« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Marco Rubio MUST Be Our Next Vice President

This is truly a time to prepare for the future, to set the stage.  Maybe not this month or even this year, but this election at this point in history.  Special people come along only occasionally, yet they seem to be created by fate just when they can make the necessary difference.  Think of our founding fathers, of Lincoln, of Churchill, of Truman, and of Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan.  Few of them were predicted to become “great,” but when we needed their talents, they came through for us.

While Marco Rubio hasn’t yet reached their stature, he’s the right man at the right time.  He would help any of our candidates defeat President Obama, and historians may look back later and call this election the one that saved (or lost) the Republic.  And he would then be in position to move to the top of the ticket in eight or even four years, after having provided sound conservative advice and counsel to the President.  Even if he accomplishes nothing else, he will have done a great service for our country.  And even if Obama wins, by running for Vice President Rubio won’t have hurt himself regarding the 2016 election, when after a full Senate term he’d be appropriate for the top of the ticket if he wished.

Contrary to current ruling class opinion, the August, 2011, crop of Republican presidential candidates is not second class, the junior varsity, radicals or extremists–together, they represent a broad swath of the American public’s outlook on many issues.  Individually, they have positive characteristics that would serve them well as President, but they all have some general election shortcomings, and don’t forget, it is essential, the first order of business, that WWW/XXX be elected in 2012.

The most sure and controllable way to secure that goal is for “Rubio” to take the place of “XXX,” because pairing any of them with Rubio overcomes those shortcomings.  It could be nearly as important as the name that replaces WWW.  (After the election, their positive characteristics make most of the remaining candidates perfect fits for various positions within a WWW/Rubio administration.)

This is true primarily because Rubio compellingly articulates the conservative perspective as well as anybody and far better than most; if we want to win a battle of ideas, those are essential skills for at least one of our top two candidates.  A compelling spokesman creates interest in our message powerfully and irresistibly, turning a mere audience into listeners.  And to be articulate means, after all, to be able to convey ideas clearly, so that those listeners not only hear, but understand.  Used the right way by a competent campaigner, Rubio delivers on both counts, and he does it with a minimum of negative tics.

Of course there are others who can say the words, who know them and even believe them.  Some of those people are credible and truly inspiring, like Michael Williams of Texas (who in my opinion is a close second to Rubio on this front).  Others, including some of the front-line candidates standing up at the Republican debates, not so much.  Of the available VP possibilities of the right age and situation, Marco Rubio is far and away the best.

If we were facing Bill Clinton this time, I’d be less concerned.  Not that we’d easily win–realistically, I figure that Bill Clinton, given his personality and MSM support, could defeat most of us while standing on his head and smoking a cigar–but a loss would only be a loss, not the second installment of the beginning of the end of the post-Reagan booming economy and our Constitutional government.  Clinton may not be a good person, but he wasn’t a bad President once he got a Republican Congress to give him some guidance.  If that were the case with Obama, we could afford to wait while Rubio received four years of seasoning in a Republican Senate–he will surely be our next Presidential candidate, barring the disclosure of some incompletely-expunged adolescent sex crime conviction on his record–but because the situation tells us we must win this time, we can’t hold back.  We must use our best weapon.

If what I wrote above is true, where does that leave us, logically?  It leaves us with WWW/Rubio as the obvious ticket for 2012, in all likelihood to be followed by Rubio/YYY in 2020, and (assuming YYY is chosen carefully) YYY/ZZZ in 2028.  All very long-range, I admit, but when we look at the young conservatives currently getting experience in the House and Senate, it’s not all that farfetched.  All those folks for whom people like Ann Coulter pine to jump into this election actually fit much better in the picture as supporting members (at whatever level or position, inside or outside the administration) of a coming conservative wave and future candidates for President than as Presidential or VP candidates this time.  Think Rubio/Ryan-2020 followed by Ryan/Cruz, just for a quick, easy to come up with example.  By then the names will have changed, but the conservatism won’t, if we do it right this time.

Often, the selection of a VP is not such a big deal.  Sure, Sarah Palin undoubtedly helped John L. McCain exceed expectations in 2008, but that pick had more effect on HER life than it did on the election (due to his mismanagement of the campaign, not because of anything she did or didn’t do).  She might still be a little-known former Governor of Alaska had he not picked her, and because he picked her too early, she is still trying to find the right place to ripen.

Although it’s always dangerous to say “It’s different this time,” I really think that it is.  Marco Rubio is just so obvious a choice for both today and for tomorrow that I fervently hope he is picked for VP by our Presidential nominee, and that he accepts.   It isn’t too early for him to run for Vice President, because of his demeanor, his intelligence, his knowledge and his history.  He is at least as experienced as was Barack Obama when he became President, so the accusation of “inexperienced” won’t be effective against him as Vice President, even among the MSM.  His personal story is an inspiring one, and he seems to have excellent political instincts.

He will become an important force in the Senate if he stays there, but he can do a lot more for the country if he can move up now.  Marco, if your country calls, please pick up the phone.  And Mr. WWW, whoever you turn out to be, please place the call.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I have favored using the VP slot for 10 years as a means to destroying the template for the Dems very existence, ie that minorities have no chance in America absent the noblese oblige of the Dems. JC Watts, Cain, Blackwell et al all fit the bill, but given all the factors you cite and more, I think Rubio would be best.

    • acat

      well, a couple problems, really.

      First, we don’t have enough conservatives in the Senate. Taking one out is going to mean the next GOP POTUS (WWW above) will have to spend some time and capital courting the Maine Twins and their non-ideological peers. With Rubio in the Senate, that’s less true.

      Second, where do you go from veep? Sure, for 8 years it’s managing the Senate, visitng foreign countries, throwing red meat at the base, and then .. what? Run for the big chair or … *what* ? Career over if he loses in 2020 due to unforseen circumstance?

