Up vote/Recommend this diary on Facebook/Twitter!
The knock on Rubio is the idea that he’s actually more big government instinct oriented than he suggests.
Indeed, his all-in approach to the gang of 8 suggests a willingness to curry favor with the Establishment, to straddle the line to advance his future objectives, mainly running for president in 2016.
What about the campus rape due process affair? What does that mean for the long term image of men over that issue?
Same basic argument.
What about his arguable surrender instinct on same sex marriage?
It seems his approach is to suggest “it’s the law of the land” instead of trying to find easy ways to fight it and claim it’s legit.
No equal protection was violated here, since nobody even self-proclaimed “straights” could marry another of the same sex. The ruling expanded the definition of marriage as understood for centuries; homosexuals had EXACTLY the same rights as anyone.
This, BTW, is a big knock I have against MOST of the people on our side. We constantly allow the left to define the terms of battle and make the error of debate frame miscues before we even begin arguing. We assume it’s because we actually respect the rule of law and not just conveniently. The mistake is in attitude, at minimum.
The left uses EVERY tool possible to win. 24/7. Period. On any critical situation. That will be seen in the Scalia replacement battle, I guarantee you that. They carved out a blank reconciliation bill for Pete’s sake to provide the entry of the ACA. The right and Republicans do NOT do all they can to put even a *legitimate* thumb on the scale. No wonder we lose so much.
They are too quick to surrender to the terms of the left, and that may apply in some ways to Rubio.
What about Planned Parenthood funding?
What about Paul Singer, an open advocate for homosexuals and also a billionaire donor supporting his candidacy? What does he expect in return? Why Rubio?
In each case, the pattern people fear is over big issues and votes, Rubio talks a good game but either is missing in action or curries Establishment favor to advance his career goals. He wants to be on the committees and get later endorsements and support from the GOPe to exploit later. He will say what he needs when he needs to achieve that aim.
Additionally, some fear he’s too much of a foreign policy hawk, not at least adopting a tone of some Libertarian inflected caution without the Ron Paul crazy (Cruz?) following a huge nation building expense in Iraq. They worry he might be too quick to commit to prolonged needless conflict instead of merely setting an objective, reaching that, and then leaving claiming victory.
The mood of the electorate is not in favor of neo-conservatism hues, another GW Bush who might give us another Obama in 2020 or 2024 following fatigue over hastily acted military conflicts when a more nuanced approach would have been wiser.
He ran initially against amnesty. Then he was leading the charge in the gang of 8 amnesty bill with Schumer. Now he’s against it again. So he was against it, before he was for it, and now he’s against it again.
Look at Rubio’s donors. Big amnesty open border names or not?
Michelle Malkin posted on this and supports Cruz since she does not believe Rubio will keep his word on amnesty once the donors that are financing him call in favors reciprocally. Why won’t he simply support it again once they do after he’s president?
Then he supported “programs” by government over the poor in last night’s debate. WTF, Marco, PROGRAMS? He said at the state level, but again, is this the approach of a person into the smallest governmental thumbprint possible as a first instinct?
I don’t think Rubio can answer these questions, no matter how much Erick Erickson praises him…