January 26, 2016
Marco? Oh No!
My brother is vociferously promoting Marco Rubio, as the most conservative Republican who can win the general election against Hillary. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm quite sure I do agree with Ace of Spades who writes,
Now, if we all squawk, and make noise, and have our tantrum, but then, in the end, dutifully support an Amensty Super-Hawk like Marco Rubio, precisely as the Establishment always planned for us to do, do you think they'll take that as a repudiation, and a sign that they must reform?
Or do you think, rather, they'll take that as a sign that they calculated the political math perfectly, and they knew our numbers to three decimal places, and they did everything right, and have successfully Managed their stupid, three-toothed inbred voters yet again?
Of course it's the latter.
They could not possibly take the nomination of Marco Rubio any other way. They would take it as total and complete vindication -- and they'd be right to do so, because it would in fact be total and complete vindication.
It has been charged that some Republicans would rather lose to Hillary than win with Cruz. If nominating Rubio is what it takes to beat Hillary, I'm not sure I could swallow that pill. Fortunately, there's really no reason why Cruz isn't just as electable as the talented but mercurial Rubio. And anyone who says differently may just be one of Jeb or Chris or John - or Marco's - "clients."
So for me, it has to be Cruz, or Trump. I'd prefer Cruz, as I keep saying. I'll take Trump, though, because, while he's kind of stupid and temperamentally unsuited for the job, he would nevertheless also serve as a repudiation of the Establishment's Corporate Client "Conservatism."
GOP 2016 Primary
Posted by JohnGalt at January 26, 2016 2:42 PM
The GOP is nakedly now a "clientist" party the same as the Democrat Party. They just have different clients.
And those clients aren't us.
I just got embroiled in a fiercely pro-Rubio Facebook post the other day. I suggested that Sen. Rubio (C12H22O11 - FL) was exactly the kind of candidate that was not my first choice, but for whom I would settle.
The article was The Case For Marco Rubio Part II: The Salesman (And I think blog friend tg may have posted it).
It's a good piece. In short: conservative ideas are not in wide currency and the GOP needs someone to reach beyond the base and explain these ideas and values outside the insular walls of ThreeSources.
Ace is the man with the bon mot, but starting with a foundation of " it has to be Cruz, or Trump" loses me in a hurry.
I'm utterly enervated by antiestablishmentarianism. RINO used to mean something. Sens. Susan Collins or Lincoln Chafee or Lowell Weicker were Republicans by accident of political geography and were not invested in the party's ideas. The purges of the Tea Party were pretty successful and possibly pareto efficient (more good than harm in total).
But the epithet lives on, meaning "some bastard who dares to think differently than me" and is now joined with "establishment." As Jonah said, it doesn't mean anything anymore "An ideological category that can include Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Occupy Wall Street, the tea parties, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Ben Carson is not a particularly meaningful one."
These shadowy establishment types planned "Marco Rubio?" "Out to three decimal places?" Really? Jeb! and John Kasich were just pawns in the master Rubio plan? I'm running out of question marks.