Et tu, Rubio? Marco stabs NeverTrump, twists knife

Marco Rubio Clinton tweet

Throughout the 2016 Republican primary season, there was one man who consistently warned that nominating Donald Trump would signal the death knell for the party of limited government: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

He called the billionaire a “con artist” who was not fit for office.

He helped spearhead the “NeverTrump” movement.

He was supposed to be the one principled man in the room. Now, like a modern-day Brutus, he has engaged in a betrayal that has left his supporters speechless.

Marco Rubio NeverTrump tweet

To add insult to injury, Sen. Rubio’s plan to help Trump win the White House comes the same week the billionaire said he wanted to turn the Republican Party into the “worker’s party,” (Yes, “worker’s party”).

Bloomberg reported May 26:

“I asked Trump what he thought the GOP would look like in five years. ‘Love the question,’ he replied. ‘Five, 10 years from now—different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.’

Marco Rubio is throwing his weight behind a man who wants to fundamentally transform the Republican Party into a “worker’s party.” Let that marinate in your head for a few moments before moving on. Think about it. Turn it around. Consider the long-term implications…

Mr. Trump’s quote demonstrates precisely why “NeverTrump” exists: If the head of the Republican Party is someone who sounds like Karl Marx, never mentions the U.S. Constitution unless prompted, donated to Democrats for most of his adult life, and has literally changed positions on almost every serious policy issue, then “Republican” means nothing. 

Marco Rubio Bill Kristol twitter

Sen. Rubio is being disingenuous when he says voters must choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If Mr. Rubio was telling the truth about both candidates being unfit for office, then the principled thing to do would be to a.) write in an acceptable candidate, b.) vote for a third-party candidate, c.) not vote — because not lending your support to a field of unacceptable candidates is more honorable then voting for someone you called a “con artist” who is unfit for the job.

At this point it looks like I will be voting for “Giant Meteor” for president. At least Giant Meteor will never lie to me.

Giant Meteor 2016

Sean Hannity, who ‘evolved’ on immigration after Romney loss, now bashes Rubio

Regular readers of this blog know that I generally have great distain for cable news celebrities because they seem to care more about ratings than intellectual honesty. I also have a thing against blatant hypocrisy, which is why Fox News’ Sean Hannity attacking Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a “pawn for [the] establishment” needs to be exposed.

Politico’s Marc Caputo was told by a Rubio staffer that it was ridiculous that Hannity passively watched ersatz Republican Donald Trump bash rivals for months, only to now take offense that Rubio was punching back (e.g., Trump would be selling fake watches in New York City if he didn’t inherit $200 million from his dad).

Hotair did everyone a favor by capturing the exchange below:

Sean Hannity Tweet

Sean Hannity, who has blindly echoed RNC talking points for years, now calls Rubio an establishment “pawn.” That would be like Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster admonishing other people for eating cookies.

Let us take a visit in the “way back” machine, shall we?

After Mitt Romney got hammered in the 2012 election — particularly with Hispanic voters — Sean Hannity “evolved” on immigration. The following audio by Hannity was posted to YouTube on Nov. 9, 2012 by FreedomLightHouse:

“We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue all together. It’s simple for me to fix it. I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people who are here, you don’t say you got to go home. And that is a position that I have evolved on because, you know what, it just, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of peopel here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home but if people are here, law abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here — you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done. You know, whatever little penalties you want to put in there you want. But then it’s done. But you can’t let the problem continue. It’s got to stop. — Sean Hannity on immigration reform, Nov. 9, 2012.

Hmmm. That sounds strikingly familiar to Marco Rubio’s position on immigration right this very second. Hannity came to this realization after Romney was crushed and America’s changing demographics finally began to sink in. But yet now he casts his “evolution” as a mistake that was predicated on the failed “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill.

Here is what is really happening: Sean Hannity zipped his lips about a “Republican” candidate who donated to the Clintons, supported Obamacare, supports eminent domain, and (ironically) once bashed Romney for harsh rhetoric on immigration. The Fox host is terrified of being seen as “the establishment” with his viewers now that Trump is the Republican front-runner, which is why he desperately tries to slap the label onto Rubio.

I rarely watch Sean Hannity’s television show these days, but if I did then it would only be to see him “evolve” and “devolve” on issues like a butterfly that turns back into a caterpillar.

Side note: Even conservative wave-surfer Ann Coulter is now calling Sean out for his hypocrisy. Classic. These two were made for one another.

