How Does 'Vice President Marco Rubio' Sound?
Politico on Sunday featured two pieces at its website that make one wonder if Republican senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida should be a strong contender for the GOP's vice presidential nominee in 2012.
"Hispanics Emerge As Key 2012 Wildcard" laid the groundwork:
Hispanic voters saved the Democratic Party Tuesday - buoying Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, keeping California blue, playing an outsized role in preserving the party’s Senate majority and demonstrating a partisan loyalty Democrats didn’t exactly earn in two years of inaction on immigration policy.
But that support is anything but certain for 2012 and both parties face difficult and immediate choices when it comes to the Latino vote as they position themselves for the presidential election. [....]
An election eve poll conducted by Latino Decisions found Hispanics weren’t nearly as motivated to vote Democratic as they were to show solidarity with the Latino community. Forty-seven percent of Latinos in eight key states told the pollsters they voted to “represent and support” Hispanics, 31 percent to support Democrats and 12 percent to back Republicans.
Enter Rubio:
The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio advertised heavily on Spanish-language television, broadcasting his personal story as the centerpiece of an inspirational message to Hispanics.
Similar to former President George W. Bush, Rubio spoke about his opposition to legalization “in a respectful and empathetic tone, focusing on law and order aspects and not using people who cross the border illegally as political punching-bags,” said Ana Navarro, a Miami-based Republican strategist and adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Rubio won between 55 percent and 62 percent of the Latino vote.
Not so subtly, Politico then hit readers with "New Republican Stars Get V.P. Look":
By far the most buzzed-about is newly minted Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican whose trajectory is so obvious that he was tapped to give his party’s first post-election weekly address on Saturday.
Obviously, Politico likes the sound of Vice President Rubio.
Do you?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
how about
Submitted by ripper58 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:42am.
President Rubio in 6 years!
Palin-Rubio
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:17am.
I think he'd make a great V.P.
When we all hear him criticised, it will be interesting to note that no Liberal will mention how he was Speaker of the Florida House (Legislature) for 2 years. No, no, no. Expect more "he's not qualified!" just like we heard with Sarah Palin. She's got 9½ years Executive Experience. How much more do Demoncrats expect?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
No, Noel, I don't
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:22am.
I love Marco Rubio, and have been a huge backer of his since he announced in early 2009.
I don't want to see him leave his hard-won Senate seat early. I see in Marco the potential to inject some spine into the current Senate Republicans, and the SNRC, particularly after they tried to side-line him in favor of Charley Crist in May 2009. He knows first hand how the old guard works, and he won't allow himself to be co-opted in the "usual" Senate wheeling and dealing.
Jim DeMint will serve as his mentor in the Senate. DeMint recently wrote a great piece in the WSJ, titled Welcome, Senate Conservatives. It's a great read (h/t Scooba Dude).
Besides changing the culture in the Senate Republican Caucus (Marco is such a superstar that I think he'll be effective in this role), I'd like to see him mentor other senatorial candidates like himself. He ran a very effective campaign, vis-a-vis Allen West. I'd like to see him start mentoring potential Senate candidates with his good friend, George P. Bush, who is now 34, a successful Texas real estate developer, and is currently serving in the Naval Reserve in Iraq.
We need Marco to stay in the Senate, to change the culture there, and pry (and primary) out the Old Guard business-as-usual types. With Marco's "stardom", DeMint and the other conservatives can hopefully make further inroads into the real power structure in the Senate.
Finally, Marco has, on many occasions, firmly stated he has no desire for a higher office at this time, and I believe him. His four children are quite small (and adorable)...and I can't imagine him subjecting them to that kind of mayhem at this time. Maybe in ten/fourteen years....at the top of the ticket.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hey Blonde, I am with you. No
Submitted by msh1973 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:20pm.
Hey Blonde, I am with you. No way would I want Rubio to run for VP in 2012. We need him in the Senate for sure, maybe in 2016. I totally agree about the children...adorable.
♐ Don't be selfish Blonde
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:29pm.
His country may need him more than Florida.
I'll bet Jeb Bush could backfill the Senate Seat.
Not yet!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:32am.
I believe Marco Rubio will be an Outstanding Senator for the people of Florida! I also think that it is unwise to try and make Senator Elect Rubio into a national superstar before he has a chance to cast a single vote.