      If Rubio is willing to do that job, then .. more power to him. I don’t see where, though, he’s the indespensible person for the job. There are several Governors who fit the bill – Ms. Martinez , Mr. Jindal, others?

      What about changing the conditions above forward a little. Pick a current candidate with actual outsider business cred .. Herman Cain for veep.

      WWW/Cain in 2012
      WWW/Rubio in 2026
      Rubio/yyy in 2020

      That lets Rubio get some additional experience, do some more party-building in Florida where it’s needed. Maybe a run for Gov.FL in 2014…

      Just a thought.

      Mew

      • Flagstaff

        RE: “[C]onservatives in the Senate.” Ya gotta trust Rick Scott to replace him with a good conservative, or that the people of Florida do so. I don’t know what their state laws say about running for VP while remaining a Senator. Any way, the absolute necessity of electing “not Obama” and laying the groundwork for future triumphs trumps that worry.

        Re: “[W]here do you go from veep?” I thought I made it clear–he will become President. “Career over…?” What is wrong with going back to private life, or working at the state level, or even going back to Congress. It used to be not so unusual–check out John Quincy Adams, e.g.

        There are plenty of other plausible and defensible scenarios, I agree. I picked this one for the reasons I posted. I don’t have a “Plan B.”

        What I didn’t get into was what I meant by “By then the names will have changed, but the conservatism won?t, if we do it right this time.” Doing it right means always choosing the conservative, Constitutional alternatives once we gain control of–well, whatever we get. If we do that, good results will follow faster than we imagine. Remember how much Reagan accomplished, even though a lot of nay-sayers scoffed? Remember how fast the economy turned around once the public was convinced he wasn’t backing down or continuing business-as-usual? Remember how some of those gains were wiped out when he made some deals with the Devil, er, Democrats?

        Starting with Romney or Perry and Rubio, we have a really good chance to re-establish the Vice President as both a close advisor to the President and a prep school for the coming President. Dick Cheney modeled the former kind of VP-ship, and Nixon the latter. Rubio could combine the two models under either Romney or Perry, both of whom seem capable of listening to good advice and of teaching by good example.

        I also agree with you that Herman Cain could fill the first role well, although he seems an unlikely candidate to follow up as President. Turning the VP reins over to Rubio in 2016 (as I think you meant to write) would also work. The only objection I have is that we mustwinnow! I really meant it when I wrote that “We must use our best weapon.” Cain is a very good weapon in this ideological fight, but Rubio is better.

        I also cut the following ideas out of the OP:

        Our next Republican President should do one thing that hasn’t been done before–pick his advisors at all levels not just for good advice, but to prime the pump with smart, younger conservatives who can leave appointed office with the experience they need to succeed in other offices, offices that can make a difference, as Mitch Daniels has made in Indiana. For example, we don’t need a Colin Powell as Secretary of State, we need a John Bolton (doesn’t exactly fit my criteria, but you get the idea). President WWW can select Cabinet Secretaries from among this year’s unsuccessful candidates and from some who chose not to declare. It would give some the experience that they need to round out their resumes for future offices.

        You can imagine as well as I who would fit where.

        I can’t stress enough Rubio’s understated elegance when he’s speaking about the effects government has on our everyday lives. He may not use those words, but the message that comes through is that the conservative way is the best way, and if he is asked “why?” he can answer without skipping a beat. That is a skill that none of the viable candidates for President have.

        Speaking of viable, you may ask why Newt isn’t considered viable, because he is certainly glib enough and knowledgeable enough about his conservative beliefs, as he has demonstrated in the debates he’s attended. I would answer that he has the same problem that Romney has, only he has it worse: he isn’t trusted to stand strong for his conservative principles. (Romney is more or less not trusted to be conservative in the first place, but he has other, offsetting positives.) Newt stands or falls on his House record and his conservative credibility, which he damaged severely by his conciliatory, and wrong, gestures toward peaceful coexistence with the Left.

        As perceived by primary and general election voters, our candidates all fall along several continua of criteria, including personal and professional credibility, seriousness, intelligence, knowledge, political acumen, helpful experience, consistency and depth of conservative beliefs, and expected tendency to act on conservative principles. If the left end is “bad” and the right end is “good,” none of them fall to the right on all criteria, but a ticket with Rubio on it moves to the right on all of them for most of the candidates. Without cutting it too fine, he is particularly effective in helping Romney with various aspects of “conservatism;” Perry too, but as a way of “mainstreaming” Perry’s tendency to sound like Jerry Faulwell crossed with Donald Trump and Ron Paul.

        Obviously, this is all MHO and I could be all wet, but if there is a fact-based flaw in my logic, please point it out. To suggest that Ms Martinez (who’s she?–just kidding) and Governor Jindal are his equal in the issues of this diary doesn’t pass the snicker test. Not that they couldn’t match him or even surpass him in time, but it wouldn’t be in time for the 2012 election.

        • acat

          We disagree on Perry – I think his views and success speak for themselves, and will resonate with a majority. I am curious why you think Perry sounds like Jerry Falwell, Donald Trump, or Ron Paul. I find that a silly assertion.

          I’ve no problem with Rubio being the veep for a conservative POTUS. Perry/Rubio or Bachmann/Rubio would suit me fine.

          I think Rubio is smart enough to avoid being the conservative fig leaf to a Romney candidacy. There’s no way he pulls a Romney administration to the right, all he does is check off boxes on Romney’s list. “Hey, a double-win, minority and tea partier, great!”

          The rest of your ideas, having a veep who can win in 2020, using appointments to build careers of young conservatives, and DeVine Gamecock ‘s idea of destroying the lib racism argument by making a point to appoint non-caucasians have a lot of merit. I’m just not convinced that they *require* taking Rubio out of the Senate at this time.

          Mew

          • pttx333

            that is a hit piece on Perry. The Chronicle is a lib rag. Thought someone should see this.