Ann Coulter tweet

Rubio hit piece by The New York Times: An insult to all responsible adults with student loan bills

Marco RubioThe New York Times recently followed up its weird story on Marco Rubio’s traffic violation history with another on his personal finances. At the end of the day the newest piece essentially boils down to: Marco Rubio is unfit to be president because he’s just like the vast majority of responsible adults with large student loan bills. If Marco Rubio was like most politicians, who mysteriously become millionaires soon after arriving in Washington, D.C., then he might have the chops to be the next commander in chief.

The New York Times reported June 9:

Mr. Rubio entered public life in a deep financial hole of his own making.

Soon after he was elected to the Legislature in 2000, he reported a net worth of zero, about $150,000 in student loan debt, and $30,000 in what he called assorted credit and retail debt.

It was the inauspicious start to a decade of big financial ups and downs. In interviews, friends and advisers describe Mr. Rubio as a young politician entering public life just out of law school, whose charisma and stardom quickly outstripped his financial acumen, leaving him unprepared to manage the expensive campaigns and lucrative career opportunities that came his way.

How dare Mr. Rubio, the son of a Cuban immigrant bartender and a hotel worker, not have the financial acumen in his 20s of Tony Robbins in his 40s.

Do you see how it works with The New York Times? If a (Republican) man from humble beginnings claws his way into successful circles, then he has put himself into a “deep financial hole of his own making.” If a (Republican) man with a large bank account runs for office, then he’s out of touch and cannot be trusted (e.g., Mitt Romney).

Question: Am I in a “deep financial hole” that should cause employers to question my ability to handle money? I currently owe $52,328.16 in student loans that were raked up as an undergraduate student at the University of Southern California and a graduate student at American University in Washington, D.C.

Student LoanAnswer: No. The reason is because, like Marco Rubio and millions of other Americans, I used my education and work experience to obtain human capital. I have never missed a payment. If I lost my job tomorrow, then I would still find employment capable of paying the bills. I have saved money for a “rainy day,” and have a retirement account. It is absurd to suggest that a sitting U.S. senator with a law degree and a winning personality is somehow a financial liability because he has a mortgage, student loan debt, and car payments.

On some level, The New York Times’ coverage of the Rubio campaign comes across less as a hit job and more like a warning to Hillary Clinton: this guy is going to be tough to sink through the traditional means of personal destruction. Tell your A-Team to get creative with the slime tactics.

If parking tickets and student loan bills are the best The New York Times can come up with on Mr. Rubio, then he has positioned himself quite well. Regardless, he should expect the coverage to get even worse as desperation sets in. Democrats cannot afford to have a good-looking, well-spoken, bilingual minority become the face of the Republican Party. Partisan media hacks will do their best to destroy him, no matter how much sleaze the effort requires.

Update: Reader Patrick brought up the idea of a “Speed Rubio” poster in response to The New York Times’ traffic ticket story. I think that would be an amazing idea.

Go Speed Rubio

Marco Rubio asked ‘dum-dum’ questions by Chris Wallace playing The Great Gazoo

Chris WallaceAnyone who watched The Flintstones growing up remembers The Great Gazoo. He was an annoying green alien who had all sorts of magical powers. He called Fred and Barney “dum-dums” when, in fact, he was usually the dumb one. The media’s recent obsession with asking Republicans if the Iraq War was a “mistake” — as if we all had Gazoo’s ability to travel through time, or that the Iraq we see today was inevitable based solely on one decision — is absurd. It’s infantile. Marco Rubio tried to use logic and reason to bust through Mr. Wallace’s Gazoo skull on Sunday, but failed.

Mediaite reported Sunday:

In perhaps the closest cable news has ever come to a genuine Abbott and Costello bit, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace attempted to get an answer out of Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) over whether he would have invaded Iraq, and also who was on first.

Wallace repeatedly asked Rubio whether he would have invaded Iraq knowing what he knows now, and Rubio continued to answer according to the intelligence available in 2002. They went around this loop about half a dozen times.

In short, Mr. Wallace was unable to see the difference between the question “Was it a mistake to invade Iraq in 2003?” and “Would you have invaded Iraq if a little green alien told you beforehand that there were not huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s possession?”

Marco Rubio has answered “no” to the first question and “no” to different variations of the second question, but for some reason the media refuses to acknowledge the difference between the two.

What would Iraq have looked like if President Obama had secured a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq? Even former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta has criticized the president for how he handled the draw down and exit of U.S. troops in December, 2011.

What would Iraq look like today if Mr. Obama didn’t treat the Islamic State group — which he called a “J.V. team” in June, 2014 — as a “local” problem? What would Iraq look like if on September 9, 2014 — when Mr. Obama said he didn’t have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic State group — he was actually prepared?

