Shamelessly begging Rubio to run. Why shouldn’t we?

The other night on Red Eye (my occasional guilty pleasure), during a discussion about whether or not Chris Christie would get into the presidential race, someone asked a question to the effect of,  "Who else is there?" Host Greg Gutfeld threw out (as sort of an afterthought), "Marco Rubio?" There was a pause in the banter and then everyone moved on.


I nodded my head in agreement and then I thought, "Why can't we, as conservatives, shamelessly beg a candidate to run?" If the RINOs and GOP establishment can drool all over themselves over Chris Christie and turn Christie Watch 2011 into a 24-hour Reality TV event, why shouldn't we do the same and demand a candidate that we really want?


While I realize that some are happy with the slate of Republican candidates, many are not. I am not.  Romney has never governed as a conservative and he has a long history of championing causes better aligned with the Democratic Party. Johnson and Paul are Libertarians and belong in that party, not the GOP. I'm very concerned that Perry cannot recover and regain the turf he lost in recent debates. I'm even more concerned that he is not up to the rhetorical challenges of a modern-day campaign. Cain's lack of a clear foreign policy nearly disqualifies him in my mind (although ABO still applies). Bachmann has had serious, almost unrecoverable gaffes in recent weeks and everyone tells me that Santorum will not be the nominee.


Which leaves our party and the conservative movement longing for...someone else.  We need someone who is both an ideological conservative and who can beat Obama. In other words, someone who can effectively articulate conservatism - and mean it.  At the same time, the nominee must have some crossover appeal and be a magnet for money.


Nearly every conservative I know thinks Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be that candidate - but not this time around. It's too soon for him to peak. I disagree about the time frame. First, we don't have time to wait around while either Obama or a RINO plunges our country toward the abyss. Yes,  Rubio is young; he hasn't paid his dues by becoming an entrenched 20-year Patriarch of the Senate. But who really wants that? If Rubio hunkers down in the senate for 8 years before running for president, one of two things will happen. He will either become the kind of crony establishment Republican we all despise, or he will hold to his conservative values and be marginalized by his colleagues in the senate and the GOP leadership. Neither of those scenarios is a path to the 2020 presidential nomination. (Will we even have a country in 2020?)


Yesterday I re-watched Sen. Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library (see below). I was inspired all over again and had a big lump in my throat. (I'm not generally a lumpy throat kind of gal). His defense of the free-enterprise system and American exceptionalism draw such a sharp contrast to Obama's mantra that the men seem to belong to a different species altogether. Rubio's story of his Cuban exile parents and grandparents is the polar opposite of Obama's immigrant family story. While Obama and his family found reasons to blame and disparage America, Rubio's family was in awe of the opportunity here and taught their children to work hard out of gratitude for the blessings of liberty.




In addition to (obviously) being able to appeal to Hispanic voters, Rubio is uniquely positionedto be the game-changer in the Social Security debate. Here's what he said at the Reagan Library:

"Now, I personally believe that you cannot make changes to these programs for the people that are currently in them right now. My mother just – well she gets mad when I say this. She is in her eighth decade of life and she is on both of these programs. I can’t ask my mom to go out and get another job. She paid into the system. But the truth is that Social Security and Medicare, as important as they are, cannot look for me how they look for her. 

"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us... 

"...These changes will not be easy....It will be hard. It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good.
"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

Rubio, who was in 4th grade when Reagan became president, can make the argument that he will leave Social Security untouched for his mother, but will call on his generation to "take one for the country." It's a tantalizing, iconic image and perhaps the only way we win this debate and reform these programs.  Seniors will go for it and young people will as well, because (not to be cynical or anything...) it won't make a hill of beans of difference in their lives right now other than to make them feel good about helping their country.


Rubio has also proven that he's able to appeal to a wide variety of voters. He trounced both Charlie Crist (RINO-turned-I) and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the 3-way Senate race in 2010, receiving nearly half of the votes cast in the swing-state election.
Rubio raised $24 million for that race and has $500K remaining. If he were to jump in the race tomorrow, I suspect the big spenders who have been holding back would begin throwing money at him.


He's been on the national scene for the last two years and is at the top of his game. He has a national following including 245,000 Facebook fans and 50,000 Twitter followers. Impressive numbers for a U.S senator. Just for the sake of comparison, my senator, Rob Portman (R-OH) has 27,000/8,000 Facebook/Twitter followers respectively.


One other factoid/trend I'd like to throw out: If 2008 showed us anything, it demonstrated that the country has no appetite (shallow that it may be) for candidates who are grumpy old men. As many have noted, part of Herman Cain's appeal is his positive attitude and outlook.  In 2010, in addition to young, earnest enthusiastic Senator Rubio, we found conservatives like Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, and Rand Paul are the new face of the GOP, replacing the overweight white guy with big hair.


In Ohio, a 32-year old Iraq war veteran and state representative ran for State Treasurer. In a stunner, Josh Mandel beat the incumbent and raked in 2 million votes, making him the top vote-getter in the entire state. Governor John Kasich only pulled in 1.8 million votes. What State Treasurer does that?


My point is that this is the conservative trend in the country. People will put their money and efforts behind an ideological conservative with a solid record, even if the record is not that long. In Ohio, it's possible Mandel will be our next Senator. He will likely challenge Sherrod Brown and he will likely win. Mandel has already raise over $2 million and hasn't even officially announced he's running.


After my Red Eye revelation, I decided to write this diary, thinking there were probably others who felt the same way. I started writing it Wednesday night, but put it aside and went to bed. I flipped on the radio early Thursday afternoon to Rush asking essentially the same question. Why shouldn't Rubio run? He said, "Rubio would walk away with the election." He would "win in a walkover."  Heh. If nothing, Rubio getting in the race would make Karl Rove, et al curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.


If you haven't watched Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library, take a look (and reminisce about some of Reagan's great speeches). Rubio strikes the same chords. Transcript here.

Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

Announcement: New GOP slogan for 2012

Not that anyone asked, but I have come up with a slogan for the GOP that will help them win big in 2012:

The Audacity of Liberty

It's the perfect antithesis to Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, or more appropriately, The Audacity of Hopey Changey. From Obama's book we get this twaddle:

"For in the end, laws are just words on a page- words that are sometimes malleable, opaque, as dependent on context and trust as they are in a story or poem or promise to someone, words whose meanings are subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye" (p. 92) 

Doesn't that just give you a thrill up your leg and inspire you?  To our president, the law means what he says it means. It's malleable, and typical of postmodern thought, we can't really know what it means with certainty. 


I consulted the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language and found the following definition for "audacity":

"Boldness, sometimes in a good sense; daring spirit, resolution or confidence."

And the definition of "hope":

"A desire of some good, accompanied with at least a slight expectation of obtaining it, or a belief that it is obtainable."

Doesn't that essentially describe the Obama presidency in a nutshell?  A bold, daring confidence with a slight expectation that some good will come out of all of this. 


I don't know about you, but I'm a little underwhelmed by "The Audacity of Hope."

Now add that daring and boldness to the concept of "liberty" defined in the 1828 dictionary:

"Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government."

"Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty."

Our country's Founding Fathers gave us a bold, daring experiment in self-government -  a view of  liberty that only reluctantly imposed laws upon its citizens, who were born with natural, unalienable rights. 


John Adams described it this way:

"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness" (The Political Writings of John Adams).

Over a hundred years ago, Frederic Bastiat, a French statesman said,

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" (The Law)."

Because of this common understanding of Natural Law, many people were wary of the Constitution at first, fearing it would create a powerful ruling class.  Madison, in Federalist 46 reminded them that the Constitution explicitly granted the power to the people:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone."

 President Obama swings so far to the left of the Founders and their contemporaries in Audacity of Hope that they would not recognize him as an American president:

"According to [Justice Breyer's] view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on....

"...As we read these documents, they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration. So I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. How could it be otherwise?" (Audacity of Hope, p. 90).

Obama rejects out of hand the collective wisdom of the Founders, who provided the framework for a very limited federal government, and the means by which the people can change it - the amendment process. This process, by design, is difficult, cumbersome, and rare.  Instead, he and other liberal progressives depend on activist judges and the Administrative State behemoth to impose their will upon the American people.  


That's why we need "Audacity of Liberty." A bold, daring return to freedom and self-government.