Posted - 6/19/2012 9:20:12 AM | show profile | flag this post
Senior Republican leaders say that Sen Marco Rubio is not even being considered for Mitt Romney's running mate.
No questionaires, no vetting, no attention from the Romney camp.
If not Marco, then who?
And is this just a red herring?
Posted - 6/19/2012 11:50:20 AM | show profile | flag this post
I'm sure the GOP leadership confides in you...NOT.
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:00:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
you not watch the news or read the papers?
The story is all over the Internet today. Quick! To your Google machine!
Guess you're just out of touch with reality.
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:18:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here you go, cruzo...
If you don't even pay attention to one of the biggest political stories of the day -- how do you expect to have any credibility with the "casual readers" here?
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:21:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
It wouldn't be
the first tme the leftist media invented a story out of whole cloth and ran with it for days. They're trying to help Obama introduce uncertainty in the minds of voters.
The media has been overtly leftist since at least the Vietnam War era...and perhaps before that. But beginning with Obama's 2006 presidential campaign and continuing until now is the first time in my memory that the leftist media as a whole have been so far in the tank for a candidate.
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:26:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Care to cite a few examples, cruzo?
Or, having been embarassed in front of our "casual readers," are you just trying to do some lame damage control for not reading this morning's headlines?
The Koch brothers are going to dock your pay for posting here if you don't start doing your homework.
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:29:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not the least bit embarrassed, pal
But you should be. You've shown yourself to be a rabid leftist partisan masquerading as a journalist. You're so opinionated that everything you say is suspect.
Posted - 6/19/2012 1:32:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm no more opinionated than you, cruzo.
You claim to be a writer -- but you failed to do even the minimal level of research on this topic before shooting your mouth off.
Now, you've resorted to name calling and accusations rather than admitting you didn't do your homework.
You're whining only serves to further lessen your credibility with "casual readers."
Posted - 6/19/2012 2:29:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
Cruiser, please quit being a jerk just to be a jerk.
Read the original post. It contains nothing incendiary. Discuss, fer chrissakes. Your baseless attacks are ridiculous and annoying.
Posted - 6/19/2012 2:36:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
....back on track.
There's a lot of hand wringing and hurt feelings in Florida today since this story broke.
Lots of Rubio supporters are outraged that Romney's people would leak this on THE SAME DAY that Rubio's autobiography comes out.
It now looks like Romney will have to do some face-saving and start vetting Rubio whether he wants to or not.
Here's a link that links to bunches more on this subject:
Also, WISH-TV is reporting that Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) has taken the job as Perdue's next president (to begin when he finishes his current term as Governor).
If true, then, the fact he's lining up another gig so far ahead of leaving office suggests he's either not in the running for Veep or has -- as he long insisted -- refused to be considered for it.
Posted - 6/20/2012 8:54:18 AM | show profile | flag this post
And today, Romney flip-flops on Rubio...
"Mitt Romney told the media that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is being 'thoroughly vetted as part of our process' to select a vice presidential running mate."
Yeah, NOW he is.
Rubio has been actively running for the Veep slot. His autobiography dropped yesterday -- same day that Rubio's people leaked the story that he was being ignored -- then expressed open outrage later in the day that Rubio wasn't being vetted.
But, aides in Romney's campaign are telling reporters at the conservative POLITICO and WSJ they favor Pawlenty:
Could be Romney's mind was already made up for him.
Posted - 6/20/2012 9:46:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't know who leaked what to whom, as no one has leaked anything to me, but I'll tell you this:
Excluding Rubio from V.P. consideration would be a HORRIBLE mistake. So far, he has shown himself to be an incredibly articulate spokesperson for conservative views and the personification of the American Dream.
I find it hard to believe that Romney would not have Rubio on the short list. I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't want him -- and I'm not buying that "Romney chief strategist doesn't like him" angle. Yes, Romney and Rubio have different views on the illegal immigration issue, but, that's ONE issue!
Rubio is going to be a huge force in conservative politics. He has as much, if not more experience than the guy who holds the top job now! Someone get Mitt on the phone! Rrrrrggghhhhh.
Posted - 6/20/2012 9:48:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
"guy who holds the top job now"... I'm referring to Obama.
Posted - 6/20/2012 9:58:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
I feel for ya kiddo.
I really do stopbs, I know Marco's your guy...I just don't see it happening.
