Just for this, if this Rubio crackpot runs gets the GOP nomination in 2016, my vote will automatically go to whatever Democrat is running for office. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't be him.
You guys are absolutly 100% wrong on Marco Rubio.In 2009 I spent nine months in Florida on business and I donated time to Rubio's campaign.At one time he was 30 points behind that sleezeball Charlie Crist and he still won the nomination.
I can tell you first hand Marco Rubio is smart,hard working,true to his values,a good family man and honest.In my opinion he's one of the brightest light in the senate.
Rubio just rubbed me the wrong way after I saw that article on the Huffington Post about what he said about the age of the Earth. He answered the question so poorly and he kind of has a resemblance to Paul Ryan and other neocons. I just have a bad feeling about him. If he cleans his act up, I might consider him, but I'd rather see even Chris Christie run instead. He seems to have a much bigger set of balls than a lot of the Republicans I'm aware of, though ideally, I would either Rand Paul or Jon Huntsman to be the GOP candidate.
Rubio is not alone in disliking Hagel; we note John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer. IMO, if you can piss off that range of politicians, you are pretty damn good.
Roberto, did this Rubio fellow really say that the earth is 6,000 years old? I cannot believe that he really and truly thinks that (as opposed to him simply trying to get the fundamentalist vote).
I didn't think of that, but you're probably right. It's just another political strategy to get specific votes. The sad reality is that in the GOP primaries, you have to get a certain amount of the religious fundamentalist vote to win. Peter Schiff explains this well in this video and that seems to hurt the GOP badly in the long run. I'm pretty sure a lot of the guys over at The American Conservative website and other types of conservatives who are speaking out against the establishment GOP have already made similar points in the past but Peter summarizes it all up well here. In my opinion, they need to radically change which types of voters they're targeting and think in the long term because the much older, more religious Republicans are dying off and there's a lot of potential within the younger voters and the ones who are already working in the 20s and 30s.
"I'm not a scientist, man," Rubio said when asked how old the Earth is. "I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians...I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."
This rubbed many people the wrong way, even though he was just stating an opinion. A lot of people confused what he said with fact and that's why they were attacking him. It's exactly how people have vilified Pat Buchanan for offering an alternative assessment of World War II or the Pope's tradtionalist stance on marriage as if having an alternative opinion is foreign and wrong. Rubio needs to get far better PR and keep his mouth shut for a while and do a much better job clarifying these things. He could have easily said that he believes in God, but also believes in respecting scientific consensus and tradition with prudence and that scientific belief and religious belief should be separated, especially in politics. Some people have even suggested that he go ahead and openly embrace his belief in God, but at the same time, treat the creation of the earth in the Bible in an allegorical, methaphorical sense.
What really would have done Rubio most justice is that he reminded people that the man who created the first theory of the expansion of the universe, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic scientist! That might surprised the more naive critics of the Republican Party who have thought that they were anti-science.
Rubio himself is a Roman Catholic so that might have been really good of him to try to point out that coincidence. There's no reason for the Republican Party in this day and age to have such an anti-scientific reputation when I'm sure I can find many other scientists who have had religious or theist beliefs throughout history. That's the point they should be driving home if they still want to get those Evangelicals to vote for them in the GOP primaries. True conservatism, religion, and science can coexist and have existed time and time again and have benefited from each other.
Rubio is currently a Catholic, but has toyed with religion before. As for Hagel, it is said he has rough edges. Frankly, I would love to see an enlisted combat vet run the pentagon....
Roberto said: " It's exactly how people have vilified Pat Buchanan for offering an alternative assessment of World War II"
That's quite soft-peddling it. I've read his various columns over the years, in which he supported Germany solving its Jewish problem on its own terms (his support for the Holocaust goes into the recent era of wanting war criminals from that era to escape justince), and also painted Churchill as the villain in WW2 and Hitler as the victim.
However, as Buchanan ia a sort of modern National Socialist himself (see his trade policies) it is not surprising that he comes out strongly and repeatedly in favor of the German actions in the mid 20th century.
"No one on the right pays any attention to Pat Buchanan...he's viewed as a bafoon.The left is far more interested in him these days."
I'm not surprised. His publication The American Conservative has been exposing GOP idiocy and hypocrisy for a long while now. Truth offends certain people. No wonder the GOP lost the 2012 election in a landslide. I consider people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Todd Akin and many others to be complete buffoons.
"That's quite soft-peddling it. I've read his various columns over the years, in which he supported Germany solving its Jewish problem on its own terms (his support for the Holocaust goes into the recent era of wanting war criminals from that era to escape justince), and also painted Churchill as the villain in WW2 and Hitler as the victim.
However, as Buchanan ia a sort of modern National Socialist himself (see his trade policies) it is not surprising that he comes out strongly and repeatedly in favor of the German actions in the mid 20th century."
That's the main thing I disagree with Pat on are his stances on NAFTA. Interesting.
Yeah, Buchanan's quite the fascist when it comes to free and fair trade related issues.
But do you really side with Buchanan in his support of Nazi Germany, wanting Nazi war criminals to go free (the Demjamjuk case), and his frequent antisemitism and racism?
He also is famous for bogusly labelling those who want to fight back against those who attack us as "the war party".
Oops,I did'nt realize Rob was a Pat Buchanan acolyte....sorry to say Rob,but old Pat is'nt well thought of in conservative circles.Yes,those that wish to build a 20 foot wall along all american borders would wecome Pats views but most conservatives think he's the crazy uncle living in the basement
I have some mixed feelings on Buchanan. On the one hand I tend to disagree with him a lot (most notably on trade and immigration) but on the other hand I also have a real hard time turning the channel when he's on. A pretty darn compelling (not to mention, inflammatory) fellow at times.
Did you read the sites where they said that there was far less turnout in Republican voters than in the last election? I read that it was around 1- I'm paraphrasing here, but according to certain conservatives, millions of less Democrats actually voted this time and Obama still won. What does that tell you? Romney himself admitted that he never even wanted to run in the first place. I think based on the evidence, any conservative who follows politics closely would have known that Romney would have lost from day one. The writing is all over the wall.
In terms of electoral votes, Obama did win a landslide. 332 electoral votes vs. 206. The guy even lost Virginia! That's a pretty subpar performance in my opinion, even from an unlikable milquetoast like Romney. Obama had 51% of the popular vote. 47% may seem like a large sect of the population that is fed up with this administration, but it's very obvious why Obama won when you think about this carefully.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main
"Oops,I did'nt realize Rob was a Pat Buchanan acolyte....sorry to say Rob,but old Pat is'nt well thought of in conservative circles.Yes,those that wish to build a 20 foot wall along all american borders would welcome Pats views but most conservatives think he's the crazy uncle living in the basement"
I'm not saying I support all of Buchanan's views or even agree with what he has to say about Hitler or World War II. I haven't read his book yet since I've been busy with other ones, so I can't really say, but the kinds of conservatives that are able to point out what's wrong and why the GOP keeps doing badly in these elections are the ones I like best in terms of guts and personality. What do you think of David Frum?
Anyways, I predict another devastating loss for the party in 2016 if they do not change their course soon.
Rob: the Republicans were just a couple of Romney gaffes away from winning the Presidency. So much for the "changing the course" idea. Also, in the most democratic (small "d") national election situation, the House elections, the Republicans won decisively. The same when you step back and look at the big picture of state-by-state governorships.
Which shows that in general they are on the right course policy-wise, even if their guy lost by a small margin in the Presidental election, which is more about personality, the man's leadership skills, "gaffe gotcha", marketing and style than it is about policy.
They would have gotten a lot more votes if Romney had debated exactly like he did during that first debate and been more aggressive in pointing out Obama's contradictions, but the average person votes based on looks. The various comments he said also sunk his campaign, most notable the 47% remark and his many contradictions himself (abortion, passing RomneyCare, etc). People were also uncomfortable with his Mormon faith and how he reacted to this interviewer on the radio. I've seen the various YouTube comments for myself and what people left on those Romney/Obama parody videos. I also think his connections to Clear Channel were also a factor in why he lost and how people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity have their shows syndicated by that company.
To answer your question, I don't recall reading David Frum before, but I will seek him out. My summaries of Pat Buchanan's view come not from his books, nor from reading what others say about him. But rather from his own columns. Just like my view on Michael "Savage" Weiner's autism radio statement come from listening to it.
27 comments:
More crap from lap of the lap of the soon to be irrelevant.
Rubio wants to run for President, Les, and what better way to get some pub early on?
Yeah, I know. Early on I kinda liked the guy. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
Just for this, if this Rubio crackpot runs gets the GOP nomination in 2016, my vote will automatically go to whatever Democrat is running for office. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't be him.
He mostly comes across as sane but getting the Republican nomination is obviously something that can change you.
You guys are absolutly 100% wrong on Marco Rubio.In 2009 I spent nine months in Florida on business and I donated time to Rubio's campaign.At one time he was 30 points behind that sleezeball Charlie Crist and he still won the nomination.
I can tell you first hand Marco Rubio is smart,hard working,true to his values,a good family man and honest.In my opinion he's one of the brightest light in the senate.
Hope you're right Rusty.
Because there ain't many bright lights in the rEpublican party these days.
Those that determine the nominees don't seem to be all that bright IMNHO.
Russ, as long as he doesn't cow-tow to the neocons and fundamentalists, I'll probably be fine with him.
Rubio just rubbed me the wrong way after I saw that article on the Huffington Post about what he said about the age of the Earth. He answered the question so poorly and he kind of has a resemblance to Paul Ryan and other neocons. I just have a bad feeling about him. If he cleans his act up, I might consider him, but I'd rather see even Chris Christie run instead. He seems to have a much bigger set of balls than a lot of the Republicans I'm aware of, though ideally, I would either Rand Paul or Jon Huntsman to be the GOP candidate.
Rubio is not alone in disliking Hagel; we note John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer. IMO, if you can piss off
that range of politicians, you are pretty damn good.
Hagel is not well thought of on either side of teh asile.
His views on Isreal,Iran,terrorist and gays are way out of the mainstream.
Roberto, did this Rubio fellow really say that the earth is 6,000 years old? I cannot believe that he really and truly thinks that (as opposed to him simply trying to get the fundamentalist vote).
I didn't think of that, but you're probably right. It's just another political strategy to get specific votes. The sad reality is that in the GOP primaries, you have to get a certain amount of the religious fundamentalist vote to win. Peter Schiff explains this well in this video and that seems to hurt the GOP badly in the long run. I'm pretty sure a lot of the guys over at The American Conservative website and other types of conservatives who are speaking out against the establishment GOP have already made similar points in the past but Peter summarizes it all up well here. In my opinion, they need to radically change which types of voters they're targeting and think in the long term because the much older, more religious Republicans are dying off and there's a lot of potential within the younger voters and the ones who are already working in the 20s and 30s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k-TOUzdv2E
Rubio specifically said this:
"I'm not a scientist, man," Rubio said when asked how old the Earth is. "I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians...I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."
This rubbed many people the wrong way, even though he was just stating an opinion. A lot of people confused what he said with fact and that's why they were attacking him. It's exactly how people have vilified Pat Buchanan for offering an alternative assessment of World War II or the Pope's tradtionalist stance on marriage as if having an alternative opinion is foreign and wrong. Rubio needs to get far better PR and keep his mouth shut for a while and do a much better job clarifying these things. He could have easily said that he believes in God, but also believes in respecting scientific consensus and tradition with prudence and that scientific belief and religious belief should be separated, especially in politics. Some people have even suggested that he go ahead and openly embrace his belief in God, but at the same time, treat the creation of the earth in the Bible in an allegorical, methaphorical sense.
What really would have done Rubio most justice is that he reminded people that the man who created the first theory of the expansion of the universe, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic scientist! That might surprised the more naive critics of the Republican Party who have thought that they were anti-science.
Rubio himself is a Roman Catholic so that might have been really good of him to try to point out that coincidence. There's no reason for the Republican Party in this day and age to have such an anti-scientific reputation when I'm sure I can find many other scientists who have had religious or theist beliefs throughout history. That's the point they should be driving home if they still want to get those Evangelicals to vote for them in the GOP primaries. True conservatism, religion, and science can coexist and have existed time and time again and have benefited from each other.
Rubio is currently a Catholic, but has toyed with religion before.
As for Hagel, it is said he has rough edges. Frankly, I would love to see an enlisted combat vet run
the pentagon....
Roberto said: " It's exactly how people have vilified Pat Buchanan for offering an alternative assessment of World War II"
That's quite soft-peddling it. I've read his various columns over the years, in which he supported Germany solving its Jewish problem on its own terms (his support for the Holocaust goes into the recent era of wanting war criminals from that era to escape justince), and also painted Churchill as the villain in WW2 and Hitler as the victim.
However, as Buchanan ia a sort of modern National Socialist himself (see his trade policies) it is not surprising that he comes out strongly and repeatedly in favor of the German actions in the mid 20th century.
No one on the right pays any attention to Pat Buchanan...he's viewed as a bafoon.The left is far more interested in him these days.
"No one on the right pays any attention to Pat Buchanan...he's viewed as a bafoon.The left is far more interested in him these days."
