Marco Rubio's Hat in in the Ring

[Magox]

 

That's fine, and you may be right he could beat Hillary, I just doubt it. I'm by no means an expert on Rubio and don't mean that as a slam on the man himself, but his image. The people paying attention now have, by and large, already made up their minds who they're voting for -- because the people really paying attention now are the partisans on both sides of the aisle. Rubio's record as a social conservative is going to damn him when the rest of the country starts to pay attention to the candidates because he's going to have to run to the right of Jeb, and depending on how long the primary drags out, he'll have to do that for quite some time.

 

Hillary on the other hand, will glide to the nomination and won't face real competition until the republicans have already bloodied themselves red. If Rubio comes out of the primary as the winner, he'll be coming out with bruises.

 

 

A few things. Rubio isn't your Huckabee, Santorum or Cruz sort of pol. I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. This is actually the first time I've really heard anyone attempt to put him in that category of a religious conservative. I can tell you right now, that wouldn't be what derails him. You can bet on that.

 

In regards to running to the right of Jeb, well....he is to the right of Jeb. That's not a bad thing, that's just who he is. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jeb is the most thoughtful and policy driven pol running, but I realize the distinct possibility that he probably won't win the primaries, and even if he did many conservatives would sit out the elections much like they did with Romney. So i'm probably not going to hitch my wagons with him for that reason alone.

 

I'm curious to know, which social conservative stances does he have that are too far out there?

 

In regards to a bruising primary, I don't see this one playing out that way. Sure, the last one was damaging to Romney, simply because the other candidates weren't viable and the incoming he received made him awkwardly position himself to the right of where he really stood.

 

I happen to believe that in this very contested primary filled with quality candidates that the cream will rise to the top. I see them coming out of this battle-tested whereas Hillary will most-likely continue to be a very rusty candidate.

[3rdnlng]

I'd love to agree with this but she will have a ton of money behind her and a lot of support from women (except for the hard right ones) both of which will be a big assets in the swing states IMO.

The message that women voters need to hear: "Do you really want the likes of Hillary Clinton representing you as the first female president?" She needs to be hammered with, "Name your biggest accomplishment, or at least any accomplishments"? When she stumbles we can say, "In other words, what difference does it make?"

[Tiberius]

 

e right of Jeb. That's not a bad thing, that's just who he is. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jeb is the most thoughtful and policy driven pol running,

Really??? What makes you say that?

[Magox]

Really??? What makes you say that?

 

For many reasons. He is universally known on both sides of the aisle as a policy driven person. I keep up with this ****, and I've seen him in Q&A's and he has absolute mastery and command of anything to do with policy. That's his strong suit and he'd much rather be discussing policy than getting on the stump and delivering one-line zinger red meat that appeals to the base.

[Tiberius]

 

For many reasons. He is universally known on both sides of the aisle as a policy driven person. I keep up with this ****, and I've seen him in Q&A's and he has absolute mastery and command of anything to do with policy. That's his strong suit and he'd much rather be discussing policy than getting on the stump and delivering one-line zinger red meat that appeals to the base.

No, not zingers, he will run around naked in the street instead for the base.

 

Exhibit A: http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/learning-jeb-bush-terri-schiavo

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

A few things. Rubio isn't your Huckabee, Santorum or Cruz sort of pol. I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. This is actually the first time I've really heard anyone attempt to put him in that category of a religious conservative. I can tell you right now, that wouldn't be what derails him. You can bet on that.

 

In regards to running to the right of Jeb, well....he is to the right of Jeb. That's not a bad thing, that's just who he is. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jeb is the most thoughtful and policy driven pol running, but I realize the distinct possibility that he probably won't win the primaries, and even if he did many conservatives would sit out the elections much like they did with Romney. So i'm probably not going to hitch my wagons with him for that reason alone.

 

I'm curious to know, which social conservative stances does he have that are too far out there?

 

In regards to a bruising primary, I don't see this one playing out that way. Sure, the last one was damaging to Romney, simply because the other candidates weren't viable and the incoming he received made him awkwardly position himself to the right of where he really stood.

