Posted on 02/05/2016 10:08:07 AM PST by Kaslin
So would I but I’m afraid Rubio is another Bush. He’ll talk a good game and throw it all away once elected and go back to HIS agenda like W did - Amnesty at all cost.
Maybe they don’t go back far enough. He’d been in the FL legislature since January 2000. Marco so hates to leave a paper trail. That is why he kept conservative bills from reaching the floor of the FL house when he was speaker. That is also one of the reasons why he skips out on so many votes.
The key to advancing the conservative agenda at the federal level is a veto-proof (in the case of a Democrat President) or filibuster-proof (with a Republican President) majority in the Senate. Without that, what matters most is preventing another Democrat in the White House who will issue damaging executive orders and help set the world on fire with feckless diplomatic and military policies.
If GOA is okay with him (on Second Amendment issues) then I'm okay with him, on Second Amendment issues.
Trump is the one who consistently is destroyed by Clinton in the polls. Cruz beats her. Worst yet for Trump:
Cruz has more support among blacks and Hispanics (!), contrary to Drudge’s legend.
The regions were Trump does best against Democrats relative to Cruz are all regions where there won’t be much of a battle anyway: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Hampshire. Of those, only New Hampshire is purple. Cruz, on the other hand, performs better in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Minnesota. Of those, only Minnesota isn’t purple... and Cruz actually could win it!
No way. Not a Trump fan either.
Marco Rubio (R-Amnesty)
It didn’t begin with the Gang of Eight.
He was already siding with illegals when he was Speaker of the Florida House.
At least that's the case here in California.
This is Erick Erickson (Red State) babble. Trump hater extraordinaire. I totally disregard anything Erick says.
Whatcha gonna do if he gets the nomination? Stay home and pout? Vote for some third party candidate who has zero chances to get elected, or vote for Hillary, the criminal?
Wow, I didn’t know Townhall.com wrote the op-ed /sarcasm>
Agreed
You will now say something along the lines of 'Hillary thanks you', but I totally reject that charge.
It is the establishment, by refusing yet again to listen to their constituents, that will elect Hillary.
Mitt Romney would have been a million times better that that arrogant pos who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
I agree..... we’re going to end up with a Cruz/Rubio ticket.... or a Rubio/Cruz ticket. And the world’s richest moron is going to run third party....
As much as it pains me to agree with you you are right. Mitt Romney would have been 1000% better than a commie lovin Muslim with the IQ of a brick.
What about the years from 2000 to 2010. Rubio getting an A from the NRA in 2000 is not surprising at all, nor is it proof of how he’ll vote at any other time. That was his first year in the legislature. He had not learned his way around yet. Marco Rubio is the slipperiest, slimiest candidate inflicted on an electorate. You have to watch his every move, not just trust someone’s observation of one or two years.
Take it from a Floridian who has seen him in action. Marco Rubio is a snake.
As to his other positions? I have not commented on them. Only his Pro-RKBA status. And the fact he aligned with the "Gang of 8" which of course negates any $upport/vote I would give him.
Rubio was, and is PRO-Second Amendment. Larry Pratt said so. If you disbelieve me? Call GOA. ..
What you said in #77! But when I tried to suggest that, I was blamed for everything from the Mountain Meadows Massacre to “Peep Stones.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.