recruit good candidates to run, and not the Akins and Mourdocks and Angles and O’Donnells of the party.

AngusMc on November 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

As for Achin’, there should have been a forced removal of him from the ballot. idk how that was even doable, but either of his two opponents were eminently more qualified.

As for Mourdock, he beat an incumbent (take that, Ann!) who didn’t even live in his home state for over 80% of a given year. But how in the hell are we going to get candidates that are all programmed to say X all the time just to escape the MSM’s wrath?

The primary objective here is not only to revise the procedures by HOW our candidates are selected (sorry, no phony Dems like Mike Castle or Dick Luger need apply) but also how we even approach necessary evils like the media.

Myron Falwell on November 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

God.. Apparently, our 2016 nominee is already in IA. No wonder he can’t be bothered to take an actual position. Why do that when we can campaign in IA?

Illinidiva on November 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The “why” is very well known, dude. The Republicans promised less free shit than the Democrats. These days, it’s a real bummer in the eyes of an average voter.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM
——–

“free shit”

ha ha ha ha

As long as you continue to operate at a self-imposed information disadvantage, you will lose.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Good Grief. I may need therapy after this.
Dave, I agree with you.

Did the Republicans lose because of a weak candidate that was lacking in morals, conviction, and the experience to do the job? No. As Miller said last night. If Romney’s what’s wrong with America, this country has serious problems.

Did the incumbent President have a horrible record that even he refused to run on? Absolutely.

It had nothing to do with substance.

The Republicans lost because of messaging.

They could not clearly and early articulate the benefits of voting Republican, and getting ahead of all of the negative campaigning that Obama had in store for Romney. They could not clearly articulate the looming disaster unless the fiscal problems were fixed, so that the average “47%” could understand them without their eyes glazing over. They could not clearly articulate the disaster that Obamacare will end up being to the average customer of health care. They could not keep from talking about subjects like abortion and prophylactics in a way that cost them votes, and they could not explain all of these points in ways that were meaningful that the “47%” could grasp in a soundbite, but also the minorities, such as Blacks and Hispanics.

The average low information voter grabs soundbites and swears they are Gospel, and votes on emotion.

The fact that the media have given up their place as the Fourth Estate as the guardians between the people and the government and have now become participants in the political process to benefit one talking point or party just adds to the problem. However, alternative forms of information are out there now, and the six o’clock news, daily newspapers, and other “dnosaur” media are in real danger of becoming more and more irrelevant. Time will tell how long it will take for parity.

Case in point on messaging. Some unreal number of decent income earning Americans simply refused to get off their a$$es and vote.
They are the ones that will pay dearly when Capital Gains Taxes go from 15 to 25%. That is their retirement income that taxes just went up on 10%. They are the ones whose healthcare is being drastically changed for the poorer, and will cost more. They are the ones whose 401K’s will now be taxed. They are the ones whose Homestead Exemption will disappear. They will all lose. Why did they not get off their bu%%s and vote?

Because no one in the Republican Party could explain to them in two to three sentences or less what is about to happen.

Messaging.

Tenwheeler on November 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

When the states sued the federal government over the Affordable Health Care Act they already lost. They should have stated that the federal government has no authority in this arena and simply not complied. Make the federal government forcably carry out their laws. Force a constituional crisis

This.

Tenwheeler on November 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Good Grief. I may need therapy after this.
Dave, I agree with you.
——-
Because you discovered your objectivity gene.

Did the Republicans lose because of a weak candidate that was lacking in morals, conviction, and the experience to do the job? No. As Miller said last night. If Romney’s what’s wrong with America, this country has serious problems.
——-
Miller oversimplifying it down to that is just a waste of time and a dog whistle to the foaming right of the right base.

Did the incumbent President have a horrible record that even he refused to run on? Absolutely.
——–
Didn’t run away from it. Cherrypicked the good news and packaged it properly. Treated the electorate with respect – ” you can’t fix this shit in 4 years but we’re improving slowly”

It had nothing to do with substance.
——-
Sure it did.

The Republicans lost because of messaging.
—-
Yep. That and birthers, tea partiers, rape morons, roe vs wade lunacy, churches stuffing their faces into the race, CEOs threatening their employees, the 47% speech, etc etc etc – it all adds up.

They could not clearly and early articulate the benefits of voting Republican, and getting ahead of all of the negative campaigning that Obama had in store for Romney. They could not clearly articulate the looming disaster unless the fiscal problems were fixed, so that the average “47%” could understand them without their eyes glazing over. They could not clearly articulate the disaster that Obamacare will end up being to the average customer of health care. They could not keep from talking about subjects like abortion and prophylactics in a way that cost them votes, and they could not explain all of these points in ways that were meaningful that the “47%” could grasp in a soundbite, but also the minorities, such as Blacks and Hispanics.
—–
Both sides were exceedingly negative. Romney failed to explain his plan. Looked like he didn’t have his shit together when he often answered “I’ll explain it later” or “it’s too complicated to explain right now”
Obamacare is not a disaster. You clowns need to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

The average low information voter grabs soundbites and swears they are Gospel, and votes on emotion.
——-
Yep. And racism too, to a small degree. They also worship/believe morons like Rush and Beck.

The fact that the media have given up their place as the Fourth Estate as the guardians between the people and the government and have now become participants in the political process to benefit one talking point or party just adds to the problem. However, alternative forms of information are out there now, and the six o’clock news, daily newspapers, and other “dnosaur” media are in real danger of becoming more and more irrelevant. Time will tell how long it will take for parity.
———-

24-7 news has ruined news. The internet has ruined facts.

Case in point on messaging. Some unreal number of decent income earning Americans simply refused to get off their a$$es and vote.
They are the ones that will pay dearly when Capital Gains Taxes go from 15 to 25%. That is their retirement income that taxes just went up on 10%. They are the ones whose healthcare is being drastically changed for the poorer, and will cost more. They are the ones whose 401K’s will now be taxed. They are the ones whose Homestead Exemption will disappear. They will all lose. Why did they not get off their bu%%s and vote?

Because no one in the Republican Party could explain to them in two to three sentences or less what is about to happen.

Messaging.

Tenwheeler on November 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM
———

You can’t have a candidate be wayyyyyy over to the right in the primaries and then wayyyyyy over to the middle in the main election. Your candidate looks like an idiot.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM

“…the party out of the White House typically stages a big comeback in midterm elections.”

Unless republicans put forth some true small government, fiscal conservatives, I may sit out the elections until they do, or just vote Libertarian.

woodNfish on November 8, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Rubio is NOT the answer for the NRSC nor the GOP….Rubio WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…..Herman Cain has the right idea……start a new party that focuses on fiscal, military, and national defense matters and keeps the heck out of everyone’s personal lives!

Pragmatic on November 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2