Rubio Endorses Romney

[HailStarofSea]

But married women vote more than unmarried women do - so you could say that insofar as the Democrat party doesn’t attract as many married women voters, they, too, have a problem with women voters. But you’ll notice the issue hasn’t been spun this way by the media, which likes to portray the whole issue as a “GOP has a problem with women voters” story. That’s a convenient and self perpetuating narrative which helps Obama, doesn’t it? The media (mainstream media) wants to help Obama by portraying the GOP in as negative a light as possible.

Ishii

This corresponds to the fact that the DNC consistently gets more of the female vote than the GOP, which is a fact. This has not always been the case as through the 1950s, the GOP won women. If you look at married women vs. single women, the DNC is taking a larger proportion of married women than the GOP is taking of single women.

It is unwise to blame problems with the “media.” Some in the GOP have started out in the mainstream media and moved to the GOP. Media jobs are low paid but also require a college degree, the DNC consistently wins people who have a large amount of education but do not make much bang for the years spent.

 

[CMatt25]

The difference, of course, being that Rubio actually wants to serve out his term as Senator. Obama always had higher aspirations, since the 2004 DNC Convention.

Well yes that could be the reason why Rubio over and over says he is not going to be VP. But then this is precisely why it puzzles me that some here continue to advocate for the guy to be VP.

I still recall that great speech then Senate candidate Barack Obama gave to the convention. He was attempting even then to compromise and unite the nation with his words, there is no red America, no blue America, but the United States of America. And I sat on my sofa in awe saying to myself this man is going to POTUS. Of course though compromise requires a 2 way street for it to work.

 

[CMatt25]

But the same ‘‘inexperience’’ argument could be made about Rubio, he has had 2 years experience in the senate, but you think he would be one of the best VP choices.

Uhhh actually he’s been in the US Senate only since January 2011 and it is only April 2012.

 

[ishii]

Well yes that could be the reason why Rubio over and over says he is not going to be VP. But then this is precisely why it puzzles me that some here continue to advocate for the guy to be VP.

I still recall that great speech then Senate candidate Barack Obama gave to the convention. He was attempting even then to compromise and unite the nation with his words, there is no red America, no blue America, but the United States of America. And I sat on my sofa in awe saying to myself that man is going to POTUS. Of course though compromise requires a 2 way street for it to work.

LOL. You certainly seem star struck by the Great Leader. Barack talked a good game about bipartisanship but then rammed the most controversial and unpopular, complicated piece of legislation - i.e. Obamacare through congress. Because he could. when McCain tried to voice his opinion on the matter, Obama lectured him about the election being over. The GOP was apparently supposed to sit back and let the Great Leader ram through the legislation that no one had read - and do so for everyone’s good. We now know more of what is in the legislation. It is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Obama even now expects the Supreme court to rubber stamp his legislation, apparently he doesn’t know what judicial review is - strange because he supposedly went to law school. So much for no red state or blues states. What a hypocrite. Don’t be fooled, Cmatt. When it comes to bipartisanship, Obama is a phony.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I think a vice presidential nominee of West would be vulnerable to the “heartbeat away from the presidency” issue more than would a Marco Rubio (but I’m sure Democrats would raise it with him as well).
Ishii

Of course they would. Why wouldn’t they? Republicans raised the issue about then Senator Obama and he had been in the Senate longer. What’s good for the goose is for the gander, Ishii. Marco Rubio shouldn’t get special treatment just because he’s Marco Rubio with an “R” after his name.

 

[ishii]

Of course they would. Why wouldn’t they? Republicans raised the issue about then Senator Obama and he had been in the Senate longer. What’s good for the goose is for the gander, Ishii. Marco Rubio shouldn’t get special treatment just because he’s Marco Rubio with an “R” after his name.

Nothing about my post was complaining about that reality, Cmatt. I was merely pointing it out. I didn’t mean to imply that Rubio should get special treatment. I expect Obama to use his billion dollars to smear whoever the GOP nominates. Billion dollars in campaign money, but he’s for the “poor” folks.

Ishii

 

[HailStarofSea]

That’s a good observation, Abyssinia. My only answers are that historically very few congressmen have ascended to the level of vice presidency or presidency - for a reason. The last congressman to become president was James Garfield. Gerald Ford was appointed vice president, but he was minority leader of the House. There is more gravitas (rightly or wrongly) credited to US senators than to congressmen. I think a vice presidential nominee of West would be vulnerable to the “heartbeat away from the presidency” issue more than would a Marco Rubio (but I’m sure Democrats would raise it with him as well). It is no accident that our presidents and vice presidents have mainly been Senators or governors. West would be a huge gamble and I don’t think the GOP is in the situation that requires such a gamble. Give West a few years - maybe get elected to senate - and then I will be clammering for him to run for president.

