So far, he has placed 3rd in IA, 5th in NH, and probably 3rd in SC (though at the moment Bush is a close 4th in SC). Yet he is being touted as a strong candidate, possibly the one Clinton should fear the most. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it. He strikes me as someone who Clinton would mop the floor with and if he did get to the White House he would be in over his head. It’s been noted that he is good at repeating talking points, but not so much off the cuff. I can see Bush or Kasich as President; even Christie was starting to grow on me in that regard; all of them would also I think have been a tougher opponent for Clinton. I guess if it’s down to him, Cruz, and Trump (whom NBC just this second declared the SC winner), he is the most sane, but that’s not saying much. That said, when did Rubio become “establishment”? I distinctly recall him being the “Tea Party” candidate against Charlie Crist, who was pushed out of the race for US Senate and ultimately left the GOP. I’m not sure he would necessarily want the label either. What sayeth the BMG hive mind?
Rubio quickly caught up to Cruz to battle for 2nd leaving Bush in the dust, but the rest of my commentary stands.
The most amazing thing to me about Rubio is he’s assumed the mantle of being the foreign policy “expert” in the Republican field. Yet he’s a first-term senator from the opposition party. His list of foreign policy achievements consists of zero items. He’s performed no official diplomacy and, to borrow from Chris Christie, never been involved in making a single consequential foreign policy decision. Rubio is the emptiest of suits.
When he mocked Trump, saying that building a hotel in a foreign country is not foreign policy experience. No, but it is international business experience and that is by far and going away more experience than Rubio has amassed in a few years of sitting in DC and claiming expertise.
Which isn’t saying much at all. Governors don’t have foreign policy experience, and being a federal prosecutor on 9/11 was a stretch for Christie. And obviously the other folks have even less than Marco. It’s really sad, the GOP primaried or hustled out of the establishment most of its realists who once were the linchpin of a successful bipartisan foreign policy. Lugar, Hagel, Scowcroft and Powell are all persona non grata.
Personally I think Kasich with both Congressional and gubernatorial experience is the best prepared of the field. If I were a Republican there’s a good chance I’d support him.
But he isn’t the frontrunner. He was a higher up on the armed services committee and worked with, Rep. Dellums a social democrat, on cutting the
military budget and reducing waste and fraud. I agree with you about him, and he’s been getting better on the stump. I just suspect his kind of Republican doesn’t win primaries anymore, certainly not in the year of Trump.
That’s the contrast between Rubio and Kasich right there.
Kasich worked to cut waste and abuse in a bloated military budget. Rubio is shouting at every corner how he’ll spend more on defense.
Rubio is particularly bad in how he panders to specific business interests like the ones in the defense industry.
Pundits have looked at the Republican post-mortem, the exit polls, and have come to the conclusion about what the party needs. They agree that it is logical, almost self-evident that the best Republican candidate must counter the narrative of that party as a refuge of almost exclusively old, angry, fundamentalist, fearful white men. And Marco Rubio checks off every box. So it’s only logical that Rubio should be the candidate. He’s Hispanic, moderate on immigration, youngish, handsome, new, unburdened by a long record with its attendant changes of mind, from a swing state, and able to access money. Chris Matthews just said “Rubio is the person that Hillary is afraid of.”
So it just makes sense from a political science point of view that Rubio should be the nominee. The pundits think that sooner or later, the Republicans will become disenchanted with terrible Trump and crazy Cruz (the way the Greeks will tire of Samaris and the French of Le Pen) and wake up and make the right choice. And they will stick with that despite what the Republicans say.
So, more than almost any of them,
The last sentence is incomplete. I’ve heard all your points before, but I’m still not buying it.
I don’t always remember to clean it up. As for the rest, I guess I can’t supply something you’d find “buyable”.
…which I guess leaves FL to Rubio and otherwise narrows the “establishment lane”.
There’s not a ton of difference between him and W Bush, to be blunt.
I’d expect Hillary to beat him handily but take nothing for granted and there is the whole generational optics thing. Made worse by the awful round of Boomersplaining from Albright, Steinem, and Bill in the run-up to NH.
Bruni at the NYTimes has a fascinating piece in the Sunday paper comparing Rubio with Cruz. He finds more policy similarities than popular opinion acknowledges but also explores the stylistic differences of the two. BTW, for those who emphasize Rubio’s youth, he is the same age as Cruz.
http://nyti.ms/1ov3ESU
(1) He can unite the evangelical and business wings of the Republican Party;
(2) He could possibly challenge for 40% of Latinos’ vote in the general;
(3) He has an inspirational family story and one he tells well (and often);
(4) He provides a generational contrast with either Clinton or Sanders;
(5) Unlike Cruz/Trump, he can plausibly do the classic shift to the center after the primary since he hasn’t said outrageous/disqualifying things like those other two;
(6) He’s from Florida, perhaps the second most consequential state in the general (after Ohio), and maybe the most closely contested;
(7) He presents an image of Republicans other than “old, white guy”;
(8) One can get away with repeated talking points in today’s media environment, rather than having to be “off the cuff,” because the media barely challenges any candidates in a serious way these days;
(9) He represents “change” in a “change” election.
Not saying that he doesn’t have liabilities as well. But Democrats shouldn’t discount him in the general (if he ever gets there).
…but why is it at the end of the day I’m simply unimpressed? A lot of what you cited seems very superficial to me. He doesn’t seem ready for prime time either as a general candidate or as President.
to state the obvious, Christopher, the target audience here is not you.
And that is a compliment.
He’s a Latino Obama. Not much real experience, short time in the Senate, but good speaker with optimistic persona. Obama wasn’t overly ready for prime time either
Of course I backed him as the nominee and I wouldn’t fault you for getting behind Rubio if he is the nominee this time.
No comparison with Obama. Sorry!
Obama was inspirational. Rubio is rehearsed and made-up.
Obama was anti-establishment in the Dem party. Rubio is the last hope of the Repub establishment.