Last Updated:October 31 @ 07:39 am

Should I Vote for Marco Rubio?

By Doug Patton

There are times when the words "never" and "always" are the only ones that work. In my case, "never" is becoming the word I must use to describe how I feel about certain candidates for high office. For example, I voted four times for a Bush and once for a McCain — something I will never do again.

In 1988, it was Bush the elder over Michael Dukakis. In 1992, I resisted the temptation to punish President "Read-My-Lips" by casting my ballot for Ross Perot, knowing that a vote for the pintsized Texas screwball would simply be handing the presidency to Bill Clinton.

In 2000, Bush 43 was not my first choice in the primaries, but after he captured the nomination, there was no possible way I could mark a ballot for eco-fraud Al Gore, and Dubya got my vote. By 2004, when he was running for reelection, it was a no-brainer against ultra-lib John Kerry.

In 2008, John McCain was my last choice for the Republican nomination. He redeemed himself somewhat by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, and given a choice between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, well, as the old saying goes, I was born at night but it wasn't last night.

But now, after elitist statements by these people and their families, color me convinced. I will never vote for another Bush or another McCain. Former First Lady Barbara Bush, when asked about Sarah Palin, opined that the former Alaska governor seemed to love her home state — and should stay there. Bar's namesake, one of George and Laura's twin girls, appeared in a video proclaiming the following:

"I'm Barbara Bush, and I'm a New Yorker for marriage equality. New York is about fairness and equality, and everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. Join us."

Of course, John McCain's wife, Cindy, and their insipid, annoying daughter, Meghan, have expressed a similarly misguided view of marriage. During the first Obama term, McCain himself declared that the president had "moved to the middle." Sadly, the truth is that the radically leftwing Obama would not have to move too far to the right to meet up with McCain, who never met a compromise he was unwilling to embrace.

But it is on the issue of illegal immigration that George W. Bush and John McCain — the two men who, along with Mitt Romney, have nearly destroyed the party of Lincoln and Reagan — have placed our nation at grave risk on so many different levels. And as a member of the Senate's "Gang of Eight" (which McCain was born to lead), Marco Rubio seems to have joined their ranks.

The next Bush in the family dynasty, Jeb, is increasingly mentioned as a potential candidate in 2016, as is his protégé, Marco Rubio. However, given his insistence on "immigration reform," one has to ask how closely Rubio shares the views of Jeb and his older brother, the former president, who, during a speech at Southern Methodist University after leaving office, said the following:

"What's interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some 'isms' that occasionally pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the '20s, for example, there was an American-first policy that said, 'Who cares what happens in Europe?' And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we've been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these 'isms' pass."

I couldn't agree more. We have far too many "isms." Elitism, favoritism and statism come to mind, "isms" for which the Bushes and the McCains have become poster boys, and Marco Rubio is going to have to do a much better job of repudiating those "isms" on the issue of amnesty to avoid being placed on my "never" list.

In the wake of the Boston bombings, the American people are in no mood to compromise on the issue of America's out-of-control immigration policies, especially our wide open borders.

---

© 2013 by Doug Patton - Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself more often than not. His weekly columns are distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley at cari@cagle.com or call 800 696 7561. Readers are encouraged to email Doug at dpatton@cagle.com and/or to follow him on Twitter at @Doug_Patton.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.7/10 (216 votes cast)
Should I Vote for Marco Rubio?, 8.7 out of 10 based on 216 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

103 Comments

  1. Pingback: Should I Vote for Marco Rubio? - GOPUSA

  2. gar357Comment by gar357
    April 25, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

    Right on… this is writen as if I wrote it myself.. 100% in agreement on everything except one… I did vote for Perot.. a mistake but I really didn’t like how Bush 1 completely reversed everything he “stood for” in the primaries after Reagan picked him for VP.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (56 votes cast)
    • kingschildComment by kingschild
      April 25, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

      Same here!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (23 votes cast)
    • sockettuemComment by sockettuem
      April 25, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

      Have to agree on all of it, including the fact that Perot was off his rocker. Given the choices we had, I voted not so much because the GOP candidate was stellar, but more because the democrat was awful. As to Rubio, the jury is still out. Way out. One thing is certain, not another Bush and not another Clinton. We have had enough of both. Just pray we survive Obama.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (64 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

      I didn’t vote for Perot, but I didn’t think he was crazy. He was a good business man, he understood how NAFTA was going to help destroy our way of life, but he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He reminds me a lot of Ron Paul today.

      However, I am leaning toward the idea of never voting for another incumbent. We have government officials who have made a 40-year career out of politics, they insist they know what’s best for all of us, but they never solve any problem. In fact they have ceated most of our problems, and the only time they want to hear from us is at election time.

      I am still somewhat in shock that Barack Obama was given a second term, and I think that just reinforces the idea that low-information voters, and an attitude of apathy have left us open to the tyranny of despots.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (73 votes cast)
  3. 123defenderComment by 123defender
    April 25, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

    I HAVE MADE UP MY MIND “I DID VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT,HE WAS THE ONLY ONE IN THAT RACE THAT I CONSIDERED STRONG ON THE ECONOMY AND WAS RESISTING NAFTA AND WAS A PATRIOT.I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MARCO RUBIO WE HAVE ENOUGH RINOS ALREADY

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (70 votes cast)
    • jrp34Comment by jrp34
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

      123defender, I wouldn’t admit it if I’d voted for that ugly little nut-case Texan, thereby enabling slick willie to pervert the presidency. For shame!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (26 votes cast)
    • jalinatxComment by jalinatx
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

      You right with that! Rubio is a Rino and acts like Mexicans are the only ones to get amnesty but in truth it will be chinese, Terrorists, Haiti and so on. He knows what he’s doing and we are wise to him. Not everyone that the Tea Party endorses are conservative, sometimes they fool us but not for long. He is being groomed by McCain and Grahman. Sad to say these moderate progressives are Communist plain and simple.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (42 votes cast)
    • geoinsdComment by geoinsd
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

      I think Perot did a lot to get the nation thinking about the dangers of increasing public debt. I think even the Left responded to the discussion about the debt that Perot pushed. Nowadays, the Left doesn’t believe the public debt and spending is a problem in spite of evidence in Europe that such problems are real.