Ishii

It is a huge gamble… First, Obama ran in Illinois Senate, and the GOP flew into Alan Keyes to run against him. Obama won more % of the vote than any other Senator in the history of Illinois.

. Obama waltzed into the history books by beating Republican Alan Keyes 71 percent to 26 percent with 85 percent of the precincts tallied. It was shaping up to be the most lopsided popular election for U.S. Senate in Illinois history.

highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1553596.html

Then Obama against Sarah Palin/McCain, Obama won a higher % of the female vote than Kerry.

The other major thing about Palin and Keyes is that some would call them gimmicks. How many governors have resigned and then hosted a reality tv show, the only other one is Rod Blagoveich who is now in jail? Alan Keyes is now in the birther fringe that sues Obama, and he left the GOP to run as a presidential candidate in the Independent Party in 2008. The strategy will be more convincing with someone who is seen as a stable and permanent commitment with a seat at the table, not a one minute wonder. Alan West has become a favorite target of liberals since being a public enemy of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He cannot run in his current district and is switching districts.

Once, shame on you. Twice, shame on me. Three times, well, … People are focusing too much on Obama’s race when thinking of nominees. While race is a liability for the GOP, this way of addressing it does not seem likely to address the most glaring discrepancy - dark skinned people, African Americans and south Asians who vote DNC at around 96%. It doesn’t address the overall minority problem: Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans who vote DNC at 55-80%. It doesn’t address the female problem either. It seems that it will be unlikely to help with the white vote either. All it does it provide a comeback when being accused of racism, one that will convince the choir and make them feel good about themselves but has no history of success with convincing the opposing team.

The GOP needs to focus more long-term on diversity so that having a diverse party will be natural, and these choices of candidates will not be forced. The short-term strategy of choosing a minority is extremely risky. Why is it that almost all of these people on the list, except Bobby Jindal, were only elected in 2010? It seems that the GOP simply became more diverse as a reaction to Obama. If these candidates were long-standing, then the argument that the GOP is diverse would be much more convincing.

When Obama beat Hillary Clinton, he was also worried about a “women” problem since DNC women who weren’t black overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. What he did was have famous and powerful beloved women campaign for him: Oprah, Maria Schriver, Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy, and then he enlisted Bill Clinton to show that the dispute between him and Hillary wasn’t personal.

Mitt Romney might be better off having some of these people mentioned - Rubio, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Alan West, (Would also add Elaine Chao) stump for him rather than as VP.

Personally, I am a hard time deciding between a choice targeted to the economy and budget such as Paul Ryan (although I do not like his plan, at least he has one) vs. Eric Cantor as VP choice - Israel is alone right now in the Middle East. Cantor is the only Jewish Republican currently serving in the U.S. Congress, and the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in its history. The Jewish Problem With Obama: Part One of Five huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/post_983_b_747634.html

 

[CMatt25]

Lots of positives and no not alot of negatives. Democrats wouldn’t be able to attack his record.

Yes they would.

“Amid a public uproar that prompted Virginia’s governor to withdraw his support, Republican legislators on Wednesday dropped a bitterly contested proposal to require that women seeking abortions undergo invasive ultrasound imaging, likely dooming the bill.”

usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-02-23-BCUSAbortion-UltrasoundVirginia3rd-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

So while his earlier support of this bitterly contested policy I know is a winner here on CAF, and while some Democrats might applaud his reversal at least for the time being, the fact that he supported such a controversial proposal to begin with would be an issue raised. And frankly I’m a bit surprised because he did an “about face” on what is a popular issue to many here, that so many still appear willing to support him.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Yes they would.

“Amid a public uproar that prompted Virginia’s governor to withdraw his support, Republican legislators on Wednesday dropped a bitterly contested proposal to require that women seeking abortions undergo invasive ultrasound imaging, likely dooming the bill.”

usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-02-23-BCUSAbortion-UltrasoundVirginia3rd-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

So while his support of this bitterly contested policy I know is a winner here on CAF, and while some Democrats might applaud his reversal at least for the time being, the fact that he supported such a controversial proposal to begin with would be an issue raised. And frankly I’m a bit surprised because he did an “about face” on what is a popular issue to many here, that so many still appear willing to support him.

It might help actually by taking the focus from contraception, where the American public is not ready to change their mind and their is near unanimous support, to abortion, where the public is more evenly divided. Especially if someone could make clear the link between abortion and our economic problems/political divisions. If he can deliver swing states such as Virginia, that would be a positive.

 

[CMatt25]

Obama isn’t proposing tax plans that benefit people making $200k or more the most. The tax system does need to be reformed, but the load should lighten more for the middle class.

Exactly. Republicans I think perhaps to their own peril are overlooking the significance of how their tax policy is looked at by the American people and how they are perceived to be favoring the richest among us at the expense of the less fortunate having to sacrifice more. What you posted reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw yesterday which simply said “the 99%”.