I can appreciate the enthusiasm for new and refreshing conservative personalities... but this is not an "American Idol" search. I wish all the best to Senator Rubio and hope he becomes a strong voice for conservatism in the future, Let's give him a chance before we annoint him as the one we've been waiting for.
Dittos
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:19pm.
The most perfect candidate
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:49am.
He was the only one I opened my wallet for, numerous times. The thought of Charlie Crist denying this man office made me want to puke. Rubio's campaign was flawless - he made no errors, no gaffes, no stupid statements ----, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he was ALWAYS prepared for interviews and came across as confident and smart. I could barely stand to see Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle interviewed on any subject (yes I wanted them to win). I look forward to following his career, but let him be Senator for a while! You know, after two years or so, pushing him to the front of the Senate as MAJORITY LEADER would make a lot of sense.
Thank you Texndoc, for supporting Marco
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:00pm.
I think Marco, like Sarah Palin, is one of those rare politicians who will be able to avoid the pitfalls of the adoration (including the out-size ego-inflation, a la Obama), yet use his "superstardom" for the good of not only his constituents (me), but for the benefit of all of us.....all the while advancing the conservative agenda and growing the movement.
Thank you for supporting him. His support from conservatives all over the country did a couple of things. Financially, it allowed him to beat back the media-backed message of the now-insignificant (hell yeah!!!) Charlie Crist. The nationwide conservative enthusiasm and support beat the democrats into submission....witness the 11th hour efforts of Bill Clinton to replace Meek with Crist!!!! That's a slimy deal I want to see investigated, poste haste, along with the other smarmy Clinton "race bait" (ha ha, how's that for the old switcheroo), trying to get Sestak to drop out in favor of Arlen Specter.
We can continue to support Marco by tempering the premature calls for him to climb the ladder before his work is done. I have great faith in him that he'll inject some spine into the Senate Republicans, which needs to be done. He'll keep them hearing our electoral message...business as usual is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I have never liked this political game
Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:40pm.
My answer is no, it's too soon. I believe McCain choosing Sarah Palin during her first term as governor did in her career as a national politician. She was doing just fine with a high approval rating, and there's no reason to believe that she would not have been a 2-term governor.
If I could, I would make the following constitutional change: Set a minimum age for President and Congress at 50 years old. This eliminates career Congressmen and hopefully gets a more seasoned President. (Plus I would add term limits for Congress.) I want people with more "outside the Beltway experience" leading this country.
Mom Rox
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:51pm.
I have to disagree about raising the age limit for President.
Fifty is too old as a starting point (even though 50 is the new 40!). The office of the President is a mentally demanding one, even someone as lazy and thoughtless as Obama has visibly aged in less than two years. ( I say thoughtless because he is such an idealogue that he never considers anything outside of his leftist paradigm).
It just doesn't make sense....we need to broaden the pool of likely candidates, not tighten it up. Americans are smart people...and BHO is a shining example of why we historically have not elevated Senators to the Presidency. And I'm sure he'll be a shining example of that for decades to come.
I agree that we need more people in elected office with "ordinary" experience, rather than career politicians, but the way to accomplish that is via the ballot, not by mandating qualifications.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
ok, I'll "compromise" (hah!)
Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:42pm.
A minimum of 35 years old for serving in Congress. I still think age and wisdom are not respected enough by voters. How often did we hear during the campaign about Pres. Obama's ability to connect with the younger voters? He's also the third President in recent history to be elected in his 40's (all Dems).
changing the subject: I don't recall reading a post from you regarding Col. West's victory! Hope you celebrated. I was following that one on election night (though I had to do it via the web because there was no national coverage of it.)
LOL, Compromise, Mom
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:07pm.
I'm only willing to compromise with fellow (gallette?) conservatives!
Oh yes, we definitely celebrated Allen's big win. In fact, in spirit of cooperation and compromise, if you pm me your address, I'll mail you one of my "GO WEST" lawn signs...I'm planning on saving this to sell on e-bay at a later date, specifically, on the day after he's occupied the Oval. :)
Still think we don't need to limit by age, though. We have lots of bright young people now, and I'd not want to discourage them.
Marco's only 39, BTW.
I rest my case.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I respectfully disagree...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:32pm.