      I am 50 years old and the nation is far more polarized than at any time that I can remember. Now, we have the group in power that is working tirelessly to “fundamentally transform America” (in my book that means destroying its fundamental character) and the group that is trying to preserve the nation’s fundamental character is branded as extremists. What a bassackwards country we have become.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (38 votes cast)
    • nancyrComment by nancyr
      April 25, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

      I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t vote for Rubio! This story and these comments are very, very refreshing. Thanks!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.9/5 (12 votes cast)
    • DaveComment by Dave
      April 26, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

      nancyr….I was leaning towards Rubio, but lately I’ve pulled back. I’m very concerned with has immigration thinking, and the fact that he is more RINO then I like. I’ve also written him a few times, and I’m still waiting for a reply. Our problems as Americans is we need politicians to be up front, and tell the truth of where they stand. It’s a shame we don’t have the law that applies to truth in advertising, and lending!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  4. bf39Comment by bf39
    April 25, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

    And what do you think of this current president and his staff? The way they are treating the Boston Bombers. They aren’t terrorists? What do you call them? We can’t change the past, let’s work on improving the future!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (69 votes cast)
    • rosechComment by rosech
      April 25, 2013 @ 2:58 pm

      Just another cover-up for the prez and friends as in Fast & Furious and Benghazi. If you have noticed more and more is coming out that they are terrorists and the rest of their group is still there, so watch out. Mirandizing the brother is so no real copulatory information is out there for our local non-patriotic Americans. Guess who?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (25 votes cast)
  5. spindizzyComment by spindizzy
    April 25, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

    I don’t like some of the things I have heard Rubio say. But I need a question definitively answered for me before I can even consider him. Same question we should have been asking before BO was even allowed to run. Doesn’t our constituion say that only natural born citizens are eligible to be prez? And isn’t the definition of a natural born citizen given as a child born to two American citizens? Both of these questions have been kicked back and forth, with confusion. A naturalized citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen. So what does the constitution really say, and what are Rubios credentials? I don’t care if the big BO set a precedent or not. WE THE PEOPLE should never let it happen again.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (71 votes cast)
    • juicyfruit56Comment by juicyfruit56
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:31 pm

      We the People should be stopping this right now by having Obama removed from office. Unfortunately We the People are no longer We the People. It is now We the Complacent. They will take our health care, our guns and all of our money before we declare a civil war in our own country to end what both the Democrats and the Republicans have done to our Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (49 votes cast)
    • rickbulow74Comment by rickbulow74
      April 25, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

      Actually, natural born citizen means born IN AMERICA. Parentage has NO BEARING on the issue.

      Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

      Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing.

      COMMON SENSE dictates it right here.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (26 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 25, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

      Rick, I am sure you have seen Mr. McCulloch’s post somewhere below. You can see where my question comes from. Both of you guys could be lawyers. I am no closer to feeling like I know the truth of this matter than I was when I first got here. But I will say this, McCulloch’s version makes so much more sense than your version. Which makes me feel that if your version is correct, who the hell was that judge that came up with that back in 2009? Again, some nutball libtard activist judge? You tell me how can your version make any sense to a country’s sovereignty? So just get your *** over onto our shores just before you spit one out, and that one can become this country’s president? I am asking you, right here, does that make any sense to you at all? Common sense?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 26, 2013 @ 8:28 am

      Damn, and there he goes away, misinforming the next forum that pings his snooper program. And he couldn’t even hang around long enough to explain his version of “common sense”. We have never seen Rick here before, at least under this name, and his only contributions to this dicussion has been to assure us that Rubio is qualified, certainly qualified, don’t worry about it, nothing to see here, now move along. One of Rubio’s campaigners, no doubt. Anyone that throws out that “common sense” red herring on something that is so absolutely against common sense has an agenda. But our brief conversation taught me all I need to know. If Rubio is trying to run for the Presidency with that basic premise as stated by ricko above, he just lost me forever. With that question finally answered I can completely forget about him in any of my considerations. Nice job, ricko, you deserve a raise.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • DaveComment by Dave
      April 26, 2013 @ 10:43 pm

      As a senator, Rubio can hold office. He Can not become president. Many people will agree, and disagree, obama is a fake, and is not a natural bor citizan. I have doubts of is father as well. Google “A boy named Stanly” and look at the comparison. It give obamas life from before he was born and talks about his roots and beliefs of those close to him.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  6. annie12Comment by annie12
    April 25, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