          • pttx333

            http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-s-long-tenure-is-short-on-particulars-2144659.php

          • acat

            It sounds, from the title of the piece, like another “But Texas has a weak governor” objection, but .. I haven’t the time to read it. Yet.

            Mew

          • pttx333

            the black bean! It was early. LOL Looked like dirt on a new topic to me.

          • Flagstaff

            It isn’t hard enough to call it a hit piece.

            Most of it is petty stuff being used to hurt Perry by comparing him to Bush regarding openness in office emails and other records. Imagine that, from the MSM. It is the kind of stuff, however, that can bite him if something embarrassing or indicating malfeasance shows up.

            In the Time of Obama, it seems silly to worry about expenses of the Governor’s security detail.

          • pttx333

            ..

          • Flagstaff

            agreeing with five other people. That’s a compliment, BTW.

            Re: How Perry sounds. That was my personal impression. As does any good southern orator, he sounds a bit like a televangelist=Faulwell. Likely to provide outrageous sound bites that will need to be explained later=Trump. Mentioned the Federal Reserve chariman/Fed=Paul. YMMV

            Re: Romney. If the first order of business is to win in 2012, Rubio would add a lot to a Romney-led ticket. (Remember, we can’t control who gets the nomination, no matter how much we want to.) As bad as Obama is, the election will probably be won on the margins. We do seriously disagree on this one–I say Rubio not only pulls a Romney ticket to the right but he will keep it there once in office, which I think is the big question mark with Romney.

            We want to make sure that all the conservatives who say they’d “never vote for Romney” have a chance to add, “but if it means Rubio gets to bend his ear when he needs it and take his place in a few years, I’ll vote for Rubio.” Marco helps the Romney ticket more than any. And until it’s proven otherwise, Rubio should help them all with the hispanic swing vote.

            Woof.

    • Flagstaff

      Next time, maybe, but it doesn’t work if my “forecasts” are fight. As I said, though, the names will change, so who knows?

      The VP slot is limiting until the right match comes along–it’s only one office for one person. As acat mentions, Bobby Jindal looked like a possibility a while back, but although he’s been doing great work for Louisiana, he’s been eclipsed by Rubio. Still, he could be Mr. YYY, and then we both get our wishes.

    • dbkohl

      I am leaning hard with Flagstaff on the VP point. There might be a “Dark Horse” that may come along better, but I have not seen him/her. The THREE most important points to consider in a VP candidate are 1) True Conservative (thus able to give solid conservative council to the POTUS) 2) ability to push the ticket to win 2012 3) be a viable candidate for POTUS after WWW leaves office. Failure in ANY of these 3 criteria, will result in breakdown for the GOP in instilling a long-standing conservative run to reshape the nation for the better, getting back to your conservative roots.

      I believe that Rubio definitively fits this bill, as do a lot of others mentioned by other posters. However, I agree with Flagstaff that Rubio is at the top of the list for all of the 3 points listed above.

      Point 1 — True Conservative:
      There are several potential candidates for VP that could fill this roll well. However, it should be noted that there are several names that get floated that do not. Newt is one that I?m not overly comfortable with. While his voting record is solid, and his level of intelligence and knowledge of political history (thus to not repeat the mistakes of the past) are exceeded by few if any, I see him as too comfortable with giving in to the left to avoid conflict. He was bitten too hard and too often in the Clinton Administration, especially during the government shutdown talks in the 1990?s it seemed to have shied him back a bit in my eyes. Romney is also not a good choice in this point. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Jindal, Christy, Kasich, and many others are strong enough conservatives to make the grade.

      Point 2 ? ability to push the ticket to win 2012:
      Without winning in 2012, it will be a moot point. An additional 4 years of BHO will leave this country in tatters and unrecoverable in MHO, even with solid GOP majorities in the house and senate. These qualities also include charisma and strong communication skills. Someone who has sharp wit and can utilize the knowledge that they possess if questioned on something that they have not prepared for. We have also seen how well BHO flounders when pressured, and how Biden lets just about anything slip out of his mouth if he gores off script. We definitely cannot have these kinds of problems from a GOP VP, as the MSM won?t cover for us. Also, the individual as a person has to resonate with not only the base (covered by conservatism as noted in above point), but major demographic sets that may traditionally vote either with the Dems, or as an independent swing voter. Rubio obviously will make an impact with both the state of Florida and with the Hispanic community. As note by many others in this and other threads, it is time to break the Dems? claim on these groups. I still believe that there are a lot of names out there that also meet this criteria including those that I mentioned above, with differing strengths and weakness on each individual level.

      Point 3 ? ability to win their own election in 2020:
      G. W. Bush failed this point with selection of Dick Cheney. He wanted a trusted advisor that he could count on and I can?t fault him on that. But Cheney was age limited and was not going to be able to carry the party after G. W. Bush and predictably, we were left with a vacuum and look at the result. G. H. W Bush?s selection of Dan Quayle was not much better, had he won in 1992, Quayle would have been young enough to run in 1996, but I?m not sure that he would have resonated with the people enough. I wasn?t impressed with him at that time(though I was young). Likewise, Bill Clinton had Al Gore who (with the personality of a 2?x4?) could not carry his party to keep the White House, even losing in his home state of Tennessee. Although I will admit he did a lot better than he could have done in the 2000 election. Again, many names out there that as of this point might be able to win their own election, even some scoring slightly higher that Rubio right now? but with 8 years of VP under his belt, I believe that he will mature very nicely.

