A pragmatic case for supporting Rubio

While I will support whomever is the Republican nominee, my preference is Rubio. Legislatively, any politician can only get legislation passed that is one or two clicks to the left or right. From a legislative perspective, it does not really matter if you are talking about Sanders or Clinton, because eventhough Sanders may be further left than Hillary, neither one of them are going to be able to take the country as far to the left as they would prefer, rather they will be bound by the prevailing legislative realities. Conversely, If we are going to say that Cruz is further right than Rubio, it too does not matter, because neither of them are going to be able to take the country as far right as they would prefer.

For this reason, I do not analyze degrees of right when choosing a candidate, rather I look at whom is likely to be most effective and whom is most likely to win the general election so that the country can go one or two clicks right versus one or two clicks left. Cruz may be 8 clicks to the right, and Rubio only 5 clicks, but the reality is that either one of them will only be able to accomplish one or two clicks, and whomever is more effective will determine if they are able to move 1 versus 2 clicks. Effectiveness is what matters, not their inherent position, which I am quantifying by clicks.

Moving on from the legislative aspects, you then have the national defense side of the equation, which isn't necessarily dependent upon legislative action. From this perspective, I do not think there is a stones throw of difference between any of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul whom probably doesn't even deserve mention as a serious candidate. All of the rest, I believe, are going to take a strong, principled stance in the Middle East, and are going to listen to their generals on the ground as to how to accomplish our country's objectives, which I believe will be the same objectives regardless of which Republican is in charge.

Rubio- I believe he is the most charming and likeable of all the candidates, and is a very good debater. As such, he has the easiest chance of getting elected. I believe he is also the most likely of all the Republican candidates to be able to forge a level of consensus within the legislature in order to get things done. We have just had 7 years of an inflexible ideologue in office that refuses any level of compromise, and I believe that our government as a whole is about as dysfunctional as it has been in my lifetime as a result. In my opinion, Rubio is best positioned of any of the Republican contenders to begin to repair that dysfunction.

Cruz- Something about this guy just rubs me the wrong way. I want to like him, I truly do, but he is just one of those guys that even when saying and doing the right thing, he just comes across as socially awkward. If I as a Republican feel that way about him, undoubtedly so do a lot of other people, especially independents. He is a very good debater as well, but because of his awkwardness, IMO even when winning a point in a debate, I fear he may be winning the battle, but ultimately losing the war due to his off putting style. I also believe that he is inflexible in the same vein as Obama, and seeing the damage that Obama has done, I am not sure that is a quality I want to see repeated. With all that being said, he supports mostly the same issues that I do, and if he wins the nomination, I will support him fully, albeit with more trepidation about his prospects of winning.

Trump- I have liked him as a TV personality for years. He is funny, arrogant, and oddly charming. He has accomplished things in this election cycle that I never thought possible. He silences political correctness and while he sometimes goes too far, I still think this trait is endearing and even helpful. He has successfully brought immigration to the forefront and made all candidates adopt that platform. Trump worries me in that I fear the media turning on him, and gaining traction at making him out to be the devil when the general election comes around. While the media picks on him now, I believe that will increase exponentially if he wins the nomination, which gives me a legitimate fear regarding his electability. It is true that he will shake things up and bring in some cross over votes, but on balance, his electability is a bigger risk than Id prefer. I am also not sure he truly has the requisite experience for the job. While I am intrigued at the notion of him negotiating trade deals etc, I am a little skeptical about how much his private contract negotiation skills will apply to negotiating international treaties. With that being said, if he wins the nomination I will support him fully, although I will also be very nervous about his general election electability. I even leave open the possibility that he could truly be a transformative, great president, but that exuberance is tempered with the worry that he could be an unmitigated disaster.

 

Consensus in order to get what done? The Framers didn't make a mistake setting it up this way. Either Congress and the president can get together to pass legislation or they can't. If they can't, it's likely because a large number of voters don't want them to. There's nothing wrong with that. We're not in a crisis now because they can't pass laws.

 

Which one of these 5 strawmen are you hoping that I address?

 

I don't care for Cruz.

 

Agree he is a sneak !! a weasel, and really not an honest person.

hmm I just define the average politician.

 

Rubio is a religion before country guy who made it out of the lower class into politics only on the bank accounts of others while proposing to eliminate benefits for the poor

 

I agree with you. I am still undecided but have leaned towards Rubio for a while. I like all the candidates, some more than others, but would be comfortable voting for any of them.
At this point I want the one with the best chance of defeating Clinton or Sanders.
I finally feel we have solid candidates and I won't feel like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

I will too.

But he was a headliner in the Gang of Ocho.

8 reasons not to support Rubio.

 

Trump is the GOP's only hope in the general election.

 

I prefer Rubio myself. If for no other reason in that he seems the only candidate on either side who seems willing to go to the mat for a rebuilt U.S. military including spending the money necessary.

I'm hopeful being from Florida he is more bullish on funding NASA as well.

 

FAW, your OP is excellent. I haven't decided who to vote for yet but I will surely back any republican for president. The only thing I take issue about is the fact that NO presidential candidate can make any solid promises about the future when they don't know what the composition of congress (both House and Senate) will be after 2016. Sometimes voters forget that and blame their reps when they can't keep election promises. If the trend is similar to what it has been since 2010, then the republicans have a better chance of meeting their promises than dems.

Steve

 

all your really saying is you will vote for anyone with an R next to their name. In that case why should the politicians even bother to work for you?