    America’s problems are not due to how many people or what nationality we let into this county it’s the lack of jobs for the people already here. How to create more jobs is esay. The people have the power.READ THE LABEL. . If it’s not made in the U.S.A. don’t buy it. There are several brands of blue jeans made in the US buy those and not jeans made off shore.Think of hw many jeans arre sold on a day. Now think how many jobs would be created if all buyers looked at where it was made. The auto industry is another good place to make good paying jobs. Buy cars only made in the US. Don’t buy cars masde outside of the US Americin cars are now world class and can go head to head with any import. Imagine the number of jobs that could make if all car buyers did that.It’s time the people started using this power.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (35 votes cast)
    • juicyfruit56Comment by juicyfruit56
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

      We have noted something very interesting when we drive down the road. Foreign people who live in this United States buy foreign cars usually cars of the country they came from. But what really grinds me is how many Americans who were born here, work here, live here permanently, drive foreign cars. Even when they work for an American car company. Then they cry when they lose their jobs. There should be big sign reading “wonder why you lost your job, buy foreign”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (14 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 25, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

      Juicyfruit, let me try to answer your question. Why should I have to buy an overpriced, under engineered, no character union made crapmobile like the US makers were boringly turning out at the time of the “auto crisis”? American car manufacturers have maybe been “catching up” lately, as you have said, but you must be too young to remember that America started the automobile industry, only to lose their monopoly on the market to cheaper, better, foreign competetors. And when the car companies and the union leaders were told by the congressional committee they needed to start reducing legacy costs and putting more money into R&D and new engineering for better gas mileage, do you remember what “whatever the ****** labor union’s name was” said? Something to the affect that for them to produce more gas efficient cars, it would put the company out of business.” Do you remember that? Look it up if you don’t. With that attitude of caring less about the American people, let them eat cake, I decided right there my next vehicle was going to be foreign. The next two were. Since the government take over of GM, Ford has more of my respect. I love what Mopar is coming out with lately and since they paid back their “loan” in full with interest, ahead of time, I now own a Dodge truck. But I will NEVER own a chevy or any government motors brand.
      Which union are you a member of? Don’t try to lay all your laid off brothers at my feet, you did it to yourselves.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • JDZComment by JDZ
      April 25, 2013 @ 7:14 pm

      I used to work for General Motors back in the middle of the 1980′s when it was apparent that foreign products were higher quality and more cost competitive then our domestic brands, and the big three were losing market share every year to Toyota and Nissan. I walked through the GM tech center where competitive brand cars were disassembled and every component examined to see how it was designed, etc. It was very obvious that the Japanese, for example, had designed in better quality materials and higher reliability because they needed their products to have zero defects to gain buyer confidence in this country. They needed time to set up dealerships and service capabilities. They were first to introduce a total quality mindset into their product design and manufacturing and they could do it more cost effectively then GM, Ford, or Chrysler. As a result, of this strategy, Toyota, for example, is close to having the largest share of the global automobile sales in the world at this time, and now is racing their products in NASCAR.

      The USA has lost its dominance in the housewares industry, the major appliance industry, the televiision and audio industry, the clothing industry, and many other product offerings. We are losing our edge in the software industries as we speak to the Chinese, East Indians, and Japanese.

      We have to ask how this has happened to us over the last 50 years. Think about it. What are the root causes? Why do we have such a high unemployment rate in the country? Why is the graduation rate from high schools so low? Why are there more foreign students going to our technical and medical colleges then Americans? Why do we have over a100 million Americans on welfare and 47 million on food stamps? Why is the average earned income of middle class families dropping each year?

      I leave the answers to these questions for all to contemplate as when you delve into the reasons with an open mind, it will eventually be very clear to you to what has happened to our country and why we are in decline, which has been accelerated by our current administration.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (14 votes cast)
  7. jb80538Comment by jb80538
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

    Rubio is pushing amnesty for illegals. NO WAY should anyone vote for him.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (66 votes cast)
    • way2coolComment by way2cool
      April 26, 2013 @ 8:22 am

      Exactly! Why do we NOT want to believe what comes out of their mouths…are we that dumb? They are TELLING us what they intend to do, yet we refuse to believe it. Recall, “I will transform America”….and no one believed ‘him’. So I will tell you … Should I vote for Rubio? NO!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  8. AMVoterComment by AMVoter
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

    I will stay home and not vote if Rubio runs since he has proven himself to be just another worthless liberal with an R after his name. My friends feel the same way.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (55 votes cast)
    • votedemoutComment by votedemout
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:08 pm

      This is exactly the moronic attitude that allowed Zero a 2nd term. Conservatives have a chance to select a candidate in the primaries. During this process we try to select the person who best represents our views, but when the majority of our overall group decides who that candidate will be, all of us better get behind that person and work to get him or her elected. If we persist in the “I’ll just take my ball and go home” attitude when our particular candidate is not selected, we will find that the libtards will control everything, rewrite all the rules, stack the supreme court and complete their effort to remake our country after some Marxist wet dream. You had better think about this, then sit down with your friends and tell them the time to make your views known is early in the process. After the decision is made on the candidate, you need to use your brain instead of sitting on it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (47 votes cast)
    • AMVoterComment by AMVoter
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

      I held my nose and voted for Romney but I am sick of these RINOS who are nothing more than Clinton/Obama light. So you can call me all the names you want but I am NOT voting for another stinking RINO.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (32 votes cast)
    • juicyfruit56Comment by juicyfruit56
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

      The Republicans are becoming the party of the Democrats and the Democrats are the party of the Communists. If the Republicans continue to move in the same direction they are now they will be moving in the same Communist direction as the Democrats. They will not stand up against illegal immigration so their will be 9 million more democrat votes and the Republicans know this. Shouldn’t the Republicans be going full steam on the Obama Health Care bill that never should have been upheld by a Marxist Supreme Court Justice Roberts, shouldn’t they be digging in their heels on protection of the 2nd Amendment to take away our guns, shouldn’t the Republicans be going after Obama for Benghazi. So far I see no signs of the Republicans doing anything but supporting the Democrats. If the people of our country want to truly remain free then we are going to have to make that happen. United we Stand, Divided we Fall.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (27 votes cast)
    • nielszooComment by nielszoo
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

      Your duty as a citizen of this country is to make the best available choice when you vote. You make that choice and then you continue to push them in the direction of freedom. That duty is laid on all of us with the blood of those who died preserving it.