      Lesser but important points:

      Another lesser point that must be considered, is the vacuum loss in the position vacated to ascend to VP. Acat, you make a very valid point in this. However, Flagstaff is right? we have to trust Rick Scott to have our back in filling the vacated seat in the Senate. As I read your response, this was my first thought as I read your comment and I was glad to see it addressed by the originator of this thread. My concern with selecting some of the sitting GOP governors for the VP (or cabinet positions after the election) is that many of the states that the exciting talent would be coming from are ones that really need a strong GOP presence in the governor?s mansion. My state of Ohio has been hit extremely hard with the economic downturn and mismanagement of our previous 2 governors? Taft (R) and Strickland (D). Does anyone think that New Jersey is going to put anyone even close to Christie in the governor?s office? The same can be said about Jindal in traditionally corrupt and Democratic leaning Louisiana. Yes the federal government is a mess, but the states are also having to rebuild themselves. They also need some stability in their executive branches to get/keep things moving in the right direction.

      Flagstaff pointed to the need to establish a GOP foothold in the White House with successive truly conservative POTUS(s). To drive that point home, how many federal judicial positions are there open right now? How many of them will vacate in the next 8 or 16 years? Also, how old are the Supreme Court Justices right now? I would hazard a guess that the majority of the Supreme Court seats will come open in the next 8-12 years. We need not only a GOP POTUS for the next 8-16 years, we need a conservative one that will appoint justices (on all levels) that respect the constitution.

      I could go on, but I have rambled long enough I thank you all for your time.

      • Flagstaff

        I completed skipped over the importance of holding the White House for selecting federal judges at all levels. Perhaps the most lasting damage by Obama will turn out to be his appointment of two marginally unqualified people to the Supreme Court. We can’t afford to have him pick Kennedy’s or Scalia’s successors. That makes it even more important to win this time.

        • dbkohl

          Hopefully Ginsburg and Breyer hold on for another year.

      • Michael_Handley

        How about Congressman Kevin McCarthy from California? He has experience in both business and Politics. He is the Majority Whip in the House and he is doing great job. I just fininshed a interview with him for a online news paper, (AV NewsToday Online), and I have to say he can get the job done. I think he would be a good fit with Perry on the campaign trail and a great advisor for any President. I watched him during a town hall and during a city presentation and he didn’t need cue cards, teleprompters or notes. This man is the real deal. He already has reasonable name recognition and few enemies. He is a power player that can knows how to work the crowd and he doesn’t make very many gaffs. He would make a great VP.

        • Flagstaff

          “don’t support the person who could win, support the one who should win.”

          If Rubio won’t run, or if the nominee won’t ask him, so be it. My goal is to let them know I think both situations are wrong for the country.

          There are a lot of good men in the Republican Party. But did you listen to Rubio’s speech?

          This is a man who needs to be speaking to a national audience, not to the Senate.

        • kestrel

          What would McCarthy add to the ticket above other candidates?

          His score on the Heritage Action scorecard is a dismal 60%, far below even Richard Lugar (77%) who’s about to be booted in a primary, and not much above Olympia Snowe (51%). (By contrast, Rubio’s score is 93%).

          I see no evidence that McCarthy supported “Cut Cap Balance”, a plan that would have avoided the first-ever U.S. credit downgrade. Just give us some specifics, please.

    • rightjb

      LOVE me some Marco. A little young, no executive experience but first GOP candidate (for me at least) since Reagan that EDUCATES conservative principles that can be understood an inspiring to non-politico’s.

      There may just be one problem. He might not meet the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification. I know, i know…why should we care about THAT anymore? After all, if the Dems ignore the Constitution to get their guy in why can’t we?

      Article on why Rubio is NOT a NBC – http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/national-archives-its-official-marco.html

      Article on why Rubio IS a NBC – http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-marco-rubio-is-natural-born-citizen.html

      I report. You decide.

      • Flagstaff

        Are you sure you’re in the right place?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The only qualification listed here is “he gives a good speech”. He may be articulate, but I don’t see what that really adds to the ticket other than being able to mop the floor with Biden, but then pretty much anyone can do that.

    I’ll grant that if Perry is the nominee, his lack of experience is less important, but let’s not forget how big a deal was made of that last time with Palin, and she’d been a sitting governor for awhile, showing at least how she’d govern.

    If someone like Bachmann is the nominee, then the executive experience of the VP selection becomes the most importaint thing.

    • Flagstaff

      By all rights, John L.McCain should have beaten Obama the last election. He had more experience, knowledge, and common sense by far, but Obama won on charisma and sound bites. As articulate as Rubio is, that’s how inarticulate McCain was. Even Palin couldn’t save him, partly because the press could never get past the idea that she was a conservative “girl” and therefore just fluff.

      The VP doesn’t only appear in debates, he makes appearances every day to advance the campaign (at least, he does in a well-run campaign), and he should be allowed to say things that will get good press coverage every night. Rubio can do this better than anybody else. He can bust an opponent without seeming petty and/or small, which is a skill Pawlenty hasn’t mastered yet, and it’s the reason Pawlenty dropped out. He saw his strategy of attacking the little things wasn’t working for him.

      They “why?” Because we need to make sure we win this time, not next time.

      Re: Executive experience for a Bachmann VP. Good point. A former governor or Speaker would actually be the best match for her and only her, but it won’t happen that way. She is about the only one who Rubio couldn’t help much, other than by explaining away her mis-statements, and when you have to do that, all is lost anyway. IMHO, she is flaming out already.

      All of my opinions come with a guarantee: some of them are going to be wrong.

  • APA Guy

    I’d like him at VP too, but how nice it would be to have him leading the way on all matters legislative. Plus, I could really support a Perry-Pawlenty ticket any day.

    • Flagstaff

      he can still do that.

      Perry/Pawlenty reminds me of another odd couple, Johnson/Humphreys.

      Perry/Rubio makes me think of an upgrade to Bush/Cheney. A better Bush and a young, electable Cheney.

      • APA Guy

        Pawlenty excites me where Independents are concerned. I think through him the ticket message can reach them, and he has a crossover appeal that Perry will be lacking a bit.

        One of my biggest fears is that we take back the White House, then get a softy as Senate Majority Leader. All of a sudden we would find ourselves fighting budget battles with our own party.

        • acat

          Perry has successfully gone toe to toe with the Texas legislature and .. they backed down. Republican-dominated, too.

          I want Rubio in the Senate so there’s a strong, competent team to take over when Perry makes McConnell’s head explode….

          Mew

        • Scope

          did Pawlenty have when he seemed to have no appeal, by most polling anyway. Pawlenty got out as he knew that he had little appeal with most that were polled anyway. What segment that has been polled, does Perry lose in? What group does he lose in?

          • acat

            Pawlenty retired a popular governor in a blue state with an unpopular Dem governor, Minnesota, that happens to be next to another turning-red state, Wisconsin.

            Pawlenty on the ticket may not add any appeal – charismatically – but he would force the Dems to spend money in the northwoods that they otherwise could spend in the battlegrounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

            Mew

  • Michael_Handley

    If you look back to 2008 you can see the effect of someone getting elected to office with no experience. The candidates for President and Vice President must have prior experience in business and politics. That experience has to be real and it has to be successful. So far Perry and Cain have it. Perry appears to be stiring the eletorate better than the others. As for VP… look for someone with the above qualifications.

    • Flagstaff

      Sorry.

  • Flagstaff

    But Rubio has more experience now than did Obama in 2007, although not as much as Nixon did when Eisenhower picked him, and Rubio is a better man than Biden.

    Until recent years, the VP spot has been primarily a window dressing, get-us-some-regional-votes kind of office. Cheney started to make it a more substantial position, then Obama brought in the clown.

    Perry and Romney both have plenty of experience but could benefit from some timely, non-elite conservative advice. Bachmann needs somebody to tell us what she really means when she gets off script.

    I’m not sure anybody would be thrilled to be second banana to any of these people, but in Rubio’s case it would be a direct step on the way to the White House, and you can’t say that for anybody else who’s in a position to take the job.

    I’m sure your objection will be repeated if Rubio is picked. I know this diary should have waited until next year, but sometimes an idea just worms its way onto the keyboard.

  • Darin_H

    None will be exactly as good as Rubio, because, well, it’s tough to follow for anyone. I’ve been a big supporter of sending my senator to the Veep position. I was ecstatic to vote for him in the primary and the general last year, and would be pumped to vote for him yet again. He’s a candidate who could hit the ground running right out of the gate (something that hurt Palin with McCain’s rollout of her). Rubio brings all those things you list plus all the intangibles.

    Rick Scott can put Adam Hasner in the Senate (even though I’m probably going to vote for him in the primary, the polling just isn’t moving for him yet, I still have hope!), it’s a step down from Marco, but not a huge one.

  • gawken

    …for the following reasons.

    1. Rubio doesn’t want the VP spot ( as has been well discussed earlier here)
    2. He especially doesn’t want to be Mitt’s VP…because he’d be tied to Mitt’s agenda, whith which he’s not totally in agreement. Snd Mitt woudl never ask him, for fear of beign refused…and youc an NEVER keep that story a secret.
    3. Rubio would probably run with Perry, if Perry asked him…but Rick is a dominant enough figure that he can choose someone else . Marco would be far more effective, and valuable, campaigning for the GOP ticket.

  • snowshooze

    Let him continue in his current position.
    Remember the job description of Vice President?
    Survive the President.
    Now, I took the time to watch his Reagan Library speech, and it was quite impressive, to say the least. Outstanding is a bit closer to how I feel.
    Rubio does not need to hitch his wagon to anyone.
    Perry can win just fine without him, so too can Romney and Bachmann.
    My dog stands a pretty good chance against Obama right now.
    Unfortunately, my dog is not interested in the rigors of filling the position, he is concerned that he will have to be around people he doesn’t like and his schedule will get all disrupted,
    Rubio, I believe, should remain independent of any other candidate. Guilt by association is a risk he would be taking on, and I do not see it as worth taking a risk on.
    4 to 8 years of rotting away as VP I do not see as an asset.
    You might be able to enlighten me on how many times a VP has succeeded a strong President and carried two terms…I will look into it but am not certain it is going to be very encouraging.
    Also, I believe there is a certain cycle that defies logic in the Presidency. Ok, maybe it does not Defy it… but there it is.
    It appears to me that after a certain period, complacency sets in, and after that… it all goes down the tubes and whoever is in, get’s ousted..for overreach, arrogance, or general stupidity.
    Rubio stated he is not putting himself on the potential VP ticket, and I do believe it is the right choice all-around.
    Give him the freedom and independence, a couple more years of front line battle, and then, turn him loose.

    • snowshooze

      Yeah… as suspected, those VP’s who were elected after having done their stint are spread pretty thin. Nixon.
      I am thinking that pushing Rubio into that spot would risk his being a throw-away, and he is too much an asset for that.

    • Flagstaff

      I think. Especially, “Rubio, I believe, should remain independent of any other candidate. Guilt by association is a risk he would be taking on, and I do not see it as worth taking a risk on.”

      And he’s certainly said he’s not interested. I still feel like anybody else that WWW picks will be second best. I haven’t seen anything this week to make me think our nominee will not be Perry, and perhaps Rubio helps him less than he helps the others. Second best, however, doesn’t mean second rate.

      I agree with Scope, above. Tim Pawlenty adds very little to any of the other possible tickets. Some good alternatives who do add value and might accept the call (and some objections that can be raised), however, are:

      Herman Cain: Knows business. A gimmick candidate for VP. No political experience.

      Rick Santorum: Strong on defense. With Perry, he might tilt things too far towards the “evangelical right” that Gloria Borger seems to be terrified of.

      Newt Gingrich: Long shot, but would add national experience. Lots of baggage and probably wouldn’t accept.

      Michelle Bachmann: Adds nothing except her gender to Perry’s ticket, but would help Romney. Another gimmick. Probably wouldn’t accept, anyway.

      Bobby Jindal: Could be accused of being a gimmick, but is solid. Would help any of the leaders. A strong dark horse candidate for VP, despite what I may have written higher up in the thread.

      My last and “best” pick to help Perry? Mitt Romney. If it’s Perry as Pres, he could pull a Reagan and pick his top opponent to “balance” his ticket, and like GHW Bush, he might take the job.

      If it’s Romney on top? He could REALLY use Rubio, but Jindal or Cain would work well with him.

      After that exercise, I’m more convinced than ever that we need Rubio.

      • acat

        On the one paw, you argue that we should try to gain a conservative – not GOP, *conservative* lock on the White House for 12-16 years by running a double-conservative ticket .. Perry/Rubio.

        On the other paw you’re suggesting a Perry/Romney ticket, one that’s undeniably conservative/squish – as bad as Reagan/Bush 1.0 – would somehow be good.

        Either your argument is actually for a GOP lock on the White House at the expense of conservatism, or you have a lot more faith in Romney’s conservatism than .. most of the rest of Red State.

        Mew

        • Flagstaff

          That comment was very specifically (although I didn’t say so) addressed to the idea of “if not VP Rubio, who, and why?”

          Sometimes when I get rolling, I even surprise myself.

          The idea of Perry/Romney was strictly an observation of what would boost the electability of nominee Perry. I think it would, but maybe not a lot. I suppose there are some Perry supporters that it would keep away from the polls.

          I do have more faith in Romney’s conservatism than a lot of other people. But you have a point. That’s why I wrote the final sentence.

          All opinions and forecasts come with a money-back guarantee. Funds deposited in the Bernie Madoff investment plan.

          woof

          • acat

            While Romney’s presence on the ticket would bring some ficons in, it would also push away some Tea Partiers. Call it a net wash.

            Pawlenty gains most of the advantages plus putting the northwoods into play without turning off the tea drinkers.

            Both still have one enormous problem. They’re white and men.

            Gov. Martinez is neither, and while a double-southwestern ticket would be historically unusual, the double-bubba ticket worked out quite well for the Dems, and – as the DeVine Gamecock pointed out – she would steal a march on the Dems on two fronts. As much as the idea of thinking in blocs strikes me as counter-conservative, the idea of eliminating the “GOP is the party of old white guys” meme is quite compelling.

            I’ll stipulate that Rubio is the gold standard by which other veep contenders must be judged, but I remain convinced that conservatism would be better served by the career track that Moe Lane outlined for Sen. Rubio.

            The other thought I’ll throw out is that just because 2012 is the year of WWW/XXX doesn’t mean 2016 must be the same pairing. I could see a Perry/Cain or Perry/Bachmann ticket in 2012, with – in this example – Cain retiring in 2015 for a younger conservative in the J.C. Watts mold, or Bachmann accepting an appointment to a “real job” like SecTreasury or Fed chief.

            I agree, though, that if WWW is Romney, his odds are greatly increased by having Rubio on the ticket… but it comes at the cost of Rubio being forever tainted with any squishiness that Mitt engates in during their shared term.

            Mew

          • Flagstaff

            But I agree those are all worth considering. However–

            I.

            **”While Romney?s presence on the ticket would bring some ficons in, it would also push away some Tea Partiers. Call it a net wash.”**

            I had the same thought about Perry/Romney. Maybe we’ll find out.

            I’m not the best person to evaluate Pawlenty’s effect on anybody’s ticket. I thought he was improving himself when he got the new look, lowered his voice and started talking about substance. Then he ruined it by attacking others on very petty issues. He started looking like a confused midget in a room full of basketball players. He seemed insecure, not assertive. That’s why I don’t think he helps, but maybe I’m just wrong.

            Gov. Martinez is a gimmick candidate all the way, with less to support her than Sarah Palin had.

            I agree with the idea that Perry’s VP might change in 2016. That would be a good time to bring in Rubio, too, if he hasn’t faltered. Why not? I still say he is so positive now we should take advantage of it. If he’s willing, of course.

            **”I agree, though, that if WWW is Romney, his odds are greatly increased by having Rubio on the ticket? but it comes at the cost of Rubio being forever tainted with any squishiness that Mitt engates in during their shared term.”**

            Perhaps the future of Marco Rubio is better assured if he doesn’t run for VP this time, but what if it comes at the cost of Obama being re-elected? And I personally don’t see Rubio being tainted by anything a President Romney might do, plus he might be able to prevent something bad from happening.

            II.

            **”As much as the idea of thinking in blocs strikes me as counter-conservative, the idea of eliminating the ?GOP is the party of old white guys? meme is quite compelling.”**

            I sincerely hope that we are NEVER reduced to the point where each ticket has to have one man, one woman, one hispanic, one black, one jew… well, that’s impossible; Sammy Davis, Jr. is dead, isn’t he? But what if we’re reduced to having to choose among those groups to have a “balanced” ticket. It was bad enough when tickets had to be “regionally” balanced.

            That’s a problem we face with Cain, Bachmann, Palin, Martinez, Jindal, even Nikki Haley, on the national ticket. Even though they are qualified and appropriate (to varying degrees) in either spot, this year, at least, they all look like, “Us too, we can do that too.” I agree we need to do it more, but there is something wrong with screening candidates by characteristics they were born with. Meanwhile, that tactic can’t be allowed to go to the Democrats by default, either; but just as we got no credit for naming female and black members to the Supreme Court, don’t expect us to get any credit for breaking any barriers in the national ticket. The Democrats beat us to it, and we do have to face that. Only a few of us remember Larry Doby.

            Unfortunately, at the local level and maybe higher, too many politicians try to campaign on that “I’m one of you, you are my people and I’ll protect/support/favor you” concept. Once that becomes standard, I think the United States is doomed to disintegration.

            The early concept behind the Constitution was that Representatives represent their neighbors, Senators represent their States, and together they and the Executive Branch represent the country, working out differences peacefully by argumentation and discourse. When that process went into action a few weeks ago, it was vilified as being responsible for a later downgrade of our credit rating.

            woof

          • acat

            It’s not just about Pawlenty, it’s also about forcing the Dems to compete in Minnesota and Wisconsin – turf that, without a compelling set of coattails, the unions can pretty much count on.

            The current Minnesota governor, Dayton (D-idiot) is unpopular, Pawlenty retired popular, there’s an opportunity to flip both the governors’ mansion and one of the Senate seats with solid coattails – plus it puts Wisconsin even further into play. The veep is not just about winning the White House, it’s also about how to build momemtum to run the table.

            I also disagree with your assertion that Martinez is a “gimick”, any more than Palin proved to be. That McCain confused the two says unfavorable stuff about him, eh?

            The point is, there are other hispanic conservatives, or black conservatives, or even black jewish conservatives, should we decide to do the “bloc” thing. Yes, it looks a little like “me too”, or – to be more blunt – “Uncle Tom”. It also reduces the believability of the race card. and we’re sure to see it regardless of which of our current top four candidates ends up headlining the ticket. Yes, even Bachmann.

            I don’t like bloc-think, it’s not conservative. It is, however, necessary to understand how it’s played since we don’t yet control the narrative-makers.

            Mew

          • Flagstaff

            According to Allan Lichtman, it doesn’t matter what we do.

  • ningrim

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      I want him to stay in the Senate until 2022, transfer over to Florida Governor in that year, then run for President in either 2024 or 2028. Fifty-three or fifty-seven is a perfectly respectable age to be PotUS, and this way we maximize his oratorical impact.

      You gotta think long-term here, that’s all I’m saying.

      • snowshooze

        But I agree, for all the reasons previously stated. You are thinking a bit longer game though.

        • acat

          It’s about time Conservatives try it.

          (cheshire grin)

          Mew

          • snowshooze

            As they use indoctrination and propaganda to I believe a greater advantage… if advantage is the correct term…
            I prefer to think that conservatives would rather lead a kitten to water rather than throw it into it in a gunnysack…
            I think the word is integrity.
            Which makes it a bit tougher to win, but the win’s are more honorable.
            I have trouble articulating this to the zombies…and find my abilities of persuasion running a bit short at times, but coming from a line of loggers and fishermen..I think I am doing fairly well.
            Mostly, they’d just whack you in a disagreement, and if you fell down first… you were obviously incorrect…
            Arf.

      • Flagstaff

        Just don’t agree with it.

        A Rubio Presidency is coming; the sooner the better. If he is not Mr. XXX, who will follow WWW into the White House (if WWW is even elected, which becomes problematical if Rubio isn’t XXX)?

        Elected sooner, he does more good than he can ever do in the Senate or as governor of Florida. My whole point was long-term thinking, but also the recognition that there is an immediate need to win this time. Furthermore, if Rubio is VP this time, it can tone down the nomination fight a lot the next time we have a contest, hopefully not until 2020.

        I’ve seen you in shorts, Moe. Kim Kardashian you are not. Thanks for commenting, though.

      • rightwingmom52

        There are too many variables not just in the 2012 election, but thereafter. Will we retain a clear House majority? Get back the Senate? Have enough conservatives to really hold the line and enact reforms instead of just talking about what we want to do?

        Let’s assume that Perry/Rubio is elected, the House stays about the same, we win a slim majority in the Senate, but then fail to repeal Obamacare or stop the spending or make a meaningful difference in any one or two of the “Tea Party” issues because of a few squishes (or God forbid, Perry isn’t the conservative we all think he is), Either way Perry/Rubio is blamed, and we might end up losing an up and coming Reagan.

        • Flagstaff

          An underlying assumption which I didn’t state was that a Perry/Rubio ticket would have longer coattails than any other slate.

          I am expecting that we will have plenty of true conservative candidates for Congress from now on; that we will learn from their example instead of immediately reverting back to the RINO corral.

          The party is still in the process of shakeout. The faster the better. If what you fear comes to pass, I am doomed to die without seeing us find our way out of this mess.

          I do think that if a leader is confident and assured in his conservatism, the squishes will come along for the easy ride.

          Thanks for commenting.

          • rightwingmom52

            Six of one, half dozen of the other. I see merits/problems with both approaches. Good news is we’re all on the same side. As others and I have said before, I sincerely hope that whichever GOP nominee is elected in 2012, I hope he/she finds places for most of the field of current candidates in the administration. There is a lot of talent that needs to be put to good use for the country, and if led by a conservative POTUS in hand with a conservative Congress, I’m hopeful we could right the ship. I agree that the more conservative we elect, the easier it will be to keep the squishes in line and maybe bring a few more “moderates” to our side.

          • Flagstaff

            Aside: If Obama were to decide to retire, as LBJ did, who would the Democrats have to choose from? Our field is derided on cable because it’s supposedly weak.

            The Dems who have been mentioned along this line have been Hillary, Feingold of Wisconsin, and Dennis Kucinich. I say Kucinich is the Democrats’ Ron Paul, except that Ron Paul is sane.

          • acat

            Remember, think governors. The only non-governor who has the cred is Hillary…

            That means Moonbeam could be in, Andrew Cuomo could run, Beverly Perdue would be an interesting opponent, Kitzhaber could jump in, Lincoln Chafee could probably run for the Dem nom on his record …

            Then there’s the former governors who went to D.C. like Napolitano… Sure, she may be tarred with some of the Obama agenda, but – like Hillary – she could also point out where she won arguments and made things better.

            Don’t sell the Dems short, eh?