But it’s only common sense to think the GOP is being unfair when at a debate not a single candidate raised his hand in support of even a deficit deal with a ratio of 10:1 cuts to revenue increases. That told the American people a lot and all they needed to know.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Exactly. Republicans I think perhaps to their own peril are overlooking the significance of how their tax policy is looked at by the American people and how they are perceived to be favoring the richest among us at the expense of the less fortunate having to sacrifice more. What you posted reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw yesterday which simply said “the 99%”.

But it’s only common sense to think the GOP is being unfair when at a debate not a single candidate raised his hand in support of even a deficit deal with a ratio of 10:1 cuts to revenue increases. That told the American people a lot and all they needed to know.

Yes, it is coming down to a rock and a hard place instead of good vs. bad. It is clear that the GOP is better on the issue of life, which is the most important issue and the root cause of the economic failure, which should be enough for any Catholic - particularly since pro-life Catholics are marginalized in the DNC and have little voice. Just look at how Bob Casey was treated.

Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, Casey tried to get a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking slot[10] and said in a series of news conferences the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues.

But with economics - it should not be a choice between uncontrolled spending as America comes to ruin going in debt to China vs. a tax plan that favors the wealthy among us. There are other options.

 

[CMatt25]

LOL. You certainly seem star struck by the Great Leader. Barack talked a good game about bipartisanship but then rammed the most controversial and unpopular, complicated piece of legislation - i.e. Obamacare through congress. Because he could. when McCain tried to voice his opinion on the matter, Obama lectured him about the election being over. The GOP was apparently supposed to sit back and let the Great Leader ram through the legislation that no one had read - and do so for everyone’s good. We now know more of what is in the legislation. It is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Obama even now expects the Supreme court to rubber stamp his legislation, apparently he doesn’t know what judicial review is - strange because he supposedly went to law school. So much for no red state or blues states. What a hypocrite. Don’t be fooled, Cmatt. When it comes to bipartisanship, Obama is a phony.

Ishii

Actually Ishii, Obama compromised by taking single payer off the table from the get-go. Compromised with the GOP and a few conservative to moderate Democrats on a public option. There isn’t one. Compromised on not ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest at the end of Dec 2010. To name just a few.

I’ll await when the Republican leaning SCOTUS overrules the Affordable Care Act and all of the conservatives here are ringing the praises of the SCOTUS as having the final word in 2012, for someone to say a 1973 ruling was the final word as well on another matter.

 

[CMatt25]

Nothing about my post was complaining about that reality, Cmatt. I was merely pointing it out. I didn’t mean to imply that Rubio should get special treatment. I expect Obama to use his billion dollars to smear whoever the GOP nominates. Billion dollars in campaign money, but he’s for the “poor” folks.

Ishii

Ishii, the Romney camp and super pacs on his behalf have spent a lot of money per vote in states like Iowa and others during this primary season. Do you realize how much Santorum has been outspent in some of these places? I disagree with about everything he says but I give Santorum credit for having done as well as he has under the circumstances. But alas he’s coming up short. Unfortunately if you don’t like the money in politics, the SCOTUS didn’t help with a ruling a yr or 2 ago. And Obama can not simply sit back, remain on the sidelines and allow the Republicans to play on the field.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, the Romney camp and super pacs on his behalf have spent a lot of money per vote in states like Iowa and others during this primary season. Do you realize how much Santorum has been outspent in some of these places? I disagree with about everything he says but I give Santorum credit for having done as well as he has under the circumstances. But alas he’s coming up short. Unfortunately if you don’t like the money in politics, the SCOTUS didn’t help with a ruling a yr or 2 ago. And Obama can not simply sit back, remain on the sidelines and allow the Republicans to play on the field.

Obama spent an average of $10.94 per vote in 2008, compared to John McCain’s $5.78. He raised a total of 778 million, and McCain raised 379 million. He got a lot of Wall Street contributions and corporate contributions, rich Hollywood contributions. But of course, he did it all to “keep up with the rich greedy Republicans” Right?

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Alan West has become a favorite target of liberals since being a public enemy of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He cannot run in his current district and is switching districts.

Well while I’m personally thrilled he won’t be my congressman any longer, although I would have savored and was looking forward to removing him from office, he could have chosen to remain and run in his district and fought to retain his seat in the district if he thought he had a good shot. But chose not to. I don’t see him as VP material at all.

 

[CMatt25]

Obama spent an average of $10.94 per vote in 2008, compared to John McCain’s $5.78. He raised a total of 778 million, and McCain raised 379 million. He got a lot of Wall Street contributions and corporate contributions, rich Hollywood contributions. But of course, he did it all to “keep up with the rich greedy Republicans” Right?