Chain reactionThe point isn’t to put all the blame on Mr. Obama for what Iraq looks like today — the point is to show that the premise of the “Was it a mistake?” question is incredibly flawed. The popular answer is to just say “Yes. It was a mistake, and I would not have invaded Iraq if I was president in 2003,” but that isn’t the answer any serious presidential candidate would give.

Some reasons include:  a.) intelligence work on tyrannical police states is by its very nature based on murky evidence, and b.) no one running for president at this time received the intelligence briefings George W. Bush did (in a post-9/11 world, no less).

To add insult to injury, this is the line of questioning Republicans can expect to receive as long as Jeb Bush hangs around. The media would love nothing more than to talk about George W. Bush from now until election day. It may not be fair, but that is political reality. It is rather selfish for Mr. Bush to run for president when he knows that the media will keep everyone — particularly the Republican Party — mired in the past in order to assist its preferred (Democratic) candidate.

If Marco Rubio wants to win the Republican nomination, then he needs to do a better job swatting down the media’s multitude of Great Gazoos. He survived Chris Wallace’s weird line of questioning, but it was awkward. Let’s hope that he has learned from this experience and comes up with a strategy for navigating future minefields of inane questioning.

Marco Rubio enters 2016 race: There are officially zero reasons to support Jeb Bush

Marco RubioFlorida Senator Marco Rubio has entered the 2016 race for the White House, which means that there are officially no reasons for Republicans to care about anything Jeb Bush has to say. Only people who are fascinated by political dynasties and those who are obsessed with the past will be left in Mr. Bush’s corner, no matter how much of Karl Rove’s money he brings to the table.

The Associated Press reported Monday, April 13:

MIAMI (AP) — Sen. Marco Rubio on Monday took on Hillary Rodham Clinton in his first words as a presidential candidate, telling top donors he is running for the Republican nomination because the 2016 race for the White House should be about the future, not the past.

The first-term Republican from Florida, 43, also told his most generous backers that he feels “uniquely qualified” to pitch his Republican Party as one that will defend the American Dream.

Nothing could send a worse message about the state of American culture than if the 2016 American election was between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. If the Republican Party wants to get trounced (again) this next presidential election, then it will nominate a crusty old white man with the last name “Bush.”

Jeb Bush APIf the Republican Party wants to have any chance at winning, then it will nominate an intelligent, charismatic, conservative man who really is the American Dream personified — who also happens to be good looking. Mr. Rubio also gets bonus points for having tried to work with Senate Democrats on immigration, even though they stabbed him in the back.

If conservatives refuse to cut the guy with Cuban immigrant parents some slack for being the lone adult in the room on immigration reform, then they deserve to lose.

Congress Eyes Harry Potter Emporium as Viable Debt Solution.

Marco Rubio is on record as opposing the liberal plan to turn the Capitol Visitor Center into a Harry Potter emporium in order to increase federal revenues. Liberal websites have already deemed him Lord Voldemort, even as individual shares of the national debt are on pace to reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Debt ceiling debates. Without a budget for over 800 days. To most Americans, this might seem like a failure of governance, but that’s because they don’t know the truth. Sure their share of the national debt is on its way to reaching over $200,000, but that was before “The Plan” was unveiled by Congressional leaders last night.

One name: Harry Potter. The last film in the franchise (or so we thought), has pulled in over 1 billion dollars world wide. Now, instead of balancing the budget, liberals in Congress have opted for the next best thing—turning the Capitol Visitor Center into an emporium for all things Harry Potter. Whereas the Capitol’s theater once treated tourists to the short film Out of Many, non-stop Harry Potter marathons will take its place. The gift shop is getting a Horwartian makeover, and those lucky enough to get tickets to the House and Senate Galleries will get to see their representative in full Harry Potter regalia. Talks are ongoing with J.K. Rowling to produce entitlement-themed spinoffs.

Although the debt ceiling debate is coming to a head just before the August 2nd deadline, Harry Reid found time to speak about the out-of-the box (office) approach:

Years ago I gave up in Iraq—literally. I announced that the Iraq war ‘was lost.’ I raised the white flag of surrender once, but I promised myself I’d never do it again. Today, Congress faces an even bigger challenge. Extremists have brought our nation to the brink of collapse with crazy ideas of “balancing budgets” and “living within our means.” Such Tomfoolery is reckless, dangerous, and unnecessary. Lunatics in the Teaparty movement have looked at our 14 trillion dollars of national debt and called for it to stop. My colleagues and I have looked at the debt and we see an opportunity to bring J.K. Rowling’s wonderful world here to the United States Capitol, with an additional 7 trillion of debt lumped on over the next decade. What better place to raise revenue than Washington, DC, where magic tricks and make believe are an everyday occurrence?

