Marco Rubio endorses Romney

[Hutch]

Guess we know who will be the Veep candidate, now, don't we?

[MechAg94]

I think you will see all the party people line up behind Romney now that it looks like he will get the nomination.  (assuming they haven't already).  I am at least glad he waited.

[MicroBalrog]

I think you will see all the party people line up behind Romney now that it looks like he will get the nomination.  (assuming they haven't already).  I am at least glad he waited.

I've read here that most of the party power players had already lined up behind Romney before the contests even started. Is that not true?

[dogmush]

Yes Micro, that seems to have been mostly true, with the remainder of the party folks trickling over as the primaries dragged on.  Mr. Rubio is portrayed as a fresh, new, Tea Party-esque Republican not part of the establishment, so this endorsement is likely aimed at independents and small "l" libertarians. So it's a bigger deal then a more entrenched Republican throwing in with Mr. Romney.

I think it's actually aimed, in part, at folks like me. If it is, it's a failure.  I hate speaking in absolutes so I won't say never, but I can't think of anything Mr. Romney could say in the campaign that would make me overlook his MA record and vote for him.

That said, maybe I'll contact my Senator and and ask him to explain himself.

[Perd Hapley]

I think it's actually aimed, in part, at folks like me. If it is, it's a failure...I can't think of anything Mr. Romney could say in the campaign that would make me overlook his MA record and vote for him.

This.

[HankB]

I think you will see all the party people line up behind Romney now that it looks like he will get the nomination.  (assuming they haven't already).  I am at least glad he waited.

The realities of delegate math are making Romney look inevitable, barring some really extreme event or revelation.

And it's beginning to sink in - according to the local rag today, when asked by a reporter at the Christian Broadcasting Network whether he'd accept a VP nomination under Romney, Santorum replied "Of course" and that he'd do anything he could to help this country. Gingrich indicated he'll support Romney when he gets enough delegates to win the nomination. So both men seem to  - reluctantly - be facing reality.

And if you're not fond of Romney (I'm not a fan of his) just remember - at one of the very early GOP debates, Newt opined that every one of the candidates on the stage were better than Obama.

He was right.

[longeyes]

Art of the Possible, and all that, you know.  Romney, imperfect, is our best shot, maybe our only shot to take the White House.  What he does after November is up to us, and if it isn't it's we who have failed, not Romney.

I find anyone who seriously plans to sit out this Election or vote for Obama, in protest or for any other reason, as having taken leave of his senses.  An Obama re-election will rock all of our lives to the core.

[dogmush]

I find anyone who seriously plans to sit out this Election or vote for Obama, in protest or for any other reason, as having taken leave of his senses. 

Fair enough, I find anyone that thinks Romney will somehow veer from the path he's trod his entire political life after being elected POTUS to have taken leave of their senses.

[Jamie B]

I do not respect Rubio at all for this.

Anyone who waits until the win is inevitable just to jump on the popularity train is lacking a spine.

Those who supported POTUS candidates early on earn respect.

Rubio is just another go along to get along politician.

The only reason that he might be offered a Veep spot is that Romney's pull among Latinos is terrible.

Same *expletive deleted*it, different day.......

[seeker_two]

I'm not sure even Rubio can make Romney appealing to the TEA Party....


Guess we'd better get used to Obama 2.0....

[HankB]

Under a President Romney, there's a reasonable chance of getting one or more decent Supreme Court nominations.

Under BHO, the chance of that is about on a par with my winning the current $540,000,000, jackpot.

[seeker_two]

Under a President Romney, there's a reasonable chance of getting one or more decent Supreme Court nominations.

Nominations like we got under Bush41?.....how would that be better?.....

[longeyes]

If you want two more Kagan-Sotomayors, just stay home or write in Ron Paul or vote for Obama.  The rumor is California's AG Kamala Harris is coming to a SCOTUS near you.  All we need is for the New Supremes to deliver a mortal blow to the Second Amendment in an Obama second term.  You guys looking for serious street action?  I guess so, because that is exactly what we are going to be faced with and I frankly don't get the hurry.  The Republican SCOTUS choices have been less than ideal, but there's a lot of space between less than ideal and outright Godawful.

[roo_ster]

It pains me to say this, but without GWB we likely would have lost Heller and would have zero chance with Obamacare at the SCOTUS.

