The author, Suzanne Fields, has been a hard as nails conservative columnist for decades. I was reading her in The Washington Times before the dawn of the internet. She’s no one’s (but yours, apparently) idea of a “Democrat.”
I can’t understand why so many FReepers are averse to just reading or hearing that Rubio is extremely popular outside these boards. He may not be your or my candidate, but he IS extremely popular. That is the reality. And he would worry Hillary more than the others because his major electoral assets are way too similar to Obama’s in ‘08. Deal with it, and get out to work for your candidate.
I’ve been here since 1997, this is my fifth presidential campaign at FR. This place goes a little crazy every four years. I’ve learned to duck and cover.
I wasn’t referring to the author. She was writing about what Democrats say about Marco Rubio.
In regards to Marco Rubio, he’s a proven amnesty shill.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/schumer-rubio-immigration-is-worse-than-obamacare/
You may not care about Rubio’s positions on immigration, but his work with the likes of Chuck ‘The Schmuck’ Schumer and John McPain to pass an amnesty is not something that I’m willing to forgive.
BTW, I understand Marco Rubio is popular in some quarters. If that support comes from professed conservatives, I consider it irrational. In what way does “running with RINOs” count as being a conservative hero?
One more thing. You’re likely right that Democrats fear Marco Rubio for the reasons mentioned. Rubio is popular. If “best chance of winning” was the #1 criteria for picking a candidate, Rubio would definitely be a in the running.
That said, winning with Rubio would be losing in my book. He might be able to beat Hillary, but that wouldn’t necessarily be a “loss” for Democrats. Immigration amnesty is a win for the left whether it’s passed by a President Hillary or a President Rubio.