I'm not surprised. His publication The American Conservative has been exposing GOP idiocy and hypocrisy for a long while now. Truth offends certain people. No wonder the GOP lost the 2012 election in a landslide. I consider people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Todd Akin and many others to be complete buffoons.
"That's quite soft-peddling it. I've read his various columns over the years, in which he supported Germany solving its Jewish problem on its own terms (his support for the Holocaust goes into the recent era of wanting war criminals from that era to escape justince), and also painted Churchill as the villain in WW2 and Hitler as the victim.
However, as Buchanan ia a sort of modern National Socialist himself (see his trade policies) it is not surprising that he comes out strongly and repeatedly in favor of the German actions in the mid 20th century."
That's the main thing I disagree with Pat on are his stances on NAFTA. Interesting.
Yeah, Buchanan's quite the fascist when it comes to free and fair trade related issues.
But do you really side with Buchanan in his support of Nazi Germany, wanting Nazi war criminals to go free (the Demjamjuk case), and his frequent antisemitism and racism?
He also is famous for bogusly labelling those who want to fight back against those who attack us as "the war party".
Rob also said: "No wonder the GOP lost the 2012 election in a landslide."
Where was this?
Oops,I did'nt realize Rob was a Pat Buchanan acolyte....sorry to say Rob,but old Pat is'nt well thought of in conservative circles.Yes,those that wish to build a 20 foot wall along all american borders would wecome Pats views but most conservatives think he's the crazy uncle living in the basement
I have some mixed feelings on Buchanan. On the one hand I tend to disagree with him a lot (most notably on trade and immigration) but on the other hand I also have a real hard time turning the channel when he's on. A pretty darn compelling (not to mention, inflammatory) fellow at times.
"Where was this?"
Did you read the sites where they said that there was far less turnout in Republican voters than in the last election? I read that it was around 1- I'm paraphrasing here, but according to certain conservatives, millions of less Democrats actually voted this time and Obama still won. What does that tell you? Romney himself admitted that he never even wanted to run in the first place. I think based on the evidence, any conservative who follows politics closely would have known that Romney would have lost from day one. The writing is all over the wall.
In terms of electoral votes, Obama did win a landslide. 332 electoral votes vs. 206. The guy even lost Virginia! That's a pretty subpar performance in my opinion, even from an unlikable milquetoast like Romney. Obama had 51% of the popular vote. 47% may seem like a large sect of the population that is fed up with this administration, but it's very obvious why Obama won when you think about this carefully.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main
"Oops,I did'nt realize Rob was a Pat Buchanan acolyte....sorry to say Rob,but old Pat is'nt well thought of in conservative circles.Yes,those that wish to build a 20 foot wall along all american borders would welcome Pats views but most conservatives think he's the crazy uncle living in the basement"
I'm not saying I support all of Buchanan's views or even agree with what he has to say about Hitler or World War II. I haven't read his book yet since I've been busy with other ones, so I can't really say, but the kinds of conservatives that are able to point out what's wrong and why the GOP keeps doing badly in these elections are the ones I like best in terms of guts and personality. What do you think of David Frum?
Anyways, I predict another devastating loss for the party in 2016 if they do not change their course soon.
Rob: the Republicans were just a couple of Romney gaffes away from winning the Presidency. So much for the "changing the course" idea. Also, in the most democratic (small "d") national election situation, the House elections, the Republicans won decisively. The same when you step back and look at the big picture of state-by-state governorships.
Which shows that in general they are on the right course policy-wise, even if their guy lost by a small margin in the Presidental election, which is more about personality, the man's leadership skills, "gaffe gotcha", marketing and style than it is about policy.
They would have gotten a lot more votes if Romney had debated exactly like he did during that first debate and been more aggressive in pointing out Obama's contradictions, but the average person votes based on looks. The various comments he said also sunk his campaign, most notable the 47% remark and his many contradictions himself (abortion, passing RomneyCare, etc). People were also uncomfortable with his Mormon faith and how he reacted to this interviewer on the radio. I've seen the various YouTube comments for myself and what people left on those Romney/Obama parody videos. I also think his connections to Clear Channel were also a factor in why he lost and how people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity have their shows syndicated by that company.
To answer your question, I don't recall reading David Frum before, but I will seek him out. My summaries of Pat Buchanan's view come not from his books, nor from reading what others say about him. But rather from his own columns. Just like my view on Michael "Savage" Weiner's autism radio statement come from listening to it.
Post a Comment