He may be the "the personification of the American Dream", but his resume is still a tad thinner at this point than Obamas was when he ran...How can Romney claim Obama wasn't up to the job, experience wise, when his running mate isn't any better? (Can't wait for 2016--Rubio v Christie!)
I don't like it either, but I still agree with the prediction that Romney will go with someone just like him politically--but even more bland. In other words, a conservative in a coma.
Posted - 6/21/2012 9:14:15 AM | show profile | flag this post
I agree with you stopbs...
Rubio is a rising star of the GOP, has significant TEA Party support and has some degree of appeal to the Latino community.
And, as you said, he's a living example of the American dream.
My only theory is that Romney is more concerned about the battleground states in the industrial midwest (the former Rustbelt) than Florida.
His aids may also fear that Rubio would outshine Romney on the campaign trail -- part of the disaster that befell McCain when he nominated Palin. That could unbalance the ticket and cause problems.
There may also be some fear that having a Latino on the ticket -- and a Mormon and Catholic making up the ticket -- it could hurt them with the Southern base of whites suspicious of non-whites and non-evangelical Protestants.
That's a lesser concern, but in a race that is expected to be decided by a razor thin margin -- it could be enough to sink the Romney campaign.
Posted - 6/21/2012 7:31:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well that's interesting, etaoin
That same thought did cross my mind - that in the celebrity of politics, Marco might outshine Mitt. But any conservative who is looking purely at philosophy and values has to see (imo) the qualities which Rubio brings to the ticket.
I never considered the Mormon/Catholic/racial mix. For those who do see it as a factor, I believe Rubio would be considered white, as his ethnicity can run the spectrum from dark to light. It's a shame that in 2012, this could be an issue, but surely you could be correct. There could be some suspicious of his ethnicity. But his conservative bona fides should well outweigh the voting power of those few misguided souls.
Thanks for the empathy, mp. There is a great difference though between Obama's thin resume and Rubio's. Obama was running for President. Rubio would be running for the second slot. Yes, you could argue "heartbeat away" etc. etc. Now though, conservatives will tell you that the issue is not 'how little Obama brought to the job,' but 'how little he's done with what little he had,' if you will.
Marco could only help us. Don't you hate it when you're right and no one in charge really cares.
Posted - 6/21/2012 9:26:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
rubio might well be counterproductive for romney..
his cuban ancestry will NOT help him with the mexican voters..there is very little love lost between cubans and mexicans..
the mexicans know very well that cuba has often cast covetous eyes at mexico's natural resources..mexicans just don't like cubans much at all..
Posted - 6/21/2012 9:41:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
No one says
Romney even has to pick this so far in advance, but so far their handling of Rubio has been less than stellar.
Rubio's time will be later--not now. And sorry stopbs; after the disastrous Palin pick, the "heartbeat away thing" is VERY much a big deal. I admit I did not think of of etaoins point about a Mormon and Catholic on the ticket...Yea, that could possibly be a concern with the Bible belt.
I still see an even more drab campaigner than Mitt is. Not that that will hurt him any.
Posted - 6/22/2012 9:36:01 AM | show profile | flag this post
On your first paragraph, stopbs...
I think you're exactly right. Conservatives who are serious about following politics -- as you are -- should find a universal appeal with Rubio. He's the likely future of the Republican party.
My assessment probably applies more to casual conservative voters -- those who don't follow politics as closely as you and I.
Personally, I think the best thing for both Rubio and the Republican party is for Romney to choose someone else.
If Romney loses in the fall, Rubio would be one of two frontrunners for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016 (Santorum would be the other) and Rubio would be free of the baggage of a losing 2012 campaign.
If Romney wins in the fall, Rubio would carry the baggage of an incumbent administration for at least 8 years before he could run for the top job.
And it's difficult for a sitting VP to win a Presidential race. George H.W. Bush was the first in more than 100 years to pull that off.
Posted - 6/23/2012 12:00:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Never heard this regarding Rubio & Mexicans, orth:
"his cuban ancestry will NOT help him with the mexican voters..there is very little love lost between cubans and mexicans..
the mexicans know very well that cuba has often cast covetous eyes at mexico's natural resources..mexicans just don't like cubans much at all.."
If true, I would tend to believe that Mexicans might also resent Cubans because we have welcomed them as political-refugees, not economic ones.
But your comments also beg the question: If Mexico is SO rich in natural resources, why are its people so poor and desperate to sneak into the United States? Why isn't the Mexican government, with all of it's apparent natural resources you mention, finding tax incentives for their businesses to hire Mexican citizens and thus improve their lot and their country's economy?
It may not seem so when you read all of my anti-illegal immigration posts, but my argument is not really with the Mexicans (or other nationalities) who are coming here illegally to feed their families. It's with the governments of Mexico, the U.S government and U.S and Mexican businesses who have not done their parts respectively.
It infuriates me that a succession of Mexican presidents have wanted the US to open its boarders for their citizens to immigrate here. What country would want to lose it's citizenry?
Why isn't Mexico's government doings it's job for its people? Mexico obviously cannot push ALL immigrates here, in any case, even if you believed they should be allowed to come.
Furthermore, I see that some of my friends on the left here agree with me that the fence hoppers should be deported. The U.S.government needs to uphold our laws. That also means that we need to fine U.S. businesses which hire illegal immigrants. The rightwing has been as complicit as the left, in my eyes, for allowing illegals to stay, albeit for different reasons.
I believe in the rule of law and that applies to both parties. If we fine businesses which hire illegal immigrants then immigrants WILL self-deport. Except for a minority of criminals, most illegals come here for jobs, as we all know.
Mitt Romney's stance on this makes the most sense to me: self-deportation. You don't go around rounding up people who have traveled far past the boarder and have lived here for a number of years. You simply remove their employment - by enforcing the law. They are free to return to their homelands and get on line.
If there are jobs "which Americans won't do" or for which there are would-be immigrants who are more suited based on their education, then let the employers pay to get the foreigners here whom they want. As I've mentioned, I know employers who do this very thing. But the process does need to be simplified.
These are the solutions which I would like to see and, obviously, I think they are fair. I also think my views on the two governments are reasonable. I welcome your responses.
Posted - 6/23/2012 3:37:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
There is no love lost
between Mexicans and Cubans. In addition to the natural resources issue, there are nagging ethnic considerations.
About 90 percent of Mexicans...and about 100 percent of those wanting to enter the US...are Mestizos, meaning of mixed Spanish and American Indian blood. Conversely, a majority of Cubans are of pure Caucasian Spanish descent.
Since the minority of Mexicans who are of pure Spanish derivation own or control about 95 percent of the Mexico's land and resources while the overwhelming majority...the Mestizos...are poor and have little, there is a natural resentment among Mestizos of those of pure Spanish heritage.
So it is a possibility that Rubio would not materially help the GOP ticket with Mexican immigrants.
I do believe, however, that Rubio will be a formidable future presidential candidate in his own right.
Posted - 6/24/2012 4:53:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
That makes sense. I also believe, as I've said before, that as minorities make their way up the economic ladder, if they do it honorably, without government handouts, they will naturally gravitate to the rightwing, if only as a way to keep what they've worked so hard for.
Interesting about the Mexican situation. I don't know the inner workings of their government, but one would think that the resource owners would need the poorer Mexicans to develop those resources.
Posted - 6/24/2012 5:41:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
rubio would be a very viable candidate in the future..
give him time to build up a resume and a track record..show some leadership in the senate..
he's young and articulate..the future is his..
yoyu'd hate to see him throw at least some of that away too soon by being on the losing ticket this time around..
that would delay his ability to be very viable in 2016..might be more like 2020 for him..
Posted - 6/25/2012 8:37:37 AM | show profile | flag this post
stopbs hit the nail on the head...
about Rubio and the Latino vote when he said:
"If true, I would tend to believe that Mexicans might also resent Cubans because we have welcomed them as political-refugees, not economic ones."
Rubio, himself, has publicly said his parents were "exiles, not immigrants."
Cubans make up only about 5% of the Latino vote in the U.S.
That's another reason I think Rubio would be better off waiting and running for the top spot on his own. He's not going to be a big draw for a specific democraphic group as a VP nominee. But running for President, he'd be reaching across all demographics -- and he has the credentials to be a popular candidate in that sense.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 6/25/2012 1:15:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
Rubio needs time to grow up
His decision to pull his "Dream Act" because his widdle feewings were hurt when the President actually did something is quite juvenile. Marco whines that the President didn't call him first. How come Republicans never show the initiative to go to the President to work on issues with which they are in agreement? This whole if the President is for it, we're against it is quite childish.