 

I happen to believe that in this very contested primary filled with quality candidates that the cream will rise to the top. I see them coming out of this battle-tested whereas Hillary will most-likely continue to be a very rusty candidate.

 

His stance (and flip flopping over the past few days since he's announced) on gay marriage will doom him. Specifically his refusal to adopt any immigration reform that gave gay couples immigration rights (in this case, the discussion was about Russians fleeing the persecution of Putin's anti-gay laws), saying "If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done."

 

Perhaps even worse, he's shown a short fuse on the issue and has doubled down on it by claiming anyone who disagrees with his stance on traditional marriage are the intolerant ones. You cannot win the presidency in 2016 with these beliefs. He'll be painted as a hardline social conservative and those don't win national elections.

[Magox]

 

His stance (and flip flopping over the past few days since he's announced) on gay marriage will doom him. Specifically his refusal to adopt any immigration reform that gave gay couples immigration rights (in this case, the discussion was about Russians fleeing the persecution of Putin's anti-gay laws), saying "If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done."

 

Perhaps even worse, he's shown a short fuse on the issue and has doubled down on it by claiming anyone who disagrees with his stance on traditional marriage are the intolerant ones. You cannot win the presidency in 2016 with these beliefs. He'll be painted as a hardline social conservative and those don't win national elections.

 

Gay marriage? It's the same stance that Obama had just a few years ago.

 

Over gay couples that give immigration rights? Sorry, you are going to have to dig deeper than that, specially considering that it was a just recently held position by the president.

 

No, that's not what he said.

 

Again, I have to correct the record. This is becoming very common for me to have to do with alot of you.

 

Rubio said he respects the arguments of same-sex marriage proponents but defended his support of traditional marriage, which he said is defined by one man and one woman.

There is “growing intolerance on this issue,” he said, in which those who oppose traditional marriage are attacked.

Rubio mentioned the former CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who supported traditional marriage and resigned; Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage to invest elsewhere; and the head of Chick-fil-a, Dan Cathy, who was condemned for his anti-gay comments in 2012.

"I promise that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or anti-gay,” Rubio said.

"If support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election,” he added.

 

 

You really should do more research before you post. Seriously.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Gay marriage? It's the same stance that Obama had just a few years ago.

 

Over gay couples that give immigration rights? Sorry, you are going to have to dig deeper than that, specially considering that it was a just recently held position by the president.

 

No, that's not what he said.

 

Again, I have to correct the record.

 

 

You really should do more research before you post. Seriously.

 

I really don't have to dig deeper. Unlike Obama, he hasn't moved off that position, and anyone who's anti-gay marriage (with the record Rubio has on the issue) is doomed in the general election. It's a new world.

[Magox]

 

I really don't have to dig deeper. Unlike Obama, he hasn't moved off that position, and anyone who's anti-gay marriage (with the record Rubio has on the issue) is doomed in the general election. It's a new world.

 

Oh, so it was ok if you held that position a few years ago, so that Obama could get elected (was his calculation) but not so today? Do you really not see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

You aren't making sense...

[DC Tom]

 

I really don't have to dig deeper. Unlike Obama, he hasn't moved off that position, and anyone who's anti-gay marriage (with the record Rubio has on the issue) is doomed in the general election. It's a new world.

 

Which is a shame, really. As political litmus tests go, that's a pretty dumb one.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Oh, so it was ok if you held that position a few years ago, so that Obama could get elected (was his calculation) but not so today? Do you really not see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

You aren't making sense...

 

A few years ago the pulse of the country was entirely different on this issue. The difference between our positions is I believe the country's mood on this issue has changed so quickly, so completely, that it really isn't as ridiculous as it may sound. Rubio's position on the issue hasn't changed or evolved, Obama's did. That's why it worked. I'm no fan of Obama, but his politically calculated flip flop was precisely that: calculated. If Rubio were to come out in support of gay marriage, he'd have a shot. But he can't, because that would put him to the left of Jeb and doom him in the primary.