            Mew

          • Flagstaff

            was being considered to replace Biden in this election. Makes too much sense. In fact, it follows my own reasoning from the Democrats’ side.

            You heard it here first.

            Woof

    • acat

      And .. there are other Hispanic GOP conservatives out there.

      Mew

  • lilolady

    Unconstitutional? What? Me worry? Is Marco Rubio a
    Natural Born citizen ?( being born to parents who were BOTH citizens of America at the time of his birth). I do have to wonder what might happen if he, or another in his position, being elected to the Congress and rising to be considered in the line of succession, should the sitting President die in office? Pelosi was in line. Vice Pres. Biden is next right now. Doesn’t Rubio’s lack of being a natural born citizen also prevent him from the Vice Presidency? Either we respect and deem the the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land or we do not.. How can one claim to be a conservative but not a Constitutional Conservative?

    • Flagstaff

      The links are not credible and not worth the time to comment further.

      • azmar

        By history and natural laws, all children are born into the citizenship of their parents; and in the great majority, that’s the desire of the parents. The baby inherits their love of country and is raised in all the customs, culture, language of that land. You may recall that when Cubans began streaming into Florida, they were not seeking to become Americans. They were only waiting for Castro to be out so they could return to their homeland. Rubio was born Cuban and became a US citizen by current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It appears he came to love the new land, but he was born and raised with divided allegiance, regardless of the fact that his parents later became US citizens. This is why the Constitution makes him ineligible; a “natural born citizen” as intended by the framers, is born allegiant solely to the US. This is an extremely important requirement by which we must abide. Otherwise, if only “birth on the soil” is accepted, all the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants would be eligible, even those who are demanding their “rights” with no love for the US. For more clarification of “nbc”, see http://federalistblog.us and ttp://www.theobamafile.com or http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          It makes you stupid, and makes you say and do stupid things. Like, say, throwing away a Rubio because you’re too lazy to work at tossing out an Obama.

          Moe Lane

          PS: I don’t argue with devotees of the phlogiston theory of chemistry, either.

        • Jack_Savage

          Which involved living with and working with Cuban refugees in South Florida. You say:

          “You may recall that when Cubans began streaming into Florida, they were not seeking to become Americans. They were only waiting for Castro to be out so they could return to their homeland.”

          Unfortunately for you, that is not what I recall, and it is certainly not what they said. Maybe you have some first – hand information you could share, because I certainly do. To a person, every Cuban refugee regarded themselves as Americans – sad for their homeland, but grateful for the chance that America gave them. That went triple for their children.

          If “divided allegiance” were the standard, most of the left might need deportation, but certainly not Cuban-Americans. What an ill-informed post.

  • SoFiMil

    (And I’m not implying you said this, Flagstaff.)
    Rubio has the potential to be am excellent Veep, as does T-Paw. One problem I see is that it appears Rubio would respectively decline having his name on any short list. We need several worthy alternatives in case the ideal scenario doesn’t play out, thus lowering expectations for a win in November 2012.

    • Flagstaff

      We also need to fight the “I’ll never vote for XXX if he’s our nominee” mentality.

  • williamjameson

    the focus is always primarily on the potus candidate and as Veep Rubio’s talent would surely be wasted. Rubio is presidential material not veep material. Sorry but that’s how I envision Rubio and I’m confident he’d agreed. Sure having a minority would be nice but what matters most is results not roots. In the end it all depends on who wins the potus nomination. This diary is good regardless because it shows respect for the VP office which is often seen as unimportant.

    I see Rubio running for potus in 2016 if Obama wins 2012 or 2020 or 2024 all depending on this elections outcome. Rubio is smart and sure of himself and he’s a strong debater who understands the fiscal side of politics while respecting the needs of social conservatives. After living in FL for nearly 3 years my perspective is based on tv and newspaper interviews.

    Would Rubio accept the Veep offer, maybe. I think there are several presidential candidates ( Mitt Romney, Michele Bachman and Herman Cain) and former (TPaw) who could fill the Veep shoes. Even Newt Gingrich the man of ideas wouldn’t be a bad choice because he’s a good negotiator.

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    I don’t know that the MSM will treat him as one. He’s a Florida Cuban — a group known for its conservatism — I’m not sure what Latinos in other parts of the country really think of Cubans.

    The MSM may treat him as whatever is the Hispanic/Latino equivalent of “Uncle Tom” or “house n***er,” the way they do Allen West, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, et al.

    And just as those three conservative black men don’t seem to really attract much black support, I’m not sure Marco Rubio will attract much Hispanic/Latino support.

    What I’m trying to say is: If you want to promote him, promote him because he’s a smart, capable, articulate, visionary conservative, NOT because he has a Spanish surname.

  • californiagold

    ….but he has no executive experience. And whoever the republican nominee becomes, that person should pick a vp running mate who is experienced and ready to take on the job from day one. Rubio has tremendous potential, but he has a short resume.

    One of GW Bush’s smartest decisions was his choice of Dick Cheney as his running mate. Perry or Romney should follow that model in 2012.

  • http://www.libertygirlusa.com libertygirlusa

    While I have read the arguments here on both sides, I tend to think that Rubio’s talents may be wasted as VP for the next eight years. There is a serious lack of conservative leadership in the Senate (DeMint excluded from this, of course).

    I may be a little biased as I believe that the Article I branch should be the most powerful branch. We need great leaderships in the House and Senate just as much, if not more. This is alway why I opposed any run by Congressman Paul Ryan for President. Ryan is too useful where he is right now.

    As we witnessed after the 1994 elections, Congress is capable of framing national debate and leading. I think we need our great leaders to stay put for now. We have plenty of Presidential and VP candidates to choose from elsewhere.

    • Flagstaff

      make the case against my position very well. If I didn’t believe Rubio were so much superior to all other choices, I might agree.

      We shall see, either way.