Ishii

Ishii, it’s 2012. New playing field. McCain was at a disadvantage irregardless after 8 yrs of Bush.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, it’s 2012. New playing field. McCain was at a disadvantage irregardless after 8 yrs of Bush.

2008 - Obama outspent his opponents.
2012 - Obama has raised a billion dollars on his way to outspending them again. Same story as 2008 - nothing has changed Cmatt.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

It is a huge gamble… First, Obama ran in Illinois Senate, and the GOP flew into Alan Keyes to run against him. Obama won more % of the vote than any other Senator in the history of Illinois.

highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1553596.html

Then Obama against Sarah Palin/McCain, Obama won a higher % of the female vote than Kerry.

The other major thing about Palin and Keyes is that some would call them gimmicks. How many governors have resigned and then hosted a reality tv show, the only other one is Rod Blagoveich who is now in jail? Alan Keyes is now in the birther fringe that sues Obama, and he left the GOP to run as a presidential candidate in the Independent Party in 2008. The strategy will be more convincing with someone who is seen as a stable and permanent commitment with a seat at the table, not a one minute wonder. Alan West has become a favorite target of liberals since being a public enemy of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He cannot run in his current district and is switching districts.

Once, shame on you. Twice, shame on me. Three times, well, … People are focusing too much on Obama’s race when thinking of nominees. While race is a liability for the GOP, this way of addressing it does not seem likely to address the most glaring discrepancy - dark skinned people, African Americans and south Asians who vote DNC at around 96%. It doesn’t address the overall minority problem: Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans who vote DNC at 55-80%. It doesn’t address the female problem either. It seems that it will be unlikely to help with the white vote either. All it does it provide a comeback when being accused of racism, one that will convince the choir and make them feel good about themselves but has no history of success with convincing the opposing team.

The GOP needs to focus more long-term on diversity so that having a diverse party will be natural, and these choices of candidates will not be forced. The short-term strategy of choosing a minority is extremely risky. Why is it that almost all of these people on the list, except Bobby Jindal, were only elected in 2010? It seems that the GOP simply became more diverse as a reaction to Obama. If these candidates were long-standing, then the argument that the GOP is diverse would be much more convincing.

When Obama beat Hillary Clinton, he was also worried about a “women” problem since DNC women who weren’t black overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. What he did was have famous and powerful beloved women campaign for him: Oprah, Maria Schriver, Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy, and then he enlisted Bill Clinton to show that the dispute between him and Hillary wasn’t personal.

Mitt Romney might be better off having some of these people mentioned - Rubio, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Alan West, (Would also add Elaine Chao) stump for him rather than as VP.

Personally, I am a hard time deciding between a choice targeted to the economy and budget such as Paul Ryan (although I do not like his plan, at least he has one) vs. Eric Cantor as VP choice - Israel is alone right now in the Middle East. Cantor is the only Jewish Republican currently serving in the U.S. Congress, and the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in its history. The Jewish Problem With Obama: Part One of Five huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/post_983_b_747634.html

Allen West could be a VP because he has 22 experiences in the military combined with his political experience - not because he’s Black. Republicans don’t pander race politics for votes.

People such as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell were key in the Bush administration long before Barack Obama because president.

The Republican party has not suddenly diversified as a response to Barack Obama, if you look into the political history of a lot of people that you think had only been on the scene since 2010 have in fact been around for a lot longer.

Rubio hasn’t only been on the scene since 2010, he has had political experience for 11 years.

If somebody like Rubio, Jindal or West is chosen it won’t be based on race alone, it is will be based on what they can bring to the ticket that can help clinch in the win in November.

 

[HailStarofSea]

The Republican party has not suddenly diversified as a response to Barack Obama, if you look into the political history of a lot of people that you think had only been on the scene since 2010 have in fact been around for a lot longer.

They were all on the scene but they have moved into higher profile positions rapidly since 2008. First, Sarah Palin in 2008, then Michael Steele in 2009, then the Tea Party darlings - Marco Rubio, Alan West, Tim Scott, Susana Martinez in 2010, then Herman Cain in 2011. Only 6 black senators or congressman from the GOP have ever been elected on their own in all of United States history: 1929, 1967, 1990, 1995 then there’s a jump all the way to not 1 2 in 2010 for the first time since 1995. So 33% all of all the elected representation since 1776 took place in 2010.

There’s a difference between an appointment and election, because an election shows genuine popularity with the base while an appointment may be related to a superficial desire to appear politically correct. This is definitely sudden diversification. When you look at Obama’s VP Biden, he has been a Senator since 1973.

 

[CatholicGOPer]

I sure hope Catholics have learned their lesson these past three years and this time vote for the pro-life pro-traditional family candidate, and not the pro-abortion pro-big-government candidate.