Skip to comments.Van Jones: Rubio Is ‘Dangerous’ to Democrats
Posted on 02/14/2013 4:32:26 PM PST by Drew68
Sen. Marco Rubios delivery of the GOP response to the State of the Union shows hes a force the Democrats must reckon with, says former White House advisor Van Jones.
The Florida Republican poses a dangerous political threat to Democrats because of his keen ability to emotionally connect with voters, Jones said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
“Please don’t throw is in that briar-patch”
“Please don’t throw us in that briar-patch”
Yup, Rubio is doing well so far. I suspect he has a very good chance of being the Republican nominee in 2016.
Seems to me that Mr. Chones is trying to do what Dems have done in the past two elections, which is PICK OUR CANDIDATE FOR US.
No, Mr. Chones, we don’t need your advice.
Is he a natural-born citizen per the constitution? Yes I know the democrats ignore this now, but later?
Marco would be better than any recent choice we've had, we aren't going to get perfect.
Per the Constitution? Yes.
Per birthers' bogus, made-up definition that not a single influential conservative voice, reputable conservative legal foundation, constitutional scholar or any court has supported? No.
His DREAM stance is dangerous to America and anyone supporting him and further emboldening the GOP because of it id an idiot.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President.
I have always liked Rubio, but I also like Rand Paul esp. on fiscal issues. I always looked at Governors first for executive experience but I don’t know who’s out there? Perry disappointed me, but if he runs again, his slogan should be, “There’s 3 things I’m gonna do, but I only remember 2 of them right now”.
“No, no, no. We doan wanna run aginst DAT one!”
FReepers lining up to take the bait already.
How has letting the Dems pick our candidate worked out the last two elections? Rubio is a mole.
If people actually looked into what Rubio is proposing instead of just knee-jerk opposition, they'd find it to be a very pragmatic solution that takes immigration off the table.
This isn't 1988. Winning the white male demographic while losing everyone else just doesn't cut it anymore. Ask Mitt Romney.
Rubio’s amnesty is a big-time dealbreaker for me. I would never support him.
I think this is psy-ops, why would Jones, one of the primary party leaders of the democrats come out on TV and reveal the opposition candidates that scare them most?
I do too but nobody seems to be stepping up to the plate except possibly Rick Perry who's getting some press duking it out with Moonbeam Brown.
Fact is in this day and age, whoever wants to be competitive in 2016 needs to roll up their sleeves now to get their operations well-oiled and in place. Rubio seems to be doing just this. I suspect an exploratory committee will be soon forthcoming.
But he drinks water! How can you trust him?
Rubio draws the womans vote. Thats the main thing with him. Otherwise he is a GOP sing-a-long. Doesn’t have the guts to even defend his own parents escaping Cuba! He says he didn’t notice the date was before Castro took power....what a lame brain. Castro started attacking the Government way before he finally won. Castro’s attack on the Moncada Barracks took place on July 26, 1953, three years before his parent left for America.
What son would not know this about his parents?
Rubio es para el voto femenino.
Now Rand Paul.......
But Rand Paul has a problem using the B word.
The Banks won’t like that .....at all.
Dangerous yes. That’s why Letterman’s top 10 tonight is dedicated to Rubio. Number 10 is: “By 2016, won’t America want a stooge back in the White House?”
After that sip of water he took delivering the response to Obama’s propaganda 2 days ago, I thought he was finished. So the democrats told us.
I think what Jones is trying to tell his fellow Democrats is not to be so quick to dismiss Rubio because he drank a sip of water the other night. People forget these things quickly and Rubio will be more polished next time. And there most certainly will be a next time.
So, who's your perfect candidate and what does their roadmap to the White House look like?
Frankly, I’m 3/4’s out-the-door in regards to the GOP anyway. I’ve voted exclusively GOP my entire voting life, never deviating a single time. But watching the backstabbing treatment given Palin and the Tea Party over the past four years, I don’t really trust the damned Republicans anymore. The only reason I even bothered to go to the polls in 2012 was to give my vote to Ted Cruz.
If the GOP decides to go the amnesty route, they can count me out for good. I make that vow right here and now. And, if look over my years of postings, I’ve never been one to toss around comments/threats about my voting intentions, like many others. But I do now make this vow.
Which is exactly why he will be demonized, marginalized, pilloried and destroyed by the Dems and their butt boys in the State run media.