      Sitting on your hands is the choice of a coward!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (20 votes cast)
    • soonerComment by sooner
      April 25, 2013 @ 4:44 pm

      votedemout:You talk about conservatives as if they’re some group that is separate and distinct from the Republican Party. “Conservatives have a chance to select a candidate….” The problem is Republicans are choosing the wrong candidates because there are too many “moderates”(liberals)in the party that are hardly different at all from the average liberal Democrat. Conservatives haven’t had a chance to select a candidate because there hasn’t been any conservative candidates since Reagan. When Republicans remember the definition of “conservative” they’ll start winning elections again. Remember the “Reagan Democrat”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • murryblueComment by murryblue
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

      Anyone who has the chance to vote and sits at home is not doing themselves or America any favors. We need to work forward to promote only the best of the best. Your attitude makes us the losers years before the vote. The “sitters” are part of the reason we have Mr. Second Term….along with excessive cheating in many states, which NO ONE in Congress stood up and said….JUST ONE MINUTE….WE WILL HAVE A RECOUNT! MORE BOLOGNA…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  9. whodunitComment by whodunit
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

    I would still vote for Rubio, and I like him a lot as a viable candidate. Overall, I think he’s got a great deal going for him and I think he would reach out to a wide population of voters. As for the illegal immigration issue, it seems like no one has come up with a realistic solution to deal with the problem. It seems our current administration won’t close off the borders, and honestly, rounding them up and sending them home won’t happen either, so we’re stuck with finding a solution for the moment. And even though I’m not nuts about Rubio’s role in all this, I do applaud that he is trying to do something and get the situation under control. And frankly, I think there’s a whole lot more to the guy than just the immigration bill.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (43 votes cast)
    • freebirdComment by freebird
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

      You don’t have round up anybody. What you have to do is nail the employers with very stiff fines and jail for repeats. Most of the illegals will self-deport. Rubio and the rest of the gang of 8 are trying to sell amnesty with a bunch of crud around it. Same baloney about securing the borders with enough holes in it to drive the Queen Mary through.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (27 votes cast)
    • murryblueComment by murryblue
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

      Why are we discussing Rubio like he is a shoe-in? We have years to decide who we want. Rubio is a fast talker and has always been weak on immigration. I will NEVER vote for this man. Keep reading and watching; we have much work to do; it is too early to cave now. Where is the fight and the backbone of America? Come on, let’s pull together and only vote for the best; and it ain’t Rubio!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  10. pistol packing mamaComment by txgoatlady
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

    Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are way more conservative than Rubio. Then again, it seems like at the end of every Republican primary is a RINO and we hold our noses and vote while more and more conservatives stay home.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (45 votes cast)
    • NY GrahamComment by NY Graham
      April 26, 2013 @ 5:18 am

      Agreed. Every four years we have to choose the lesser of two evils. I believe the reason we lost last year is that those of us who cared enough to vote Republican were voting AGAINST Obama not FOR Romney (if you catch my drift).

      That being said, we will never find the perfect candidate, and we always need to be flexible. Moving forward we need candidates that can appeal to values voters and fiscal voters. And we shouldn’t rip apart good candidates during the primaries just because they aren’t perfect.

      In 2007 I backed Huckabee. I don’t agree with him on every issue, but I knew where he stood on values, and I like his Fair Tax message. He also knew how to use the internet to generate true grass roots support, something the GOP needs to learn badly. He was ripped apart by some conservatives (like Patton) for his stance on immigration and his record as governor of Arkansas, which actually wasn’t bad considering how Democratic the legislature was. Overall though he would have been a far more appealing candidate than McCain or Romney. We should take another look at Huckabee’s campaign in 2007, how he appealed to Reagan Democrats despite a strong stand on Life and Traditional Marriage. He also captured far more of minority votes than Romney or McCain.

      Cruz and Paul could be solid candidates. But will commentators like Patton focus on all the negatives during the primaries and leave us with yet another RINO candidate to face Hillary in 2016?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  11. chwootonComment by chwooton
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

    C’mon…We’re not voting for someone on the basis of what their teenage daughter, wife or mother believes, or even what exact values the candidates themselves hold dear. We are voting to staunch the bloodbath of liberalism, which embodies an entire mindset of entitlement, intolerance, and government overreach. The problem with partisan politics is that you are never going to find the middle of social issues and please everyone. You’ve got to solve the economic issues so that people will be so busy and productive and content that they could really give a damn what their neighbor or the media thinks about anything that is none of their business.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (25 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      April 25, 2013 @ 8:20 pm

      I agree. We have to start looking at principles rather than party. The Two Party system is ridiculous. Big government is the problem. Both parties are big government parties, even those the Republicans give lip service otherwise. It is the same monster, with two heads.

      Parties are powerful but if we are ever going to become a great nation again, we must stop thinking in terms of party.