 

The culture war is over, social conservatives lost on this issue in a very big way. Any candidate still clinging to the concept of "traditional" marriage as a key plank on their platform is woefully out of touch with the majority of this country. Being anti-gay marriage to the point where Rubio was (willing to throw out his immigration reform if any rights were granted to gay couples through the legislation) isn't a tenable position to hold while trying to run for office. He'll be hit over the head with it repeatedly, and it'll cost him.

 

And trying to spin it back on the others by calling them intolerant is idiotic on top of being disingenuous.

 

 

Which is a shame, really. As political litmus tests go, that's a pretty dumb one.

 

It's certainly not the most important one, I agree with you there. But it's true all the same.

[DC Tom]

It's certainly not the most important one, I agree with you there. But it's true all the same.

 

Didn't say it wasn't true. Said it was dumb. For many reasons, most of which boil down to "people get apeshit stupid when arguing about gay marriage."

[IDBillzFan]

It's certainly not the most important one, I agree with you there. But it's true all the same.

 

I'm not even sure how much it matters because the only reason Obama changed on gay marriage was to get the money. Period. He was against it to get the church money. Once he had the church money, he changed it to get the gay money. Barry can't even say the words "gay old time" without flying to CA for donations.

 

Does anyone honestly think that if Rubio changed his stance on gay marriage that he'd suddenly win over enough people to make a difference?

 

No. When it comes to Republicans and the Hispanic community, there will always be more money at the church than their will ever be from the LBGT groups because LBGT groups are notoriously left wingers. And those who bang the drum are banging a very small drum in the grand scheme of things.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Didn't say it wasn't true. Said it was dumb. For many reasons, most of which boil down to "people get apeshit stupid when arguing about gay marriage."

 

Agreed for the most part. I think it's a useful way to divide potential candidates as it speaks to their understanding of what freedom in American society really means. Personally, I feel folks who wish to bring government into issues of sexuality are too out of touch with the modern zeitgeist to be good legislators. For that reason alone it's a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

But that's coming from my own personal political view of course, I'm sure not everyone shares that.

 

I'm not even sure how much it matters because the only reason Obama changed on gay marriage was to get the money. Period. He was against it to get the church money. Once he had the church money, he changed it to get the gay money. Barry can't even say the words "gay old time" without flying to CA for donations.

 

Does anyone honestly think that if Rubio changed his stance on gay marriage that he'd suddenly win over enough people to make a difference?

 

No. When it comes to Republicans and the Hispanic community, there will always be more money at the church than their will ever be from the LBGT groups because LBGT groups are notoriously left wingers. And those who bang the drum are banging a very small drum in the grand scheme of things.

 

I don't want to get bogged down defending Obama's position on the matter because that's not what this thread is about (nor what I really wanted to talk about). I agree with you that his move was calculated and not done out of some sort of shift in his politics.

 

Rubio can't come out for gay marriage without destroying his chances in the primary -- but he can't win the national election without evolving on this issue. It's why, in my mind, he's unelectable in '16 as president.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Government should get out of the marriage business all together. They should honor domestic partnership for whoever wants it, regardless of gender, in order to grant full equality under the law. Leave marriage to private institutions.

[IDBillzFan]

Rubio can't come out for gay marriage without destroying his chances in the primary -- but he can't win the national election without evolving on this issue. It's why, in my mind, he's unelectable in '16 as president.

 

I disagree. He can win the general without evolving. The only thing most Americans care about LESS than gay marriage is global warming.

[DC Tom]

 

Agreed for the most part. I think it's a useful way to divide potential candidates as it speaks to their understanding of what freedom in American society really means. Personally, I feel folks who wish to bring government into issues of sexuality are too out of touch with the modern zeitgeist to be good legislators. For that reason alone it's a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

But that's coming from my own personal political view of course, I'm sure not everyone shares that.

 

My point was more that it stops being a useful way to divide potential candidates when it gets distilled down to "Would your force a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding?" Which from damn near any standard is a completely asinine distillation of the issue.

 

And I'll guarantee someone's going to play "gotcha" with just that sort of idiotic question at some point in the upcoming debates, and portray even a reasonable answer of "You have to balance the rights of people to express their religious beliefs against the rights of people to express their love for each other" as raging homophobia.

 

The larger point, I think, is that "dividing" candidates is asinine in itself. And already done for us - they're called "political parties." There's no "litmus test" that's at all useful, since they all simply define the party platforms.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Rubio can't come out for gay marriage without destroying his chances in the primary -- but he can't win the national election without evolving on this issue. It's why, in my mind, he's unelectable in '16 as president.

 

 

I think that you are really falling into the media trap here GT,

 

While the Gay Marriage Issue plays importantly in the media narrative, every poll shows that it barely causes a blip in the "problems facing America" of today.

 

Very few will make it "unelectable" cause.

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

 

 

I think that you are really falling into the media trap here GT,

 

While the Gay Marriage Issue plays importantly in the media narrative, every poll shows that it barely causes a blip in the "problems facing America" of today.

 

Very few will make it "unelectable" cause.

 

.

 

The one caveat is that it matters a lot in California, but Rubio wouldn't win California if he were the Grand Marshall of a Cuban gay pride parade, so it's a moot point.

[Magox]

 

A few years ago the pulse of the country was entirely different on this issue. The difference between our positions is I believe the country's mood on this issue has changed so quickly, so completely, that it really isn't as ridiculous as it may sound. Rubio's position on the issue hasn't changed or evolved, Obama's did. That's why it worked. I'm no fan of Obama, but his politically calculated flip flop was precisely that: calculated. If Rubio were to come out in support of gay marriage, he'd have a shot. But he can't, because that would put him to the left of Jeb and doom him in the primary.

 

The culture war is over, social conservatives lost on this issue in a very big way. Any candidate still clinging to the concept of "traditional" marriage as a key plank on their platform is woefully out of touch with the majority of this country. Being anti-gay marriage to the point where Rubio was (willing to throw out his immigration reform if any rights were granted to gay couples through the legislation) isn't a tenable position to hold while trying to run for office. He'll be hit over the head with it repeatedly, and it'll cost him.

 

And trying to spin it back on the others by calling them intolerant is idiotic on top of being disingenuous.

 

 

It's certainly not the most important one, I agree with you there. But it's true all the same.

 

Honestly, I think you have a problem with comprehending what you read. That's not what he said. Re read it again, and I'm not going to spell it out for you, just read it and comprehend. I provided the link for you.

 

And you believing that this litmus test somehow is the determining factor is vapid TMZ style. I'd agree with you if he were someone who wore this issue on a sleeve or had red hot rhetoric on the topic or proposed legislation that restricted gay marriages to occur on a federal level.

 

But that simply isn't the case.

 

My parents, who aren't bigots are Catholics. They believe a gay couple shouldn't marry in church. That's what the bible says and that's what they were taught to believe. I disagree with them, mainly because I'm not a religious person. Although I disagree with their position, I respect it because that's what the bible that they followed all their lives taught them to believe.

 

That's the adult thing to do. That's what well-reasoned people do. They agreeably disagree and the vast majority of people don't see this as the or one of the defining issues that help them determine who is to be the next president. Specially when the argument for traditional marriage is done in an amicable, non offensive way such as:

 

“There was once a time when our federal government not only banned the hiring of gay employers, it required contractors to identify and fire them,” Rubio said. “Some laws prohibited gays from being served in bars and restaurants and many cities carried out law enforcement efforts targeting gay Americans.”

Rubio also acknowledged that many gay couples “feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage.”

While he said he respected those arguments as well as the rights of states to recognize same sex unions, Rubio argued that “thousands of years of human history have shown that the ideal setting for children to grow up is with a mother and father” and this ideal “deserves to be elevated in our laws.”

“Those who support same sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislatures to change state laws,” he said. “But Americans who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing that overturned by a judge.”

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-defends-gays-attacks-gay-marriage

 

And please, can you not at least have one complete post that is well-reasoned and doesn't contain any mistruths?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Magox