“So, who’s your perfect candidate and what does their roadmap to the White House look like? “
Strawman Moderate BS. First, explain why with 300 million people in America, you want one that is pro illegal.
And please do not insult our intelligence. We have read his positions. And your pragmatism BS is the same BS that got a liberal to head up the losing GOP ticket.
Your Birther hate ... well. If you can’t read the constitution and what it clearly states, I don’t really expect you to buy into the whole secure border/defined country idea if you cannot read that well.
Thus your pragmatic moderation is understandable. Just what FR needs. More moderates willing to ignore our problems and allow more illegals in.
Any other long held conservative positions you willing to moderate on since you’re on such a roll here?
And therein lies the problem with our side of the aisle. Any candidate will have some issue that a bunch of so called purists will find undesirable to the point where they magnify and twist it so far out of shape that it is a poison pill and reason to vilify the candidate. Since we can't have a perfect candidate, we might as well leave the Dims in control and then moan about how this once great Nation falls deeper into the sewer because we just can't find the perfect candidate to get behind.
Exactly. Remember when McCain was that guy?
They are two pro-amnesty fellow travelers.
And herein lies the problem with you and those that think like you. First off, the opposite of purity is corruption so of you think you score points by driving people away from, rather toward an ideal, you need to admit a philosophy other than right wing conservatism.
Second, you can wrap a total sellout of TEA/Conservative/AMERICAN and Constitutional ideals in whatever Dior/Gucci BS you want. Rubio approves of some version of the DREAM act. That is not arguable by anyone dealing in the truth. That little detail of his goes against not only the above, byt slaps millions of past and future legal immigrants in the face.
As stated earlier. One hardcore conservative wannabee was all for and specifically stated that moderating our collective abortion stance to big tent the party and attract moderates was in fact, a good and desirable thing...before the Lord thy Mod did crank the generators.
Several more are saying openly that we have to go left and be more centrist. Do any of you have clue one as to what FR, much less Conservatism about?
So please. Join the ranks of people that make excuses for illegals and help push the already left-sprinting GOP closer by the day to becoming admitted democrats.
But first, please list all the issues you ‘feel’ that we need to back off on. I am sure the conservative purists such as myself here would love to hear what else we are wrong about.
Nice rant - You assume I agree with Rubio’s stance on illegals (I don’t) and base your whole tirade on it. I merely pointed out that we will never find a suitable candidate for exactly the reasons that you demonstrated in your screed - litmus test issues that weigh more than anything else will ensure we continue to eat our own.
So are you saying we continue to let supposedly conservative and Republican pols and voters just run wild, be held to no standard whatever and just do what feels goooodddd Mannn?
Because I fail to see how if we cannot hold our own people to account that we ever ‘win’ anything other than what we do.
If we stand for the need of the moment, or the politician who we disagree with just to ‘win’, then is it not logical that any such victory would be something other than what we claim to believe in?
At what cost victory? Or ‘unity’” Dead babies? More illegals to vote Democrat? Are we EVER going to draw a line and stand behind it? Or is “Compromise” the new name to replace “Conservative?
Please tell us. We’d like to know.
You continue to miss the point - I am NOT for illegals. I would push them all back over the border and start a shoot-on-sight program if i had the power. My ppoint is, as you keep helping to make, that there is no single candidate that will pass muster for today's conservatives. You have a loathing of illegals and that will keep you from voting for anyone who who has ever uttered a word about going easy on them. Others have their own key issues and will vilify candidates that have ever done anything but go balls-to-the wall-against the issues that turn their cranks. In short, the fact that Reagan amnestied illegals when he was President means that even he would not have a shot today. Who do you propose as the 100%, all-around, never had a slightly liberal/libertarian though in his/her life, candidate that will make not just you, but ALL conservatives happy enough to get us to rally enough votes to stop the destruction of allowing even more poisonous Dims to hold the reins?
I'm trying to be pragmatic and am searching for a ray of hope. You seem to be prepared to allow Obama a third term unless some candidate than can use mental waves to vaporize illegals appears - then he will have some issue that will turn other conservatives off.
Instead of trying to B-slap me for endorsing something I don't, how about trying to figure out how we can find someone who we can all stand behind. If we don't define it early enough to be able to explore the problems that will arise due to a less than 100% conservative purity, and then try to figure out what will be acceptable, we will continue to eat our own and further enable the Left who wants so desperately to finish the destruction.