      We need to understand the basic conflict which is the conflict of collectivism vs. individualism.

      In an overly simplified conclusion, it boils down to this. Collectivism always leads to slavery and individualism always leads to freedom.

      Socialists, Communists, Statists, Nationalists and many more are all variations of the collectiveist philosophy.

      They all require that the individual sacrifice to the so called greater good. But as nice as it might sound, it never works. Once the indiviual is forced to sacrifice to the collective good, it becomes an unworkable self destructive syetem.

      Only when individual rights are equally protected can we have a workable and prosperous society. Those who would interfere with the rights of any individual is a criminal and to stop that is really the most important and valid function of government.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  12. soonerComment by sooner
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

    Republican party leadership is becoming increasingly like GOP Congressional leadership in Washington DC. They keep telling us that candidates like Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney are all conservatives or at least “conservative enough” and how that we mustn’t be too conservative or we’ll scare off those “moderates” (whatever those are). So, we try to get liberals to like us by acting more like them and tell them that we want what they want. Well, that’s not working out very well. Where’s Reagan when we need him?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (32 votes cast)
  13. Jack ReacherComment by Jack Reacher
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

    Marco Rubio is a very talented, charismatic and intelligent young man with the potential to achieve greatness. But unfortunately that is seen by democrats and some sleazy GOP Blue-bloods as dangerous. It is my opinion that Rubio is being setup to fail.

    Take a look at those criminals in the so-called “Gang of Eight”. Chuck U Schumer, John McCain, Dick “Turban” Dirbin, Robert “is she old enough?” Menedez and a Senator from Colorado, Michael Bennett, who’s from a state recently hi-jacked by Gays, Lesbians, Man/Boy lovers, Drug dealers, liberal twits and worse.

    Flimsy Graham is no help to the young Senator from Florida as all Flimsy wants are more meat cutters in his state that will work for $2.00 an hour. These laughable impostors know that Rubio is a change and a breath of much needed fresh air. That scares the hell out of them. They, (The gang of 8), will do whatever they can to sully the reputation and popularity of this young man.

    So before we throw out Marco Rubio, listen to what HE has to say about his ideas and suggestions. Then you will have to take a pure leap of faith that Rubio is serious about fixing the immigration problem while the others are merely trying to fool Americans and line their own pockets. And, of course Rubio needs to make sure he emphasizes HIS ideas for immigration reform and he should be prepared to back away completely if the package is what is normally expected from these criminals we call “politicians”.

    I believe that at this time there are only three candidates that can carry the GOP ball to victory. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. I like Jeb Bush who was a remarkable governor of Florida where I live. But Jeb is carrying the weight of two former presidents that just happen to be related to him. Jeb would have been the best of the three … No doubt whatsoever.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (23 votes cast)
    • lowlifeComment by lowlife
      April 25, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

      Jeb Bush, like the rest of his family, is too liberal, too statist and too much a part of the party establishment.

      Rubio is too much the professional politician; he seems to be on the right side of most issues, but how much of it would he stand by, if he thought it politically expedient to adjust his stance? Reminds me of Gov. Perry—I like most of what he says, but don’t know how much of it to believe.

      Paul and Cruz look like the best of the lot, so far.

      I’ll never say never again; I’ve said it many times, but when it came to the election, I felt the duty to do the best I could for the country (under the circumstances) and vote for the least vile of the candidates (voted for McCain and Romney, both of whom I despise, but would have done less damage than Obama).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • extyrequeenComment by extyrequeen
      April 25, 2013 @ 5:55 pm

      as a former resisdent of fla. i thought that rubio was the right one but i’am convinced that i will never vote for any incumbent ever again…i am now an independent voter and washington s so screwed up we need to fire everyone and start over….term limits for all politians…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
    • sonofthealamoComment by sonofthealamo
      April 25, 2013 @ 11:10 pm

      Marco Rubio is a very talented, charismatic and intelligent young man with the potential to achieve greatness. im sure bill ayers said that about obama rubio is just another mouthpiece for the rinos he wants to be like mccain wants his name right up there with all the big wheels, he breathes their air and blows out their rhetoric and yes he wants to fix the immigration system what a better reelection platform for a son of an immigrant who grows up and gets him and his parent fellow illegal cuban friends amnesty he knows 4 things and not a gang of 8 or reagan to stop illegals
      1. stop the anchor babies require 1 parent to be a citizen
      2.must WORK HERE LEGALLY 5 YEARS to be able to draw gov or state benefits
      3.fine businesses for hiring illegals for first offense business closure closed 1 month second offense loss of business license third offense
      4.detain all illegals one year at the end of the year deport to country of origin and deduct from the amount of aid givin to that country for operation of the detention center

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  14. southernpatriotComment by southernpatriot
    April 25, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

    My extended family and I have spoken often about these same matters, almost word for word…hmmm, Doug, are you spying on us?

    We will never vote for another Bush, unless that Bush runs against someone like Jezebel/Hillary, and we may have to if it comes to voting for a Demonrat instead, which we are never going to do now that we have seen what an enemy to the Constitution they are and maybe even some mentally unstable. Bush did give us No Child Left Behind, a major takeover of our previous state controlled education to a federal education system, The Patriot Act, which eroded and stole many of our rights for the sake of security, a very poor trade. And TARP, which began the huge government bailouts which continued with huge deficits which have since been tripled.

    It certainly behooves us to select better candidates and then support them. Oftentimes we are left with the McCains or others which are not our first choice, but even perhaps our last choice.