I don't see how a minimum 50 years would eliminate career Congressmen... or is even necessary. Young presidents aren't the problem... leftists are.
McCain pulled Palin onto the national scene and her influence magnified the TEA party movement... I think that was a good thing.
I agree with term limits for the house... one term... the founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature... leave your job or farm for two years, then return home... no more professional politicians. The senate should return to being appointed by the state legislatures. They could then make the tough decisions without being exposed directly to the voters.
A legislator is one voice among many and I see no reason to raise the minimum age to 35. A young person can be just as thoughtful as an old man on that level.
Constitutional Changes
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:08pm.
Always fun to noodle those about. I have a couple of my own.
I have observed that in a six year stretch of time, the American voter is denied voting for a senator in one election owing to the chronology of senate seating,Additionally, I am of the thought that the Senate is getting way too dam'uppity. My solution is simple, radical, and most grievous of all, would work....
Increase the state representation in the Senate from two to three.
It would dilute the ranks and give those high in the nose creatures pause for the people that elected them.
--
Term Limits: None in Congress or the Senate... but also no CONSECUTIVE service. This would encourage the several parties to come up with teams instead of egotists on pedestals.
--
A mandatory retirement age at the Supreme Court of 80, and a requirement of having sat some lesser bench to be even considered as a nominee for the High Court. International law should be mentioned in this court as only a OPINION not as a measuring stick, and doing otherwise should be considered as conduct unbecoming a member of the High Court, prima facie for beginning a bill of impeachment.
My two bits
NVCon
NVcon - I actually like that idea!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:51pm.
3 Senators per state, with one-up for reelection every 2 years... Sounds like a winner to me!
As for the consecutive service idea, I must reluctantly disagree. My solution would be term limits and no retirement pay. :o)
As to the judiciary - I think every Federal judge should come-up for "reconfirmation" every 10 years, but because the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch, it should be hands-off. Just MHO.
Interesting thoughts....
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:49pm.
I have mentioned in the past that we should double or triple the number of house members. Right now, each house member, on average, represents over 700K of people. I think that is way too many people for one person to support. I realize there would logistical issues, but with today's technology, we could handle it. I also realize you might have to build or remodel an adjunct building to supplement the traditional congressional building, but is should cost us less than the billions these people are spending now.
Though I like the idea of three senators, I think it would be more prudent to simply return to having them appointed by the state legistatures as the founding fathers set it up. These would be professional politicians, but since they won't be pandering directly to the voters, they would be more likely to get the tough things done.
I don't particularly care for the non-consecutive scheme. IMHO, the objective would be to get the professional politicians out of the house. Setting up a team system would keep the same people entrenched... two years legislating... two years lobbying... two years legislating... sounds lucrative (and corrupt) to me.
For us little guys, like you and me... lets keep the ideas and discussions going... maybe one day they will listen to us.
I think we should hold off on
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:30pm.
I think we should hold off on elevating Sen-Elect Marco Rubio so soon after he won his seat. Just like Gov Chris Christie and Sen Scott Brown we are jumping the gun in wanting them in higher and higher offices.
Let them serve their term and actually have something on their resumes that can be used to show they have actually accomplished something. This country has already elected one person to lead the Country based upon what he said and not what he has done. We do not need to repeat that failed experiment.
~2016
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:46pm.
West/Rubio. They'd be awesome.
BONUS: It would drive the liberals OUT OF THEIR TINY LITTLE MINDS.
That it would CL4X, let's see
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:39pm.
That it would CL4X, let's see the libturds play the racist card with that one. Of course them running in 2016 would mean either the Republicans ran with a RINO that needs to be voted out or the Dems won the 2012 election.
Let's hope that is not the case and that we can expect them on a 2020 ticket to keep the Executive seat in Conservative hands for another 8 years.
I'd love to see Rand and Marco go for Senate Majority leader
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:48pm.
While Senator-Elect Rubio has every right to go for VP, I think he would be better served to be a senator for awhile. I would rather see a republican governor run for the top spot myself, as every republican senator running for president has lost since before the Great Depression.
It would probably be better for him to wait until '16 or '20, as he could then have at least one full term as senator, with a strong record of conservative voting behind him. In addition, if he waits until '20, he could even be a viable presidential candidate, though I prefer a conservative Governor running for president because of executive branch experience.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER