Rubio Is Not an Establishment Moderate

[flowers]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/02/rubio_is_not_an_establishment_moderate

RUSH: I have to say one thing, one more thing, one more time.  I do not like -- and I've got a Reuters story:  "Marco Rubio Emerges Champion of Battered Republican Establishment."  Another Reuters story, headline:  "Republican Cruz Calls Iowa Win a Victory for Conservative Grassroots."  I do not like, speaking for myself, I don't like this idea that Marco Rubio is all of a sudden being labeled as an establishment candidate.

I know that Rubio's got the baggage of that Gang of Eight bill and I know that in many people's minds he's got the baggage of wanting to grant the current number of illegals citizenship.  I understand that.  But Marco Rubio is no moderate Republican centrist.  I could sit here like anybody else could and try to make explanations for you for why he did the Gang of Eight.  I'm not even gonna try to put words into his mouth.  I don't want to be seen as making excuses.  I'm just telling you, I don't see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative.  Nobody's pure, and nobody is ever free of making mistakes. 

I know Senator Rubio. It's like I was telling you last week: I know these people. I know that Senator Rubio in the Senate... In many ways, he agrees with Cruz about things. He's worn out with the Senate.  The Senate... I heard this from Allen West when he left the House.  I've heard, "The incumbents, that's all they care about is being reelected.  You go there to make a difference and you run into brick wall after brick wall after brick wall." I don't think... You know, Rubio, I don't think he wants to stay there 30 years to break through the wall to get a committee chairmanship or whatever.

I just don't like this idea that all of a sudden we're gonna make Rubio the establishment bad guy, as though Rubio is no different than the McCains and the Bob Doles and the Romneys and the others that have come along and been nominated by the establishment.  He just isn't.  He has not been talked out of his conservatism.  He does not abandon it.  He had the best end-of-the-evening speech of anybody last night. He had the best end-of-the-evening speech of anybody.  And even the media was dazzled by the fact that he did it without a teleprompter.

I wonder how many Rush 24/7 listeners quit today?  I wonder how many listeners he lost today? I think he has been losing them for a while now. The FR rush thread has been real slow up until this last week.

[Jazzhead]

I'd love to see Rush stick his neck out and endorse an electable conservative like Rubio.   The nihilists will howl, but shoot, we need to start getting serious about winning this election.  Neither Cruz nor Trump can win the general election.   

[Carling]

Rush makes some sense.  My biggest worry about Rubio is that he has large donors from the GOPe faction, and they are going to want an ROI even if Rubio disagrees with what is being asked of him.

I can see how he could have been forced into his Gang of Eight vote, so why would that change as president?

[Carling]

Neither Cruz nor Trump can win the general election.

Creating an opinion-based strawman and then arguing against it is what Obama does and it's completely disingenuous as a form of serious debate.  There is no way of knowing if either of those two will or will not win a general election.  I'm frankly done with nominating establishment nice guy losers like McCain and Romney, and I see Kasich and Bush as clones of those two, and Rubio I'm still not sure about, but I'm warming to him as a possibility.

[Bigun]

Neither Cruz nor Trump can win the general election.

100% USDA Choice B.S.! 

[ABX]

Rubio has flaws and ideologically, is below some of the other candidates, there is no question. He is though, on balance, a better option than we often get. Better than Romney or Mccain. He also polls better among young voters than our other candidates except Paul (who while polling well among some demographics, doesn't turn that into votes).

To the average joe who really doesn't think about establishment versus others, as the polls reflect, they like Rubio. Most voters aren't as informed or detail oriented as folks here and don't keep lists of who is in or working with the establishment that day. They see what he says directly to them in debates, commercials, and online. Rubio is very good at talking to people on the other side of the camera directly, something our better candidate does have a challenge with. He also doesn't insult the voters or make them cringe (as does one of our other leading candidates).

He has a history that shows, while not perfect, he can be at least be put as an 85% Conservative, and he isn't a johnny come lately to that.

He wouldn't be my first choice but I wouldn't have a problem pressing the button for him if it came down to ti.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Rush makes some sense.  My biggest worry about Rubio is that he has large donors from the GOPe faction, and they are going to want an ROI even if Rubio disagrees with what is being asked of him.

Shouldn't we be worried about the very same thing with Cruz's large donors and superpacs?

[ABX]

Shouldn't we be worried about the very same thing with Cruz's large donors and superpacs?

Or Trump's financial ties to Soros, the Saudis, and every major Wall Street bank in numbers that would make most political Super PACs cry with envy?

[Jazzhead]

Creating an opinion-based strawman and then arguing against it is what Obama does and it's completely disingenuous as a form of serious debate.  There is no way of knowing if either of those two will or will not win a general election.  I'm frankly done with nominating establishment nice guy losers like McCain and Romney, and I see Kasich and Bush as clones of those two, and Rubio I'm still not sure about, but I'm warming to him as a possibility.

Now I'd hope it would be obvious that I'm merely stating an opinion about a future event.  Not an "opinion-based strawman".  Sheesh.

See, here's the thing.  I've got a problem as I face this election,  and perhaps you simply don't.    I see things as far worse with the Democrats in charge,  and want to be risk averse when it comes to nominating someone who "conventional opinion" say cannot win.    I don't know enough to know whether "conventional opinion" is wrong,  but as far as I can tell Cruz has issues dealing with people, and I don't know whether he can handle the world's most important executive position.   Trump's been an executive all right,  but of the oily and lawyered-up sort.   Plus his views are repulsive and unmoored by principle.