You probably have no idea of how much I agree with you. Your frustration is my frustration. Please tell me how we can fix it. Not some pie-in-the-sky scenario where all that call themselves conservatives come together for a number of votes and totally destroy the Left and the Rinos, because there is no evidence that it will work. The Left has fought a long and patient war to keep nudging us to the state we now find ourselves. The Right can either come together to start a slow trend in the other direction or be left with two options. We can watch the final destruction or we can physically wrest our Nation from those who destroy it. It might work or it might fail and just put the cap on our undoing. The, we would have the same problem of trust - would the emergent leadership, who controls the military might that allowed the take-back be 100% conservative enough or would they just be another power-hungry set of despots?
Instead of daydreaming about how we can overcome the Left if only we find the perfect candidate, we would do ourselves much better by taking a realistic look at where we are, how to make progress in the right direction, and figure out which issue will be our main litmus test for such a candidate. There is no way to undo all the evil that has permeated itself in one fell swoop so we can either abide by a long, tedious comeback or we can ... (to quote you) Please tell us. Wed like to know. (if you have a real, substantial and viable 'us'), please tell me of a plan that might actually work and still not offend any of your sensibilities.
Please understand a few thing about my beliefs: ALL illegals should be shown the door. Abortion should be a felony for any female under 18 who has one and a capital offense after attaining the age of "consent". Performing an abortion should be a capital offense [qualify that as abortions not necessary to preserve the mother's life due to some dire circumstance where only one can survive]. Those on welfare and other tax-subsidized assistance should only get enough support to subsist - no Phones/TV/Computer/Car - perhaps OWS style encampments to ensure it was not a pleasurable experience. If able-bodied enough to work, they must start doing something immediately and wean themselves off the assistance withing 18 months. Once off, no comeback for at least 2 years. Those that are truly handicapped can have better living conditions but will not arbitrarily be supplied with all the modern conveniences/comforts. Anything to "make life good" for any of them will be reliant on charitable donations and not as government handouts.
There are many other peeves that I have, but let's not get into them for now - how about coming up with a realistic plan of attack instead of puffing out our chests and telling everyone how we can never crawl out of the holes we find ourselves in because we are so "principled". The Unabomber was "principled" and he actually had the balls to take action; anyone who claims to be principled and then spends 99% of their time typing and talking about his principles, is not principled, he's a lazy malcontent making excuses for not doing anything.
So, what is the plan that makes it all right again? Going to just hold out in the hopes of a "perfect" candidate? Or gonna just (to quote you again) ...do what feels goooodddd Mannn?
Thank you for the long and considered reply. Here’s the bottom line that I have repeatedly defied anyone, here and elsewhere to factually disprove.
We created this mess by compromise. A little here a little there for 30 years. And now the Republican liberals who we make more liberal by the year, have gone full throttle.
If we had not gone against Reagan’s admonishment that a party cannot be all things to all people, we would not be in this mess. PERIOD.
Now we see daily on FR, people willing to not only accept but CAMPAIGN for candidates supporting the homosexualization of everything, illegal immigration, and even abortion. I submit that if you personally and everyone else, support such candidates by backing them in the court of public opinion or the voting booth, that the collective you/we are the problem and we deserve all the hell we get.
The solution is simple. It’s just that everyone has the one extrasuperspecial excuse that stops them from doing it.
Vote for people you agree with and believe in.
If you (general sense) are on the political right, the rest falls into place. Because most of the country still leans right. Romney lost, MANY in the GOP lose because no one believes a damn thing that comes off their PR press. Many of the people that votel elsewhere or stayed would have been there with bells on...but they would not vote for liars.
No one says a candidate has to be ‘pure’. Because there ain’t one. But if you want to ‘win’ with any integrity and expectation of having your elected candidate do what you sent him to DC to do, it is only rational that you elect someone you can have a prayer of trusting to begin with.
Anyone that cannot follow such simple logic should not be allowed to vote. And if anyone wants to attempt to deny that, there’s a boat on an Egyptian river that could use a Captain.
In sum... Vote for people of principle and integrity who do not see the core tenets of the Constitution like toilet paper, or don’t complain when you have guys saying the Dream act BS is ‘American’. It’s not. And if such candidates are so compromising on the big issues, exactly what do you think they will do on the small ones?
Think clearly. Not emotionally. And we end up with less Romney/Rubios acting like Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.