    Our jury still remains out on Rubio. I am uncertain at present, but watching closely. Any path to citizenship seems like pandering and rewarding the illegal invaders. There is still yet much time remaining and the cream to come to the top, but what I want is more Republican conservatives with *****. Too many wimps and too many RINOs and CINOs. If Rubio turns out to be that, he does not have my vote for much of anything.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (22 votes cast)
  15. angelab79Comment by angelab79
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

    I have to agree with this guys take on this:
    http://randybohlender.com/?p=9572

    The Right has got to get this right or we will not win the next election

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (10 votes cast)
    • votedemoutComment by votedemout
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

      Wile I agree with your “the right has to get this right” comment. The fellow to which you link makes the issue far to complicated. An earlier post suggested that we only need to make it very expensive for employers and the issue would solve itself, and he is dead on. As a resident of the Peoples Republic of California where 42% of all illegals reside, I can tell you that illegal immigration is a disaster for the economy and yes many of them vote Dim-O-Rat, probably more than once. Quit issuing documentation such as drivers licence, take them off all assistance programs, severely fine all employers, and finally reinterpret the 14th Amendment, meant only to grant freed slaves citizenship, and you will fix this problem overnight for they will all go home.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (16 votes cast)
  16. portervComment by porterv
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:29 pm

    I and my extended family, all voted for Rubio for senator in both the primary and the general election. It is a mistake that we will be unlikely to repeat regardless what office he seeks.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.5/5 (12 votes cast)
  17. thedoveComment by thedove
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:31 pm

    Looks as if the Democrats have the next presidential election locked up, judging from the number of people who will not vote for any less-than-perfect Republican candidate. Talk about your early voting.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (18 votes cast)
    • murryblueComment by murryblue
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:28 pm

      Amen, thedove! Why don’t we all just kick up our heels and play dead….we are not losers! America has been tricked and deceived. This should give us cause to fight harder; are we really going to just throw up our hands in surrender??? Nope, not me!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  18. moonshineComment by moonshine
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

    The 11 million illegal immigrants (if that low-ball estimate is correct, and I seriously doubt that it is)is not the most serious problem, at least not for now. The most serious problem we face is the security of our borders, and the massive trafficing of drugs by Mexican cartels. It is so large that it represents about 11% of Mexico’s GDP, because that’s where the money goes. These brutal and ruthless cartels have representatives in 270 major US cities and are responsible for numerous murders and other heinous crimes. There staple is marijuana, some of which is being grown in our national forests under our very noses; but other, more potent drugs are available as well. Our borders must be sealed and protected immediately and this lucrative drug trade must be stopped. That is step number uno.
    The other facts that should be of concern are as follows:
    1) Amnesty and citizenship for criminals is not legal.
    2) These new “citizens” will be a further drain on our fragile economy, consuming both jobs and resource; and will impact benefits to seniors who paid a portion of their lifetime income for them.
    3) These new “citizens” will vote for more and more benefits that we can no longer afford, eventually bankrupting the system and the country.
    4) They will “block vote” for the Democrats, not Republicans; and this will mean the end of the Republican Party.
    5)They will import the rest of their families to the US, which will only increase their number and speed up the process as described above.
    This is absolutely wrong headed. We don’t need more non-productive, non-contribting citizens. We have enough freeloaders and bloodsuckers already, to say nothing of the criminals and terrorists. They need to go home.
    The Obama administration is spending money we don’t have, borrowing money, printing money, using stealth inflation to monetize the debt, and the old US of A is going bankrupt. Taxpayer are picking up this tab, and being screwed again and again by this liberal, radical, anti-American bunch of loons. Don’t be deceived by Mr. Cool the Muslim. Now is the time to Stand and Fight for your rights and liberty.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
  19. henryeustacemccullochComment by henryeustacemcculloch
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

    Should Doug Patton vote for Marco Rubio? NO! Not even if Senator Rubio (R. for Reconquistador, Cuba) fools Mr. Patton into believing he is worth voting for – and in truth Rubio might as well be a Bush or McCain for all the damage he intends to do to the United States and the Republican Party. But that’s all irrelevant. What matters is that Rubio is ineligible for the presidency.

    The Constitutional distinction between a basic U.S. citizen and the “natural born Citizen” a U.S. citizen constitutionally must be in order to be eligible to the offices both of president and vice-president is what matters here.

    The Constitution’s natural born Citizen requirement for the presidency in Article II, Section 1 — extended by the 12th Amendment to the vice-presidency as well — is a higher, more restrictive standard than the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause sets for basic U.S. citizenship. Beware of 14th Amendment arguments in a discussion of presidential eligibility: they are red herrings. And even so, the 14th Amendment’s requirements for U.S. citizenship are more restrictive than most Americans realize: the Citizenship Clause does not grant automatic birthright citizenship. The federal government, ignoring the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (of the United States, that is) that’s plainly there, pretends it does. Something Congress really should correct to eliminate the anchor-baby magnet that draws so many illegal aliens and “birth tourists” to the United States to abuse and dilute the value of real Americans’ citizenship!

    In fact, the natural born Citizen requirement is being violated right now. Correctly interpreted, the Constitution prohibits the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama because of his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship. Mr. Obama may be a U.S. citizen, but he is not a natural born Citizen.
    For the same reason (not having been born to U.S. citizens), the Constitution would prohibit the presidencies of GOP minority-tokens Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Neither man’s parents were U.S. citizens when his mother gave birth to him.