Go ahead and make the case that either can win,  but why should I stick my neck out when we can still nominate a conservative with sound temperament, judgment and experience?   Who can offer an alternative to those disgusted by Clinton's corruption,  vindictiveness, dishonesty  and sense of royal entitlement?    Not Trump!  He embodies many of those same qualities.  Not Cruz - he comes off like a little Napoleon.   

I'll take John Kasich, thank you very much.     

[TBBT]

Now I'd hope it would be obvious that I'm merely stating an opinion about a future event.  Not an "opinion-based strawman".  Sheesh.

See, here's the thing.  I've got a problem as I face this election,  and perhaps you simply don't.    I see things as far worse with the Democrats in charge,  and want to be risk averse when it comes to nominating someone who "conventional opinion" say cannot win.    I don't know enough to know whether "conventional opinion" is wrong,  but as far as I can tell Cruz has issues dealing with people, and I don't know whether he can handle the world's most important executive position.   Trump's been an executive all right,  but of the oily and lawyered-up sort.   Plus his views are repulsive and unmoored by principle.

Go ahead and make the case that either can win,  but why should I stick my neck out when we can still nominate a conservative with sound temperament, judgment and experience?   Who can offer an alternative to those disgusted by Clinton's corruption,  vindictiveness, dishonesty  and sense of royal entitlement?    Not Trump!  He embodies many of those same qualities.  Not Cruz - he comes off like a little Napoleon.   

I'll take John Kasich, thank you very much.   

You seem to like gorging yourself on media created narratives and spin. It's called propaganda.

You should note, the problem with "conventional wisdom" is that it's often wrong.

The Democrats are saddled with two of the weakest candidates I've seen since I can remember. Hillary Clinton can hardly handle a 70+ year old, curmudgeon, 60's era, hippie, socialist that nobody takes seriously. This notion about elect-ability is a ruse. I have no doubt that all of the GOP candidates on that stage can win the general, to include Donald Trump. Poll after poll confirms this. The only candidate that occasionally doesn't beat Hillary in the head to head polling is Trump.

The notion about Cruz's ability to get along is also a ruse used by the establishment and opposing campaigns. Propaganda.

Rubio will try to make your argument. He will claim that he's the only one that can bring the party together to beat Hillary. That's total bunk. I certainly think Rubio can win, but so can Cruz et al.

Remember the establishment tried to sell the notion that Reagan couldn't win. They argued that a Reagan nomination would end the GOP and the movement. If you look at the history you'll find how hysterical they became about the possibility of Reagan's nomination. Look it up. You'll see cast of characters like Bob Dole and efforts to dig up Gerald Ford from the grave to stop Reagan. It stunning to watch this history repeating itself today.

[Carling]

Shouldn't we be worried about the very same thing with Cruz's large donors and superpacs?

Difference is Rubio has already gone along with the establishment on Gang of Eight.

[Bigun]

Difference is Rubio has already gone along with the establishment on Gang of Eight.

Evidence! You aren't supposed to cite things like actual evidence!  That ruffles some peoples feathers around here!

[Jazzhead]

You seem to like gorging yourself on media created narratives and spin. It's called propaganda.

You should note, the problem with "conventional wisdom" is that it's often wrong.

The Democrats are saddled with two of the weakest candidates I've seen since I can remember. Hillary Clinton can hardly handle a 70+ year old, curmudgeon, 60's era, hippie, socialist that nobody takes seriously. This notion about elect-ability is a ruse. I have no doubt that all of the GOP candidates on that stage can win the general, to include Donald Trump. Poll after poll confirms this. The only candidate that occasionally doesn't beat Hillary in the head to head polling is Trump.

The notion about Cruz's ability to get along is also a ruse used by the establishment and opposing campaigns. Propaganda.

Rubio will try to make your argument. He will claim that he's the only one that can bring the party together to beat Hillary. That's total bunk. I certainly think Rubio can win, but so can Cruz et al.

Remember the establishment tried to sell that Reagan couldn't win. They argued that a Reagan nomination would end the GOP and the movement. If you look at the history you'll find how hysterical they became about the possibility of Reagan's nomination. Look it up. You'll see cast of characters like Bob Dole and efforts to dig up Gerald Ford from the grave to stop Reagan. It stunning to watch this history repeating itself today.

Reagan was principled, Trump is not.   Cruz is principled, but he's a much darker cat than the Gipper was.    Cruz is probably closer to Goldwater,  who would have made a superb President but was ahead of his time.   

Bottom line is that if it's Cruz,  I'll support the nominee and hope he can pull it off.   But he's an extraordinarily risky choice, especially in a year when the Dems are trying to present this election on a platter.   

[Sanguine]

Shouldn't we be worried about the very same thing with Cruz's large donors and superpacs?

Most of his donors are small donors.

[musiclady]

I was glad to hear Rush say this today.   As was said above, most voters aren't obsessed, as we are, with every move a candidate has made.

Rubio, overall, is conservative.  Reagan said that if you agree with a candidate 70% of the time, you should go with it.

For me, though ideologically, Cruz is well above Rubio, I can vote for Marco with a clear conscience, as a conservative.

Others may not, but I think I may reflect a larger group of people than some here do.

And I do think that either Cruz or Rubio can beat Hillary, and that's our bottom line.