So, experience has shown that a milquetoast GOP drone in the White House beats a  Dem every day of the week and twice on Sundays.  It just hurts to admit it, is all.  A lot.

GWB also shows that liberty-loving folk can make a difference and influence a weak sister in the WH.  Harriet Miers going down in flames and Alberto "VO5"Gonzales never taking off show that.  Empirical evidence & all beats my sense of indignation.

So, after I vote for Ron Paul in the primary, I am willing to pull the lever for Governor Goodhair (Massachusetts Division).

And then send some real $$$ to Texas & national Tea Party organizations.

============


Oh, Rubio is Jeb Bush with a trailing vowel.

[MechAg94]

Fair enough, I find anyone that thinks Romney will somehow veer from the path he's trod his entire political life after being elected POTUS to have taken leave of their senses.

I think that is where your opinion is wrong.  I don't expect Romney to change his spots.  But even a liberal Romney is not a communist Obama.  There is a very big difference.  IMO, Obama makes Bill Clinton look like a right winger.

Conservatives might have a chance of pushing Romney to the right on some key issues.  We have zero influence and zero change of seeing that with Obama.

To some extent, we live with what we got.  We allowed the debates and the media to drum the other candidates out of the race and got left with Santorum and Gingrich. 

[Sergeant Bob]

I think it's actually aimed, in part, at folks like me. If it is, it's a failure.  I hate speaking in absolutes so I won't say never, but I can't think of anything Mr. Romney could say in the campaign that would make me overlook his MA record and vote for him.

This.

To the 3rd power.

[longeyes]

Principle is a beautiful thing, but without survival where is principle?

The next Obama regime is almost certain to be less kind, less gentle than this one.  True, it may amp up resistance, and that would be good, but we may find ourselves in an all-out war in this country on many levels.  Are we ready for that?  That is my question.  Have we prepared for the full Monty of confrontation?

[dogmush]

Principle is a beautiful thing, but without survival where is principle?

That's a decent question, and one I've thought about.  There's any number of quaint quotables I could use; "Give me Liberty or give me Death, Those that trade essential Liberty...., I'd rather die on my feet than live as a slave" but I think it deserves a little more then that.

Keeping in mind that overall I love America, one of the places that our society is, I feel, sadly lacking these days is in the concept of Honor.  Honor in everyday living.  Not taking advantage even if you can, living by your word, and living what's morally right*.  People say and do, publicly, whatever's convenient or gives them some gain.  Whether it's the honorable thing to do makes no matter to many folks in America today. From stealing a lottery ticket, to walking away from a mortgage because it's not the investment you thought, to the rampant divorce rate** Americans word just isn't what it once was.

So keeping all that in mind, I look at my vote as assent to a candidate's beliefs or platform.  It is, in a quieter way, the same thing Sen Rubio just did.  I'm saying I want them to do as much of that stuff as they can.  Now I know that I'll never find a candidate that is perfect, but I find it repulsive to give my assent to a man who 1. I think is a liar, and 2. I disagree with the majority of his platform.  To me, supporting such a man (or woman, hypothetically) is dishonarable. 

On top of, and less important then, the honor of the thing is that I truly believe that the decades of party line voting, and "Lesser evil" voting is directly responsible for the dearth of real choices we see today, and don't want to participate in prolonging that toxic joke of a "Two Party" system.

I'll vote for the candidate whose platform I agree with, or if that's not offered to me I'll write in someone I agree with.  If voting my beliefs leads to a full on shooting revolution, then I will go to that war with my honor intact.

So in short:

Are we ready for that?  That is my question.

If that's really where we're at,*** Yep, I'm ready for it.

*In this case completely separately from any spiritual beliefs

**I know many on this board are divorced, and I won't presume to pass judgement on you for it, but rather I observe that if a marriage fails, then someone has broken a vow

***FTR, I disagree with your analysis.  I don't think we're within four years of a revolution, almost no matter what the next CINC does.  But we're both just guessing there.  I think we're much more likely to get in to a full scale bread and circus/world war for resources before it comes to armed rebellion in the US.

[erictank]

If you want two more Kagan-Sotomayors, just stay home or write in Ron Paul or vote for Obama.  The rumor is California's AG Kamala Harris is coming to a SCOTUS near you.  All we need is for the New Supremes to deliver a mortal blow to the Second Amendment in an Obama second term.  You guys looking for serious street action?  I guess so, because that is exactly what we are going to be faced with and I frankly don't get the hurry.  The Republican SCOTUS choices have been less than ideal, but there's a lot of space between less than ideal and outright Godawful.

If the Republican Party can't be BOTHERED to make a palatable offering to enough people to secure the necessary Electoral College votes...

THEY ***DESERVE*** TO LOSE!!!

Voting for More-Of-The-Same gets us nothing more than (surprise surprise!!) more-of-the-same! Yeah, voting for someone who'd actually make a *REAL* (and GOOD) change like Ron Paul potentially splits "the Republican vote". Boo-frickin'-hoo. They don't own my vote, despite what they appear to believe, and from their performance, they don't DESERVE my vote. They're getting more than they deserve from others, for that matter (as are the Democrats, for that matter).

I don't BELIEVE in what the Republicans are peddling. They LIE to us. They VIOLATE their oaths of office. They BETRAY the people who vote for them.  Yeah, so do the Democrats - I won't vote for them either. If the loss of my vote means that Rudy McRomney goes up against the slightly-darker-skinned version of himself from Chicago who's currently in the White House and loses, well, guess the R's should have tried harder.  I'm voting to support liberty, not evil.  Not even the supposed "lesser of two evils".

If that means that Obama gets a second term? Well, like I said - guess the R's should have tried harder.  They CHOSE to support either More-Of-The-Same or the guy who openly espouses violations of the First Amendment and the principles of personal liberty as opposed to support of the (right-wing) State, rather than someone with an actual record of seeking Constitutional justification for any government action. SCREW. THAT.

[roo_ster]

If the Republican Party can't be BOTHERED to make a palatable offering to enough people to secure the necessary Electoral College votes...

Given that reality is a valid defense, the GOP has had more POTUSes elected than the Dems since WW2. 

I see all this belly-aching about the GOP and share much if it.  But the heart of the problem is not that the GOP doesn't nominate Our Secular Savior.  The heart of the problem is that too many fellow voting Americans value liberty less than free stuff, feel-good gov't do-goodism, and such.

[seeker_two]

Given that reality is a valid defense, the GOP has had more POTUSes elected than the Dems since WW2. 

I see all this belly-aching about the GOP and share much if it.  But the heart of the problem is not that the GOP doesn't nominate Our Secular Savior.  The heart of the problem is that too many fellow voting Americans value liberty less than free stuff, feel-good gov't do-goodism, and such.

+10^100,000,000

[HankB]

I'm not happy with the way the GOP primary is shaking out . . . but I'd be a lot less happy with a second Obama term. 

Especially if The Stupid Party^TM squanders a likely majority in both the house and senate.

[Balog]

I think that is where your opinion is wrong.  I don't expect Romney to change his spots.  But even a liberal Romney is not a communist Obama.  There is a very big difference.  IMO, Obama makes Bill Clinton look like a right winger.

Conservatives might have a chance of pushing Romney to the right on some key issues.  We have zero influence and zero change of seeing that with Obama.

To some extent, we live with what we got.  We allowed the debates and the media to drum the other candidates out of the race and got left with Santorum and Gingrich. 

Gridlock. An Obama with fierce opposition in the House and Senate will do less harm than a socialist GOP'er with the Tea Party types beaten into submission by the party. See Bush 43 and NCLB, Medicare Part D, Patriot Act etc...

Given that reality is a valid defense, the GOP has had more POTUSes elected than the Dems since WW2. 

I see all this belly-aching about the GOP and share much if it.  But the heart of the problem is not that the GOP doesn't nominate Our Secular Savior.  The heart of the problem is that too many fellow voting Americans value liberty less than free stuff, feel-good gov't do-goodism, and such.

Also this. We need to spend less time and effort worrying about the POTS, more worrying about the local stuff we can have a realistic effect on.

[longeyes]

Yes, gridlock is our friend, but why would you believe that the Right is going to control Congress without also being able to take the White House?

And, yeah, it's the CULTURE, stupid.  Half the country is lost and not likely to be found.  I've been posting about that here for years.  The implications of that still haven't been fully processed by those of us who care about America's political future. 

[Balog]

I've actually thought about that alot. The danger of a rejection of Romney being seen as a mandate for Obama. I think the best case scenario is Romney horrifically self destructing late in the game, so it's pretty obvious it's not enthusiasm for Obama that got him back in. I think "Bush stole the election" meme helped fuel the liberal derangement over W, and the opposite happening for us might not be terrible.