 

Strawmen? You may want to look up that term. It's not applicable.

 

Well immigration is my number one domestic issue so...not Rubio.

I voted for him for Senate and during his Senate run he was opposed to amnesty. Until he got into the Senate. So as one of his constituents, he lied to me. He's an untrustworthy weasel.

 

He is the worst candidate on the GOP side in my opinion. In fact, if he's the nominee I'd prefer Hillary to win the General so that the GOP can try again in 4 years. His tax plan is a welfare oriented plan that picks winners and losers. He's in the pockets of Adelson who's a man I despise as somebody who enjoys online poker. He also believes in feeding the military industrial complex without questioning the costs. He's everything that was wrong with GWB and more.

 

Rubio will be shunned by millions of conservatives.

- - - Updated - - -

A Republican who is clearly a "untrustworthy weasel" is another GOPe loser.

 

Rubio does have general election appeal but that isn't everything just like compromising with the lefties is not everything either. Sometimes something needs to be outright opposed, liberal progs is that something.

Rubio makes strawman arguments to try and get people to accept things. Saying we cannot deport 12 million people is one of them. You do not need to deport only to start deporting. Once illegals see the laws will be enforced they will not hang around to be deported.

 

Like I said above, I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but the dems don't have a candidate that holds a candle to any of the republicans when solving real issues such as the economy and jobs.

Steve

 

I must say that paraphrasing surely isn't your strong suit, because you have wholly misrepresented the predicate of the entire post, which is my view of why I support Rubio for pragmatic reasons. Since you insist upon jumping on your sanctimonious high horse and feigning indignation at the notion of consistently supporting one party regardless of the nominee, I will happily defend that notion..

There are Democrat positions and there are Republican positions. We all know what those are, and they change very little from one candidate to the next. I do not agree with every Republican issue by any means, but on balance, on the issues that I prioritize to be the most important, I side with Republicans, and the overall calculation for me isn't even close. That doesn't make me a blind follower, rather it makes me a person that is highly aware of my political likes and dislikes. Lets be honest, it would be wholly illogical for a person to be pushing the notion that I like Rubio, but if Cruz wins the nomination, then I am going to support Sanders, in fact, how could any rational person that understands politics possibly make that leap ? Whom would come closer to Rubio's views....Sanders or Cruz? Of course ANY Republican is going to come closer to Rubio's views, than would Sanders or Clinton, certainly on the issues that are most important to me. Even Rand Paul, whom is the Republican that I would least support their views, still is more closely aligned with my beliefs than either Democrat running. I make no apology whatsoever for having a strong sense of issues that are important to me and subsequently supporting the party that most closely resembles those views.

Conversely, I would submit that the overwhelming majority of people that continually switch which party they vote for, do so because they simply do not have well thought out political views. I am sure there are a scant few that passionately support issues from both sides, and when prioritizing which issues are most important it is a virtual dead heat as to which way to go. Because Liberals and Conservatives tend to analyze the world in such vastly different ways however, I find it hard to believe there are many that are truly in the middle. People that vacillate between party's are more likely those that don't follow politics at all, and probably have a tenuous grasp of the differences. To me, if it is two days before a presidential election, and you still are undecided, then don't vote, because it is probably an uninformed one anyway.

Politicians have a core set of issues that they support, and I as the individual choose the politician that supports the issues that are most important to me. Oddly you seem to mysteriously be under the impression that it works in reverse.

 

Why has it become popular to support the candidates who have most done nothing at all?

What has Rubio done? He was elected to the US Senate, did nothing for a few years and didn't really care for the job so largely boycotted it, while promptly running for president.

As for his issues? He prays, is going to attack Russian military and civilian aircraft over Syria and isn't Hillary Clinton. Other than that, who and what is Rubio?

 

A strawman is refuting an argument which has not been made. Since I hadn't mentioned anything about the framers intent, your refutation that the "framers didn't make a mistake in setting it up this way" is indeed a strawman, since that was never an argument or even subject put forth in the OP.

 

You are electing a standard bearer for pushing Republican issues. If we are going by resume, I would say that Kasich probably has the most accomplished background. The problem with him is that he is a dead fish in debates and thus is less likely to win. More than anything else, I believe it is most important for a Republican to win, so that the country can move one or two clicks to the right as opposed to moving one or two clicks to the left if a Democrat wins. In this manner, the best candidate is the one that is going to win, thus the title " A Pragmatic Case for Supporting Rubio".

 

In endorsing Rubio, you praised the virtues of legislating, perhaps buying into popular opinion that somehow it's the answer to our problems. Sometimes not legislating is better than legislating. The Framers knew this, which is why there are separation of powers.

 

I would tend to agree that literally deporting 12 million people is not feasible, and I do not personally buy the notion that starting to deport will thus have everyone else lining up to leave.

 

We have had 7 years with a distinct lack of legislative compromise, and IMO the country is harmed as a result. The intent of the framers was to make legislation hard to pass by requiring some level of compromise, for the express purpose of having a degree of continuity between one administration to the next, so that our policies do not vary wildly according to whom is in office at that exact time. If our country is like a speeding bus on course to run into a bridge abutment, it is important that the new driver is capable of steering the bus. What you are suggesting is simply not steering the bus, and I wholly disagree. With your mindset, you ( and your opponent) could legitimately argue that the lack of steering wasn't your sides fault, but the stark reality is that the bus is still wrapped around a bridge abutment regardless of who takes the blame.