    Birth in the United States alone is insufficient under the Article II, Section 1 natural born Citizen test for presidential eligibility. Obama is ineligible even if he were born in Honolulu: his father was a British colonial subject, not a U.S. citizen. At Rubio’s birth, his parents were Cuban nationals and not U.S. citizens; at Jindal’s, his were Indian nationals and not U.S. citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court addressed what makes a person a natural born Citizen of the United States in the Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett (1875), as follows:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    The Minor v. Happersett opinion is unanimous, and it is written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. A unanimous opinion from the pen of the Chief Justice is the strongest judicial statement the U.S. Supreme Court can make. No subsequent Supreme Court decision has even qualified the natural born Citizen analysis in Minor v. Happersett, much less overturned it.

    That analysis in Minor v. Happersett is the most clear definition the federal judiciary has offered: the natural born Citizen is the native of the United States. Marco Rubio, although born in the United States, is the son of two Cubans and not in this sense native to America. His parents’ naturalization well after his birth cannot retroactively change that fact. The test is at birth. The same is true of Bobby Jindal, the son of two Indians. Again, his parents’ subsequent naturalization does not change the fact.

    Anticipating today’s eligibility controversies, Chief Justice Waite continues:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Ibid.

    So the Supreme Court acknowledged that some had supposed that children born in the situation of Rubio and Jindal (and Obama) might be citizens. But even in acknowledging the existence of a minority view, Chief Justice Waite was careful to place that acknowledgment after his strong statement of the common law understanding of who is a natural-born citizen and the distinction between natives (natural born Citizens) and aliens or foreigners, which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court pretty clearly considered dispositive of the question.

    Thus citizen does not automatically equal native, and the Constitution requires that to be eligible to the office of president or vice-president, a U.S. citizen must be an American native as well. Marco Rubio is a U.S. citizen, but he is not an American native.

    Anyway, even if people convince themselves that Marco Rubio is constitutionally eligible to the office of president (which he is not!), if Rubio votes for any illegal alien amnesty — even if – as will never happen – it is tied to effective border control — no American patriot should vote for Rubio even if the GOP is foolish enough to nominate him. It is now completely clear that Marco Rubio puts being a Latin American special-pleader ahead of being a patriotic American. The same, of course, is true of his padrón, Jeb Bush.

    Republicans – and all true Americans – beware!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • ClarkCComment by ClarkC
      April 25, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

      You are misunderstanding and misapplying the Minor v. Happersett decision. The case (decided in 1875) centered on a Missouri woman who wanted to register to vote. The Missouri constitution said that all male citizens could vote. Mrs. Minor sued, claiming that her rights as a citizen were being violated under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that (1) she was no doubt a citizen, but (2) that the right to vote was not considered a privilege of all citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment, which (3) did not extend the list of privileges or immunities of citizens, but merely affirmed that such privileges and immunities as already commonly understood shall not be violated by any state. Therefore, Virginia Minor could be a citizen and not be allowed to vote.

      In the course of making this argument, the court sought to define terms only as far as needed for its decision. For the purposes of its decision, it merely needed to state that Virginia Minor was born in the U.S.A. of parents who were citizens, she was 21 years old or older, and was a free white person. They noted that others might argue that citizenship was not limited to such persons, but that they had no need to settle that argument, because it was not relevant to the case of Mrs. Minor.

      Therefore, the key controversy that we are discussing today about Rubio, Obama, et al., was expressly not settled by that decision. Not only was it not settled by the decision, but the decision does not lean one way or the other on the question, and it is a misrepresentation to say that the Minor decision gives us one whit of information about settling the question in either direction.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 26, 2013 @ 8:36 am

      Okay then Clark, what IS the current operating theory as far as someone’s eligibility to run for prez, compared to what the constitution was intending?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • ClarkCComment by ClarkC
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:14 am

      There is a long history behind the phrase “natural born citizen” that goes back to the English laws with which our founders were very familiar. It is a long story, but the central concept was that a natural born citizen was born in such circumstances that his attachment and loyalty were to one country, and thus he was a natural citizen of that country. Any others had to be “naturalized.” It is apparent that an “anchor baby” does not fit this definition, for example; someone hiding from the law in our country does not have a natural attachment and loyalty to our country.

      Take a look at some of the discussion in this thread and you will see comments implying that you must be born in the U.S.A. or one of its territories AND be born of U.S. citizen parents. So, if your parents were stationed at the U.S. Embassy in London and you were born there, you would have to be naturalized! There were some who argued that John McCain was not a citizen because he was born in a hospital in Panama when his father (a Navy admiral) was stationed there. In fact, Congress has addressed these situations in statutory law, which they have the authority to do when broad provisions of the Constitution need detailed clarification.

      Marco Rubio, who I despise and would never vote for, is nevertheless a natural born citizen. There is no question that his natural attachment and loyalty was to the U.S.A. from birth, not to some other country. There is no statutory law that requires him to be naturalized, hence he never went through the naturalization process (ditto for McCain, another RINO who I also despise).

