Wake Up, Marco! Your Gang of Eight Buddy speaking to Che Guevara supporters

'Gang of Eight' member, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) attended a 'May Day' rally in Chicago. During that rally, he spoke to a crowd that had clearly identified itself as being filled with communists. In fact, as Durbin was speaking, there was a rather large Che Guevara flag being waved from about the tenth row; there is no way that Durbin didn't see it. Though, when asked by a reporter from Breitbart, he attempted to laugh off as ridiculous, any notion that there were communists or socialists in the audience.

Via Breitbart:

Little more than two weeks ago, Rubio made the Sunday talk show circuit and was asked about Jay-Z's trip to Cuba. Rubio pointed out that one of Jay-Z's heroes is Che Guevara. The Senator from Florida then pointed out that Guevara was a racist and a murderer.

It's not just that Durbin spoke at a rally that had a Guevara flag. It's that the movement he was speaking to - and attempted to defend when it became obvious he couldn't deny - was communist and that support for Che Guevara in that crowd was pervasive.

Rubio understands communism and he knows the history of Cuba better than most Americans. Marco himself is quite educated on the subject as well. He often talks of his close childhood relationship with his grandfather, who couldn't stand Castro.

His alliance with Durbin on anything was misplaced and ill-advised. For starters, communists lie so when someone like Durbin attempts to deny he spoke to communists and then defended the act because it was his only play at that point, it's right to ask if he'd be lying if he says he isn't a communist sympathizer.

Back in January, I wrote that Rubio's first mistake with the 'gang of 8' was engaging with members of that group at all; aligning with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) on anything was a mistake. The optics of Rubio yucking it up with these guys would not do him any favors. Nonetheless - and for whatever reason - he thought he could get something done by working with them. Conservatives knew better.

Since joining the Gang of Eight, Rubio has had a lot of trouble selling it. In the end, the only thing he might have to show for it is this:

As an aside, here is another instance of Durbin-style denial on May Day. Only in this instance, the person in denial is a local NBC News reporter in New York City. If you've ever found yourself scratching your head about why the mainstream media doesn't cover what's blatantly obvious, here is the perfect microcosm for you.

This woman's responses are worse than Durbin's. When asked about Communist flags at the event she's covering, she pretends they don't exist despite the fact that they're waving all around her.

It is amazing what the liberal mind will deny in the interest of ideology. This has got to be a form of mental illness on display.

It. Has. Got. To. Be.

Via GWP:

Marco Rubio's attempts to explain his Immigration stance sounding a bit convoluted

A common response from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh when it comes to the question about whether Barack Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country or is doing so because he doesn't know what he's doing is one of dismissal. In Limbaugh's view, it doesn't matter because the result is the same.

Conservatives - whether they want to admit it or not - are being faced with a similar reality when it comes to U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) - a Tea Party darling - and his involvement with the 'Gang of 8', which consists of Senators who simply cannot be trusted to do what's best for America, let alone what's right on immigration (Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, McCain, Graham, etc.). When it comes to Rubio, conservative talk show hosts scratch their heads and want to know why Rubio is doing this. Is he naive or does he have an agenda diametrically opposed to conservatives who put him in office?

To paraphrase Limbaugh, it doesn't matter because the result will be the same if immigration reform is passed without first securing the border.

When you listen to Rubio attempt to explain why he's part of the 'gang of eight' or why he's supporting such a monstrous bill, he says the issue is 'complicated'. It's really not. Conservatives see it as quite simple and have for years. They're willing to talk amnesty, citizenship, reform, blah, blah, blah after one thing - and one thing only - happens.

The. Border. Is. Secured.

What's complicated is trying to understand what Rubio is saying. When you're done listening to him attempt to explain his position, you just keep coming back to one very simple question:

Why can't we talk about this after the border is secured? Rubio doesn't seem capable of asking that question. Then again, these conservative talk show hosts don't want to press him too hard, apparently because of his Tea Party bonafides. In fact, listening to his interview with Mike Gallagher, the lead up to Gallagher's first question reminded me of all those Senators who burned up precious minutes during Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony, praising her for being such a great Secretary of State and for serving her country.

A noteworthy moment during Rubio's exchange with Gallagher comes around the 5:50 mark. Gallagher asks Rubio if he believes there are Democrats on the other side of the aisle who simply do not want border enforcement and want open borders. Rubio's answer was quite telling:

"There's no doubt there are people that feel that way but they're not a serious player in this conversation..."

Really Senator? If that is indeed true, then you should be able to pass one very simple, one-page bill that demands the border be secured. There is a reason that hasn't been done; 'serious players' are preventing it.

I would love to know how Rubio is defining 'serious player' because every single one of his fellow Senators is one in this conversation and certainly the rest of the 'gang of eight' is. Are we to believe that Schumer and Durbin want a secure border? Please. Rubio's counterparts in the House will be 'serious players' as well. Essentially, what Rubio is saying is that every member of his 'gang of eight' wants a secure border.

Again, we're back to either naivete, denial, or dishonesty. The fact that we DON'T have a secure border right now is proof positive that we already have 'serious players' who don't want it secured.



Here is a portion of Rubio's interview with Sean Hannity, via Daily Caller:

The benchmark for conservative politicians is former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who now heads the Heritage Foundation. He's obviously not happy with Rubio's stance or the 'gang of eight' which should most definitely reinforce the concerns conservatives have about what Rubio is doing. As if that's not enough, as you'll see at the beginning of this clip, Barack Obama is praising the efforts of Rubio's gang (so is Howard Dean).

Via Daily Caller: Rubio is so on the wrong side of this issue and it doesn't matter if he's doing so intentionally or because he doesn't know what he's doing - the result will be the same.

Audio: Is Ted Cruz separating himself from the Rand / Rubio Immigration Chaff?

Conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - in the halls of power to actually assert his / her power. In the House, there are a handful of courageous Republicans (Bachmann, Gowdy, Gohmert, and a few others) but in the upper chamber, where more power is wielded and more weight is carried by each Senator, the battle has seemingly come down to three people.

Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In a world where a few hot-button issues rotate to the front burner with increasing frequency and intensity, immigration appears to be taking its turn. In this battle, Cruz has taken the lead among conservatives and that is evident when comparing the recent positions / activities of the three men, coupled with Cruz's stated positions on Sean Hannity's April 1st radio show.

Let's take a look at the three Senators who are attempting to tap into the most passionate and sought after voting bloc of the Republican Party - the conservatives.

Paul won major points with conservatives when he decided to filibuster for twelve hours over a response he did not get from the Obama administration over the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, Paul exhibited a fighting spirit that is far too often lacking from Republican leaders. However, when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul has deviated from the conservative position and has called for a pathway to citizenship, which in the minds of conservatives, is a pathway to amnesty. Helping Paul among conservatives was the way he confronted Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Rubio essentially began his dance with the devil when he joined the gang of eight, which included Socialist Democrats Durbin, Schumer, and Menendez along with RINOs McCain and Graham to cut a deal over comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio's achilles heal with conservatives has long been his rather vague stance on immigration. His decision to join the gang of eight didn't help him much, though to his credit, he is calling for open and robust debate, which just might scare the rest more than the prospect of not getting a deal done. Rubio was also incredibly weak when he had five minutes alone with Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Cruz appears to be separating himself from the other two in the pack when it comes to the immigration debate. He understands that until everyone agrees - and then demands / acts on that agreement - to secure the border before any other discussions take place, will get us nowhere, at best. Every time something is done about immigration (Rubio and Rand should listen up), it comes with an empty promise to secure the border after granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Cruz isn't falling for it. As a result, his stock among conservatives will undoubtedly rise faster than will Rubio or Paul on the issue of immigration, which is a big one.