Establishment Republicans were mum on the matter, opting instead to meet behind closed doors to consider the proposal. Tea Party leaders, particularly newcomers like Marco Rubio, called the plan a farce. Stating numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office, he painted an accounting scenario that even Harry Potter merchandising couldn’t overcome. Liberal websites promptly referred to him as Lord Voldemort.

Trump puts clown nose in clown-nose holster

Donald Trump has his clown nose in his clown-nose holster in case the American people demand one for the 2012 presidential campaign season. Note to Donald: they won’t. Especially when you blame other countries for our own self-imposed disasters.

Billionaire/reality TV star/national joke Donald Trump wants to assure the American people he’s would give it some, “serious, serious thought,” about running for president if the economy stays in the toilet. The last time he gave Americans some serious thought he came across like Toucan Sam, so he’s going to have his work cut out for him if he’s ever going to get Marco Rubio credibility.

So far, Trump has a long way to go:

As he did when he considered a presidential run earlier this year, Trump blamed a lot of the problems in the U.S. economy on “foolish leaders” who allow other countries — principally China and the members of OPEC — to steal jobs and keep the U.S. over an expensive oil barrel.

China doesn’t “steal” jobs from the U.S. OPEC doesn’t hold us hostage. WE are the ones creating an environment that pushes businesses overseas. WE are the ones sitting on ungodly amounts of known natural resources and doing nothing about it. WE are the ones who created entitlement programs with unfunded liabilities that reach into the heavens. WE are the ones who bail out car companies and banks that deserve to fail. WE are the ones who enacted unconstitutional health care mandates. And WE are the ones who deserve the calamities that befall us if we don’t do what is needed NOW in order to prevent a systemic meltdown in the years to come.

Donald Trump is a blowhard in the vein of Chris Matthews. Some people like that. They’re good for entertainment, which is probably why they both have television shows. However, they’re also not taken seriously be serious people. Snake-oil salesmen can rile up a crowd, but they can’t trick a well-informed people. And right now the public is doing its homework. The main drivers of debt are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If you don’t fix them, you’ve essentially fixed nothing.

The sad thing about the bills being debated in Congress is that they’re ultimately useless if they don’t fundamentally change the way our entitlement programs are structured. If a deal is reached a handful of politicians will pat themselves on the back, but the main problem will still be unresolved. It’s not going away. Sadly, neither is Donald Trump.

Washington Post’s Matt Miller: I have Elliot Spitzer’s Smile and No Clue What American Exceptionalism Is.

Look at a picture of Matt Miller.  Notice the Elliot Spitzer grin and the John Edwards smarm-aura.  Now ask yourself: Does this guy look like he even knows what  American Exceptionalism means?

Nothing says "credible" like doing your best impression of an Elliot Spitzer grin, eh Matt? Paging Client Number 9...

Here, Miller asks:

“Does anyone else think there’s something a little insecure about a country that requires its politicians to constantly declare how exceptional it is? A populace in need of this much reassurance may be the surest sign of looming national decline.”

The only reason why anyone has to go around stating the obvious, Matt, is because there are moral relativist goons out there *cough* who want the United States to become Switzerland or Brazil:

You can tell a lot about a country by what it requires its politicians to do to win. In Switzerland, do candidates have to proclaim that “Switzerland is the greatest nation ever created in human history”? In Brazil, do ambitious pols insist that “Brazil is the most special country ever to grace the world”?

I don’t have time to discuss how the Rule of Law, Science, Free Markets, and Religious Liberty fused in the United States to create the freest, greatest country to ever exist. What Matt Miller doesn’t get is that unlike Brazilians — who do think they’re great — Americans know their country’s founding is unique. Uniquely great. It is the principles Americans hold dear that separates them from the rest of the world. Alexis de Tocqueville knew this ages ago, so I’m not sure what has Matt Miller giving hissy fits on the pages of The Washington Post.  Perhaps it irks him that guys like me have actually read Democracy in America and other works by history’s intellectual heavyweights.  Perhaps it bothers Miller that a “rube” like Sarah Palin (according to him) could echo the sentiments made by giants like de Tocqueville, and gain traction. It gets under his skin that Sarah Palin has influence and he…has Elliot Spitzer’s grin.

There’s a reason why the Tea Party shellacked the competition a few weeks ago, and guys like Matt Miller are grasping at straws to figure out ways to rationalize it.  Instead of honestly assessing where they went wrong they return to the “they’re stupid” well once again. Next week one of his friends will probably try the racist theory.  And I welcome it.  Keep deluding yourself, Matt.  My friends and I will continue reading Bastiat and watching Kick Ass… before intellectually following suit on you.