I've argued-and meant it-that I'd take a President Trump over President Rubio any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Don't get me wrong I don't want a President Trump and don't think he's possible.
I don't know if he can win the GOP primary though I don't see how you can say the possibility is implausible. I don't believe he can win against Hil.
But still if given the Bizzaro world choice between him and Rubio-or Jeb-I'd go for him. For any number of reasons like-he's not a conservative Republican. That means two things.
1. He doesn't share their noxious ideology on any number of issues very important to me.
2. Because the GOP party would never really trust him as one of its own-like Bernie and the Dems in the unlikely chance he were President-the damage a President Trump could do would be limited.
But Rubio is a nightmare on every level. He has a more mainstream reputation and image so a lot of people who would never consider Cruz or Trump might consider him.
But it's mostly image. What he is very good is at obscuring his own genuine positions. Nor does he have much of a track record in the Senate to look at.
I've also argued-and meant it-that his position on immigration is in some ways more cruel than even Trump's as it gives them less certainly. If you look at what he said about deporting 11 million immigrants, he neither agreed or disagreed with Trump and hasn't actually ruled anything out.
Say what you want about Ted Cruz-his reputation in Congress is well earned-but the fact is that his position on immigration is much clearer than Rubio's-despite his heroic attempts this week to obscure this.
Rubio, for his part, was for amnesty in 2013, but ran against it in 2010 in his campaign.
So in reality, whether you are for or against 'amnesty' you'd be crazy to trust him. On Trump's database for Muslims Rubio didn't' really rule it out either-if anything, he expanded on Trump by saying 'It's not just mosques that need to be monitored but other places Muslims may be.'
Then there is Rubio's position on abortion.
"State Rep. Rio Tilton is “99.9” percent certain he’s going to vote for Marco Rubio. He’s far less sure where Rubio stands on abortion."
"Does Rubio, like Tilton, 19, oppose abortions but favor exceptions, such as when a pregnancy results from rape?"
“I should hope so,” Tilton said after braving the cold late last month to see the Florida senator campaign in a barn here. “I don’t know, exactly.”
After contemplating it, he added: “Now I’m going to think about looking into that.”
"Rubio opposes abortion. But he has supported legislation with and without rape and incest exceptions, putting him on both sides of a heated sub-debate. His oft-stated goal is broad: reduce the number of abortions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubio-wants-to-unite-later-by-staying-vague-now/2015/12/17/651bc2b2-9867-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiowiggleroom-515pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
See this is what scares me. For me it's not hard-clearly, Rubio is prolife without exceptions like rape and incest. To say he will also support legislation that comes down on abortion but doesn't have those bans means he is against the bans but will do whatever he can to move the Overton Window against abortion.
Think of it this way. Lindsay Graham wants 20,000 ground troops-10,000 in both Iraq and Syria, If tomorrow there was a bill that only added 10,000 would his support prove that he doesn't really want 20,000?
Yet that conservative Rep above who wants to exceptions is puzzled. Most people are I guess. This is one reason why I sometimes have to differ from something that Tom Brown-and Sumner-often say: 'I like to take people at their word.'
Someone who wants to take Rubio at his word here might be too modest to take the clear logical leap-though it's obvious from the Lindsay Graham comparison.
The trouble is that too many people-and Tom is much more discernible than many out there-don't like to be too untrusting and cynical-and also don't know much about the facts-and so can easily be snookered by a Rubio-like they were by George W. Bush.
This is why I spend so much time going after Rubio-and Jeb. Or Chris Christie, The Establishment GOPers aren't always and necessarily more 'moderate' than the outsiders-on foreign policy they may actually be worse with their Bill Kristol Neocon obsessions. What they do understand is how to frame themselves in a more palatable way to the mainstream.
But with Rubio you have to not take him at this word. For nothing he says is believable.
P.S. I agree you can be too smart by half as well. I would agree that some people go too far with refusing to believe anything even stuff that is pretty clearly factbased.
What I would argue is that rather than taking people at their word take their word under advisement.Sort of like trust but verify. In politics, to assume everyone tells the straight truth on all things at all times would be suicidal.
I mean if I really wanted a Muslim database the smart way to really get it done would be to run against it.
In Michigan, Rick Snyder didn't run on having people in Detroit drinking dirty river water that has in a few short months made many young children sick through lead poisoning.
That's why you can't just respond to what candidates say-you factor it in but there are other factors.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/toxic-water-michigan-begins-and-ends
Even Donald Trump wouldn't run on that.
I don't know if he can win the GOP primary though I don't see how you can say the possibility is implausible. I don't believe he can win against Hil.
But still if given the Bizzaro world choice between him and Rubio-or Jeb-I'd go for him. For any number of reasons like-he's not a conservative Republican. That means two things.
1. He doesn't share their noxious ideology on any number of issues very important to me.
2. Because the GOP party would never really trust him as one of its own-like Bernie and the Dems in the unlikely chance he were President-the damage a President Trump could do would be limited.
But Rubio is a nightmare on every level. He has a more mainstream reputation and image so a lot of people who would never consider Cruz or Trump might consider him.
But it's mostly image. What he is very good is at obscuring his own genuine positions. Nor does he have much of a track record in the Senate to look at.
I've also argued-and meant it-that his position on immigration is in some ways more cruel than even Trump's as it gives them less certainly. If you look at what he said about deporting 11 million immigrants, he neither agreed or disagreed with Trump and hasn't actually ruled anything out.
Say what you want about Ted Cruz-his reputation in Congress is well earned-but the fact is that his position on immigration is much clearer than Rubio's-despite his heroic attempts this week to obscure this.
Rubio, for his part, was for amnesty in 2013, but ran against it in 2010 in his campaign.
So in reality, whether you are for or against 'amnesty' you'd be crazy to trust him. On Trump's database for Muslims Rubio didn't' really rule it out either-if anything, he expanded on Trump by saying 'It's not just mosques that need to be monitored but other places Muslims may be.'
Then there is Rubio's position on abortion.
"State Rep. Rio Tilton is “99.9” percent certain he’s going to vote for Marco Rubio. He’s far less sure where Rubio stands on abortion."
"Does Rubio, like Tilton, 19, oppose abortions but favor exceptions, such as when a pregnancy results from rape?"
“I should hope so,” Tilton said after braving the cold late last month to see the Florida senator campaign in a barn here. “I don’t know, exactly.”
After contemplating it, he added: “Now I’m going to think about looking into that.”
"Rubio opposes abortion. But he has supported legislation with and without rape and incest exceptions, putting him on both sides of a heated sub-debate. His oft-stated goal is broad: reduce the number of abortions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubio-wants-to-unite-later-by-staying-vague-now/2015/12/17/651bc2b2-9867-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiowiggleroom-515pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
See this is what scares me. For me it's not hard-clearly, Rubio is prolife without exceptions like rape and incest. To say he will also support legislation that comes down on abortion but doesn't have those bans means he is against the bans but will do whatever he can to move the Overton Window against abortion.
Think of it this way. Lindsay Graham wants 20,000 ground troops-10,000 in both Iraq and Syria, If tomorrow there was a bill that only added 10,000 would his support prove that he doesn't really want 20,000?
Yet that conservative Rep above who wants to exceptions is puzzled. Most people are I guess. This is one reason why I sometimes have to differ from something that Tom Brown-and Sumner-often say: 'I like to take people at their word.'
Someone who wants to take Rubio at his word here might be too modest to take the clear logical leap-though it's obvious from the Lindsay Graham comparison.
The trouble is that too many people-and Tom is much more discernible than many out there-don't like to be too untrusting and cynical-and also don't know much about the facts-and so can easily be snookered by a Rubio-like they were by George W. Bush.
This is why I spend so much time going after Rubio-and Jeb. Or Chris Christie, The Establishment GOPers aren't always and necessarily more 'moderate' than the outsiders-on foreign policy they may actually be worse with their Bill Kristol Neocon obsessions. What they do understand is how to frame themselves in a more palatable way to the mainstream.
But with Rubio you have to not take him at this word. For nothing he says is believable.
P.S. I agree you can be too smart by half as well. I would agree that some people go too far with refusing to believe anything even stuff that is pretty clearly factbased.
What I would argue is that rather than taking people at their word take their word under advisement.Sort of like trust but verify. In politics, to assume everyone tells the straight truth on all things at all times would be suicidal.
I mean if I really wanted a Muslim database the smart way to really get it done would be to run against it.
In Michigan, Rick Snyder didn't run on having people in Detroit drinking dirty river water that has in a few short months made many young children sick through lead poisoning.
That's why you can't just respond to what candidates say-you factor it in but there are other factors.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/toxic-water-michigan-begins-and-ends
Even Donald Trump wouldn't run on that.
Mike, would you rather have Putin in the white house or Jeb?
ReplyDeleteI get you're really keen to get me to say I prefer Jeb over someone, that he's not the worst imaginable choice. Sorry, no can do! LOL.
ReplyDeleteIn comparing Putin you have to compare apples and oranges. I certainly would rather live in the American system than the current Russian system, I agree.
Our American system of government wouldn't allow Putin to be Putin.
I maintain that for the American context the worst possible government is a regular generic Republican
No, I mean Putin in our American system. Say he finds his long lost US birth certificate. Perhaps he becomes Trump's running mate and then president Trump has an accident and dies.
DeleteNow replace Putin with Jeb in the above scenario. Which do you prefer? Scenario #1 or scenario #2?
But you miss my point. He'd be much more constrained with much stronger US institutions than Russian ones. In Russia he basically just was able to insert himself as dictator for life. That couldn't happen in America.
ReplyDeletePutin and Trump would have no real power without a party.
Again, I've made the point about Hitler. He couldn't do here what he did in Germany. He had the Nazi party and something like his own standing army.
Think of my position this way. In the US context the worst thing is a GOP dominated government.
ReplyDeleteBut there are worst things than the worst thing in the US context-like the worst thing in a Russian context.
I will agree with this. As bad as the W years were, living in the US in those years were not nearly as bad as living under Putin.