      A full discussion of all the legal concepts and precedents that apply to Rubio, Obama, et al. would be lengthy. Hopefully, this discussion has at least brought a little light to the subject, although a lot of discussions here are designed more to vent people’s rage on a daily basis rather than to actually learn anything.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:38 am

      Thank you Clark for your insight. I guess I don’t understand why a child born to two American citizens who worked at a US embassy, which I thought was considered US soil, would have to be naturalized, yet a child born to two non-American citizens, just because he is born on US soil, wouldn’t need to be naturalized. So are you saying that if an American serviceman and his American wife, both stationed overseas, have a baby, that baby is NOT a natural born citizen? To me that just seems backwards, so I must be understanding it correctly. “Law” is mostly like that, wouldn’t you agree?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • ClarkCComment by ClarkC
      April 26, 2013 @ 11:09 am

      The embassy is U.S. soil, but the baby will be born at a nearby hospital, which is not on U.S. soil. Federal statutes clarify that those who are born overseas because their parents are serving the U.S. government overseas are treated the same as if they were born in the U.S. I did not say that such a baby would not be a natural born U.S. citizen; I said that SOME PEOPLE are on this board spouting formulas that would make such a baby not a citizen, and they obviously don’t know what they are talking about.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • spindizzyComment by spindizzy
      April 26, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

      Okay, yep, reread that correctly this time, Clark. And what an absurd “law”! Of course the Embassy probably doesn’t have an operating room, or even a “birthing” room to cover this likely contingency. So by stepping off the Embassy grounds, American citizens stationed at that embassy and employed by the American government, giving birth to a child, with all other criteria met for citizenship, this child would have to be naturalized? What kind of BS is that? Damn, American ambassadors better be skilled in home birthing if they want their child to be an American citizen, huh?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  20. wdjincComment by wdjinc
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

    Rubio is the only Republican who could win over Latino votes. He has charisma lacking in past Republican presidential candidates.

    If Palin was a male she would have been better treated by the media and would be a strong candidate for president. She definitely has charisma and I like her views. Sadly she doesn’t have a chance.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.2/5 (11 votes cast)
    • AMVoterComment by AMVoter
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

      Hate to break it to you, but Latinos will vote Democrat regardless of who is Republican candidate is.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • hkazComment by hkaz
      April 25, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

      The “Latino” vote is riding on the Freebee Train.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
    • murryblueComment by murryblue
      April 26, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

      Rubio is just a fast talker….I have written to him and he cares not what we think….he has his own agenda. I will take honesty over charisma…which is usually false charm…Bill Clinton is supposedly filled with charisma….and we know what he is full of; it certainly is not honesty. Listen for wisdom…that is what counts.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  21. Eagle525Comment by eagle525
    April 25, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

    If you recall the disastrous republican national convention, Rubio was one of the only speakers that really had passion and appeared “presidential” . As I watched, i couldn’t help thinking how Rubio stood head and shoulders above Romney. Now, that speaks volumes about Romney , his half hearted attempt at running, and the state of the republican party.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (9 votes cast)
  22. hkazComment by hkaz
    April 25, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

    I think some of McCain’s stupidity is rubbing off on Rubio. He needs to spend more time with Ted Cruz.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
  23. rebel7Comment by rebel7
    April 25, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

    First Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and thus does not qualify under the Constitution just like are undocumented POTUS.
    The only chance the Republican’s have against Hillary is if Sarah Palin gets the nomination. She has already made a statement along with Gov Brewer-AZ asking for better border security. FYI Marco is just a pawn of Jeb Bush !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • rickbulow74Comment by rickbulow74
      April 25, 2013 @ 5:26 pm

      Rubio DEFINITELY qualifies as a natural born citizen because he was born in Miami, Florida, which IS a part of the United States of America.

      Unless you have proof that Miami is NOT a part of the US, then you best do some research

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Eagle525Comment by eagle525
      April 25, 2013 @ 5:54 pm

      With all due respect rebel17, while Palin could be considered a “spark plug” in the Mc Cain campaign she took to much heat (character assignation) from the press. Palin, much like Newt Gingrich who is indeed the most cerebral of the available candidates, may now be forever side lined.

      thanks to the Corrupt Media, Palin is perceived as polarizing and could never garner enough of Americas “diverse voter factions” to win. As Obama proved twice, to succeed the candidates need to garner votes from the masses, even thought they are divided. This seems to be an obstacle that Republicans do not know how to overcome and it will take a radicle change in Republican rhetoric and party platform.

      As far as those who have made up their mind of who to vote for in 2016, “keep your powder dry” and see who emerges within the Republican party. Being “Bull Headed” simply plays into the hands of those dastardly democrats who relish stuffing unwanted legislation down our throats and spending the American taxpayer into the poor house.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  24. MyNickelsworthComment by MyNickelsworth
    April 25, 2013 @ 4:22 pm

    My Answer is “NO!” for Rubio, McCain,Alexander, Boehner. Fortunately only Alexander will be on my ballot. The others will not show up unless they are running for Pres. or VP.
    Alexander is a tax nut. Internet tax or whatever. He also says something to the effect that the President was elected and he has the right to appoint anyone he wish. So it is unusual for him to oppose anyone, Communist, Islamist or whatever.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)
  25. allfor1and1forallComment by allfor1and1forall
    April 25, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

    My favorite solution to a large part of the illegal immigration problem is still Ann Coulter’s. She said that we should pass a law allowing illegals to sue any former employer who didn’t pay them minimum wage, etc. Great self-correction mechanism!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Welfare, schmelfare. I find it interesting that while America's median income has dropped from $54,000 to $50,000, redefining the poverty level..." Comment by billybob55
    Posted in America's Most Incurable Disease Is Spending
  • "I still don't get the distinction??" Comment by Bobinms
    Posted in Quarantine Questions
  • "First off,she may not currently have symptoms, so she is not contagious at this time. She does not know..." Comment by maddogatc
    Posted in Quarantine Questions

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer