Quantcast
Published On: Thu, Nov 5th, 2015

Why I can’t vote for Marco Rubio

In my series of “Why I can’t vote” for a particular candidate, I next want to look at just a few of the reasons why Marco Rubio has been scratched off my list ( and it’s not because he drinks a lot of water)..

Marco Rubio blue background looking like cries donkeyhoteyMr Rubio has spent the lion’s share of his adult life in politics, only holding a “real job” as a lawyer for two years.

First, I believe Rubio is firmly establishment despite how the media puts him out there as a Tea Party darling. In Florida, he rode the Tea Party coattails to his Senatorial election and later snubbed joining the newly formed Tea Party caucus.

This is the same man who wouldn’t speak at the National Tea Party Convention and never recognized the Florida Tea Party for helping him get Mel Martinez’s Senate seat. He clearly used the movement for his political gain.

Second, we have heard much about his questionable personal finances although he’s done a good job deflecting the criticisms.

However, in this Tampa Bay Times report from 2010, they outline his lack of financial discipline in much more detail than Donald Trump or any debate moderator has.

Thirdly, Rubio is a foreign policy hawk, some may call him a neocon, to the nth degree. He is all for removing Bashar al-Asaad as he has stated numerous time and he thought that the Iraq war was a good idea.

During a debate with Charlie Christ and Democrat Kendrick Meek in 2010 for the US Senate seat he now essentially vacated, Rubio was asked: Mr. Rubio, is – is America safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?

The part-time Senator replied: I think the answer ultimately is yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge in Iraq. And I think we have to remind ourselves of that, is that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam Hussein no longer is in charge of that country.

Let’s understand one thing. Right now, we are worried about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. Well, if Saddam Hussein was still there, and you know the relationship and the long history between Iraq and Iran, you’d have two nations in a full-blown arms war, the way you’ve seen, for example, between Pakistan and India.

So the world is a better and safer place, and not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. There’s no doubt that Iraq has a long way to go. You know, there are a lot of issues that that society and that that nation-state faces. But it is better off today than it was when Saddam Hussein…

He has also basically admitted the the US military is an occupying force and that the definition of a victory in the War in Afghanistan is a stable nation-state in Afghanistan.

I think, first, let’s define what the role of the United States needs to be in Afghanistan and what I think victory looks like and how we need to define that. And victory, for us, is basically a stable nation-state in Afghanistan.

The reason why that’s so important is not just because of Afghanistan but because of its neighbor in Pakistan. You know, if Afghanistan were to evolve into chaos, fall into the hands of extremists, it would become a base of operations to destabilize Pakistan and ultimately to take over Pakistan, a nuclear state. So that would be the worst possible scenario we can imagine.

So our role – the United States’ role is to provide a level of security so that a civil society can take root, so that governmental entities can take root and so that real leadership can be established.

As far as the tactics that are going to be used to accomplish that, I have confidence in the people that are on the ground there. I have confidence in General Petraeus. I have confidence in the folks that are involved. They will know tactically what needs to happen to accomplish that. But that is our goal there, and it’s an important goal we need to be committed to.

Apparently the role of the US military is not to defeat the enemy that wronged us and come home.

Fourth, Mr. Rubio is generally an anti-tax Republican but there are some questionable votes he’s placed while in different elected office.

Every year as a member of the Florida State legislature (2000-2008), he voted for budgets that would force local school districts statewide to collect more property taxes. The school districts became tax collectors under the direction of the State legislature.

As far as voting for wasteful, big spending let’s look some of the money he brought to his hometown of Miami. Mr. Rubio favored a $60 million subsidy for a new Florida Marlins stadium.

There are more that could be listed.

Then there is the issue of Cap and Trade. He was highly critical of Senate opponent Charlie Crist for supporting Cap and Trade; however, just two years before the Senate election he said the following to a Tallahassee public television station:

“Florida should position itself for what I believe is inevitable, and that is a federal cap and trade program.  Florida should do everything it can to be an early complier so it that can access early compliance funds and so that it can help influence what that cap and trade looks like at the federal level. So I’m in favor of giving the Department of Environmental Protection a mandate that they go out and design a cap and trade or a carbon tax program and bring it back to Legislature for ratification sometime in the next two years”.

I’ve heard some say Rubio is merely the Obama of the right. Maybe, maybe not. But he seems too much like a perfect politician (he’s had a lot of practice). Kinda like the GOP got a “Politician Kit” and put him together just for elections.

Related: 

 

 

On the DISPATCH: Headlines  Local  Opinion

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter

* indicates required
/ ( mm / dd ) [ALL INFO CONFIDENTIAL]

About the Author

- Writer, Co-Founder and Executive Editor of The Global Dispatch. Robert has been covering news in the areas of health, world news and politics for a variety of online news sources. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the website, Outbreak News Today and hosts the podcast, Outbreak News Interviews on iTunes, Stitcher and Spotify Robert is politically Independent and a born again Christian Follow @bactiman63

Tags
Displaying 2 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Chris Christie wants to ‘run the country’, Does that line up with the Constitution? - The Global Dispatch says:

    […] Why I can’t vote for Marco Rubio  […]

  2. LibertyorRegret says:

    Good article, thank you. The more I examine Rubio, the more he comes up short. Your closing line about him being like an assemblage from a political kit is true: he is smooth, but it’s like he’s peaking politically at a time in which the base is past the breaking point with traditional, establishment, career politicians. It’s like Rubio’s performance pleases the establishment while screaming to the base, “Hey, support me because I’ WAY BETTER at all the things you hate about career politicians than Jeb! and everyone else!”
    We need more than a silver tongued politician who is good with words, bad with finances. We need more experience than another ambitious freshman senator. I think Rubio’s enjoying his Fiorina surge, and will soon experience the Fiorina plunge. So be it. He’d make a great lobbyist, not a great POTUS.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign up for our Weekly Newsletter



Categories

Archives

At the Movies



Pin It