Flaws

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 21. 2016

Presidential candidates always have flaws. Personal flaws, and flaws in the sense that they do not agree with me about everything. Elections are not about messiahs.

I am your basic Libertarian-ish Conservative Constitutionalist "Leave me alone" American, but I am practical.

Ted Cruz is impressive but unelectable. Keep him in the Senate to stir the pot, and thank Texas. Trump is more fun than a barrel of drunk monkeys but he is deeply incurious about anything, to put it nicely. His remarkable work is done for now. Some of the others (eg Kasich, Bush) might be fine but they do not have the pizzazz for the circus this year.

For me, Marco Rubio is at the intersection of the lines where acceptability to me meets electability. He is a serious person.

He is in error on some topics, I feel. Every person has deep flaws (pols maybe more than most), and political errors. Bill's Wife has more personal than political flaws from a general election standpoint, but she is not my candidate.

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 17:12 | Comments (22) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I am your basic Libertarian-ish Conservative Constitutionalist...[however]

-Ted Cruz is impressive but unelectable.
-Some of the others (eg Kasich, Bush) might be fine
-...Marco Rubio is...a serious person. He is in error on some topics
-...Bill's Wife has more personal than political flaws...

A concisely reasoned synopsis. I'll write it on my left forearm in Sharpie before visiting the polls in November.

And to think this place is free.

#1 Ten on 2016-01-21 18:03 (Reply)

A vote for Rubio is a vote for the status quo, which is why Washington elites are supporting him after Bush crashed and burned. They also believe, probably correctly, that he is "for sale" and will bend to their wishes.

I don't much like Trump, but it's important to realize that his success is almost entirely due to citizens desperately trying to find someone who will "stop this s**t" and rescue them from the elites who are trying to deliberately destroy them.

People who have "got theirs" are predictably supporting Rubio and the continuation of the rape of America, while everyone else is looking for a path to survival. My personal opinion is that the status quo is not supportable any longer, and we are faced with stark choices.

Exit questions: Do you really believe that Rubio would be able to deal effectively with the nearly inevitable coming worldwide deep recession or depression? I certainly don't.

#2 GaryS on 2016-01-21 18:12 (Reply)

rubio was a member of the Gang of Eight and supporter amnesty for ALL illegals in the US.

this disqualifies him for further office.

when you side with Schumer you are wrong

#3 rob on 2016-01-21 18:33 (Reply)

None of the candidates from either party are qualified to deal with recession or depression issues...domestic or worldwide. All are in the pocket of one or more interest group(s). They will say anything to get elected and, and if elected, the best we can hope for is that they do nothing. It has been a long time coming but the days of the Government providing basic services (and I don't mean cable TV or phones) and defense of the country are lost The helicopter government has taken a page from the helicopter parenting crowd and to take a phrase from the 50's--Father Knows Best. enough.

#4 rocdoctom on 2016-01-21 18:34 (Reply)

Rubio's position on citizenship (even in 8 years) for illegals is a showstopper for me. Cruz will win against Hillery or Bernie.

#5 Chet Freeman on 2016-01-21 18:51 (Reply)

Cruz for attorney general

#6 steverino on 2016-01-21 19:02 (Reply)

The problem with Marco is he thinks of himself as an immigrant, a Hispanic immigrant. Therefore he sees his life's mission to open the borders to all Hispanic immigrants legal and illegal. The U.S. made a terrible mistake in the 60's when Ted Kennedy convinced congress to dramatically increase legal immigration. He did this for various reasons and probably made millions in the process. But with legal and illegal immigration about 44% of the people living here were born elsewhere. Today we could probably stop illegal immigration and take steps to force most illegals out. We could probably reduce or place a moratorium on legal immigration until the legal immigrants were able to assimilate. But we are quickly approaching the point where it would be impossible to reverse this trend. When somewhere around 50% of the people in American who vote and are legal immigrants (including those who would gain legal status through amnesty) it is unlikely we could ever again stop the masses from rushing the border. We will lose the country and it will quickly be over run by millions who come for the free stuff and will elect politicians who will tax the remaining productive people into poverty to provide free stuff for the new class of voters. We will devolve into a their world country with third world problems and diseases. Once we pass that event horizon of a majority of voters being immigrants and wanting more immigrants the great experiment in freedom and democracy is over. That is what Marco Rubio, John Kasich or Jeb Bush will give us.

#7 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-21 19:30 (Reply)

I'm all in favor of immigration. But I want the people who come here to be people who WANT TO BE AMERICANS, not people who want to be Mexicans or Iraqis or Pakistanis who live in a nicer country than their own.

Here's an example. Drive around any neighborhood in San Jose, California, or most other California cities, on May 5th. Look at all the Mexican flags! Drive those same neighborhoods on July 4th. See many American flags? I have not. The people who fly Mexican flags on Cinco de Mayo but who do not fly American flags on the 4th of July, these people don't want to become Americans. They want to be Mexicans with a higher standard of living.

Trump says he's going to make the Mexicans pay for his wall. That'll be easy to do; impose a 50% tax on remittances. All that money that Mexicans in America send back to their families in Mexico - tax that heavily, and it will not only pay for the wall, it'll encourage lots of illegal aliens to "self-deport", also known as "going home".

#7.1 Ken Mitchell on 2016-01-21 21:44 (Reply)

I was not opposed to immigration at sustainable levels but in the last 50 years it has skyrocketed. I would suggest a moratorium on immigration until all immigrants are assimilated. That might take 20 years or maybe more but it would be the right thing to do. I would also be in favor of ending all aid/welfare/free stuff for immigrants for their lifetime. If they came here to find a better life I say let them find it but don't burden the taxpayer to pay for welfare bums.

One of the things that the government covers up is that when they count immigrants they do not count family reunification immigrants. That is when a person legally immigrates he can then send for his family members to include grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins. AND each of them once here can do the same. So when Uncle Sam tells you that a million people immigrated last year from Africa perhaps another 5 million came in as family reunifcation immigrants without being counted officially. The truth is we are clueless how many immigrants, legal and illegal come here every year. Last year they claim over half a million 'visitors' overstayed their visas. That is government double speak that means they immigrated illegally and we don't know where they are and we don't care. Our immigration system is broken and our country is broke. It may be too late to fix either of these two problems.

#7.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-01-21 22:18 (Reply)

Rubio is already bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, that's why the Establishment has coalesced around him, as j-j-j-jeb crashed and burned first as a man, then as a candidate. Rubio is status quo all day every day.

What does "incurious" have to do with spit??? I don't want curious, I want "can do"! And "not beholden". Only Trump fits that description.

Hard to take seriously anyone who uses "incurious" as a standard for anything real world. Trump's not running for the Department Chair of Humanities.

#8 Earl T on 2016-01-21 20:03 (Reply)

I am tired of charisma and prefer someone who will just go to work.

Therefore, Kasich looks fine to me.

#9 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-01-21 20:58 (Reply)

Cruz is the adult in the room, is that what makes him 'unelectable'?

#10 ligneus on 2016-01-21 21:01 (Reply)

Possibly.

For what it's worth, I don't actually agree with you about Cruz. I see him as making claims to an outsider status (much like John McCain's carefully crafted "Maverick" image), but without much substance to back it up; and with zero reason to believe that it would translate into effective action if he were to win.

However, I must say that I'm inclined to agree with the premise that being the adult in the room dooms a candidate. It certainly worked that way for Scott Walker.

Governor Walker was hands down the candidate who was most capable of running the country while rolling back government overreach in a sane, achievable way.
He showed he could make headway on a principled, conservative, smaller-government agenda without resorting to burn-the-house-down-to-get-rid-of-the-rat tactics.
He did it while the economy was weak, making state budgeting and governance all the more challenging.
He had a demonstrated track record of achievement in spite of a divisive political environment. One where entrenched interests of all stripes launched a veritable avalanche of vitriol and smear tactics as they desperately tried to maintain their preferred status quo.
For all of this, he got nowhere in his bid for the nomination. The electorate's reaction was a collective, "meh."

So, yeah, you're probably right about that.

#10.1 Thos. on 2016-01-22 11:38 (Reply)

I'm a Cruz supporter, but I'm going to paste in this tweet every chance I get:
Jeff @EmpireOfJeff tweets:
"You "conservative" "pundits" still don't get it: Trump isn't our candidate. He's our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim. We good, now?
12:25 PM - 14 Aug 2015 "

Rubio is a RINO in the Bush/Kaisich/Grahamnesty tradition; they care about maintaining their positions in the Elite of the Governing Party. He may be - marginally! - better than the Shrub, but the average midwest voter isn't going to buy it.

I'd like to see Trump self-destruct and take out all the RINO candidates in a massive blaze of glory. I'm coming to believe that this probably won't happen, but I can still hope.

If Cruz can't be the nominee, then I'll gladly vote for the Electoral Wrecking Ball Donald Trump, just to destroy both wings of the Elite Governing Party. This cannot go on - and bringing down the house now will allow the rebuilding to start from someplace other than the abyss.

#11 Ken Mitchell on 2016-01-21 21:33 (Reply)

If you are truly a Constitutionalist, Rubio, Cruz and Jindal are not eligible under the "born of two citizens parents on American soil" clause, a description not used for Congress or the Supreme Court, so I presume the Founding Fathers intended for it to be taken seriously. The O was bad enough, but I realized that something was up with our elitist political parties when they allowed these three to enter the race. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Further, you might want to read up on little Marco's shenanigans before you consider him a viable candidate with the maturity to face the temptations of power…real power.

http://observer.com/2016/01/poor-little-rich-boy/

#12 jma on 2016-01-21 22:06 (Reply)

Seems perfectly well reasoned, except for the minor point that there is no such clause.

#12.1 Formerly known as Skeptic on 2016-01-21 23:50 (Reply)

You're saying that a child of a serviceman or diplomat or US-borne citizen who is born overseas does not qualify? I beg to differ.

#12.2 Sam L. on 2016-01-21 23:53 (Reply)

"not eligible under the "born of two citizens parents on American soil" clause" ... You just made that up, didn't you? I'm fairly well read about political matters, but this doesn't appear in the Constitution itself, or in the Federalist Papers, or in the Anti-Federalist papers, or anywhere in the (admittedly scanty) notes recorded during the Constitutional Convention.

#12.3 Ken Mitchell on 2016-01-22 00:39 (Reply)

What the F is the "born of two citizens parents on American soil" clause and where the H did you find it? Have you EVER actually read the US Constitution?

I guess if you're stupid enough to invent your own clause, you're dumb enough to believe a hit piece by a leftist "journalist" described as "unethical", "unprofessional" and "unable to comprehend case facts", and criticized publicly for his failure to fact check and controversial editorializing.

Not that I'm assuming you support Trump, but it's amazing that people nitpick about Cruz and Rubio while ignoring or overlooking Trump's many current and recent leftist, big government positions.

#12.4 mike m on 2016-01-22 11:33 (Reply)

I'm not for Trump. I agree with News Junkie that he had a purpose but it's time for someone with some conservative principles to take over. I admit that he would be more entertaining than most and I very much appreciate his anti PC, anti illegal immigrant (though he seems to be softening his position on that), get things done attitude. Ken wants to see him blow up the RNC. I think that's a worthy goal.

I find Rubio a very appealing guy. He has a calm serious way of explaining things - and he does explains things instead of saying how great he'll do - that I think a lot of people will appreciate. But, his Gang of Eight amnesty position makes me think he's not quite tough enough or he wouldn't have gotten in bed with Schumer.

I like Cruz. The latest angle against him is that everybody - mostly establishment types - hate him. GOOD! Trump dings him for calling people a liar. McConnell was a liar! I think he can win and I think he can blow up the RNC too.

Carson is probably the best person in any race is probably a century, but as highly as I view him, I worry that he's too good. and not specific enough. Occasionally, you skewer your opponent and he doesn't seem to have the stomach for that. He policy positions are somewhat vague.

Kasich has disappointed me since he was on the budget committee in the '90s.

Bush shouldn't have bothered.

Christie has the combativeness I like but he doesn't have a lot to show for it in terms of accomplishments.

My guy - or rather gal - is Carly. I think she's always on point with specific well thought out ideas. I think she's tough and I agree with her that Hillary is really glad that she doesn't have a chance at the nomination. I wish she came across more as someone who would destroy the status quo, but I think she has the potential.

All that being said, I'd vote for ANY of the pubbies before ANY Democrat that is or isn't running. My order of preference is Carly, Curz, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Trump. Previously I was VERY interested in Perry, Walker, and Jindal (I can pick 'em, can't I?). A lot of how I feel reminds me of how I felt n '92 when I was for Perot (thankfully, it didn't make a difference in the final result since my state went for Bush).

#13 mudbug on 2016-01-21 22:16 (Reply)

I should explain that while I welcome blowing up the RNC, I prefer it to be blown up to adhere to Constitutional principles and grow a spine rather than make better deals.

#13.1 mudbug on 2016-01-21 22:38 (Reply)

"Elections are not about messiahs."

Thank you for that comment!

Among other issues, that was/is one of the biggest issues that I have with Obama supporters - they thought, and some still do, that he was suppose to be like the second coming. And it was/is blasphemous to say anything that wasn't praise about their "god."

And now, when I thought it couldn't get any worse than Obama, it looks like we might end up with the choice of blowhard Trump or Shrillary!

I'm trying, really trying, to see some sort of bright side in this; but, I just cannot.

#14 charles on 2016-01-21 23:56 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 21. 2016

Flaws