Via MediaIte:

That didn't take long: Schumer already changing his tune after photo-op with Rubio

On the morning of January 31st, I posted that Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Bob Menendez would lie about considering border security as a trigger for any immigration reform bill in exchange for being seen with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. By yesterday afternoon, after the optics had played out a couple of days earlier, Schumer made good on that lie.

The photo op with Rubio was only 48 hours old.

Remember, Rubio told Limbaugh that if securing the border is not a trigger to a path to citizenship, he's out. Here is what Rubio said on Limbaugh's radio show on January 29th:

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won't support it.  But the principles clearly call for that.  Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too."

Take note at the 10:15 mark in the video below, as Harry Reid finishes speaking. Schumer starts out lying and doesn't stop.

"We want the border to be secure (yeah, right). It's more secure than it was several years ago but it has a way to go (whatever, Chuck)..."

Then pay attention to this quote from Schumer:

"We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path to citizenship... not to use it (border security) as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship."

Rubio referred to border security as 'trigger' necessary for his willingness to support any legislation on immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens. Two days later, Schumer referred to the exact same thing as a 'barrier' to immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens.

Had Schumer said this prior to the photo-op with Rubio, there wouldn't have been a photo-op with Rubio. Like I said, these Democrats placed intrinsic value in the optics of standing with a supposed conservative champion in the Senate. Once they had that under their belt, Rubio is left flapping in the wind, having to explain to conservative voters why he even tried. The hardest lesson for Republicans seems to be understanding that no good can come from attempting to work with liars and socialists whose agenda involve lying without any regard for ethics.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so difficult to learn. The mask is off and Democrats have been wearing it on their sleeve for quite some time now.

h/t Hot Air:

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

John Kerry hearing: Rand gets the better of Rubio... again

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are both early frontrunners for the Republican nominee in 2016. Each had two cracks at challenging two Democrat heavyweights this week. On January 23rd, Hillary Clinton was in front of the committee over the Benghazi attacks and a day later came the confirmation hearing for Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Not only did Paul do much better than Rubio in front of Clinton but he out-performed every other member of the Senate and House committees that questioned the outgoing Secretary of State.

So how'd each Senator do with Kerry? Once again, Paul clearly out-did Rubio and someone should really coach Rubio on how to question a witness; it's not his strong suit. One thing to watch for in both exchanges is how quickly Kerry is expected to answer. Remember, each committee member gets ten minutes to use as he or she chooses and the longer each member speaks, the more comfortable the nominee is because it means less time playing with the rope of your own words and positions. Paul seems to grasp this concept much better than Rubio does. Note how Paul wraps up his first question and expects Kerry to respond to it thirty seconds in.

Conversely, though Rubio demonstrates that he has a comprehensive understanding of international events, that's not why he's there. He's there to ask the very liberal Senator from Massachusetts some tough questions. Rubio takes up nearly half of his ten minutes showing cameras that he knows what's going on while Kerry does little more than root for the clock to keep running before he has to speak. In fact, such pontificating can be counterproductive in another way.

For example, during his opening four and a half minute speech, Rubio actually asserted that it's debatable to argue that the Honduran government's removal of Manuel Zelaya in 2009 was a coup. No it isn't. It absolutely was not a coup. Zelaya was a stooge of Hugo Chavez who attempted to seize power by usurping the Constitution. As such, he was constitutionally removed. That is not debatable.

Kerry inexplicably supported Zelaya in that circumstance and was irrefutably proven to be on the wrong side, on the side of a would-be communist dictator. Rubio would have been better off asking Kerry to explain why he supported Zelaya. Instead, he came across as willing to listen to an argument that says Zelaya was wrongfully removed. Kerry never addressed the issue in his seven-plus minute response.

Congressional hearings are most effective when the questions are like those found in a cross-examination. To cross-examine means to examine closely or minutely, the record of a nominee or witness. When you have a time limit, this is best done with short, direct questions. As you'll see, Paul does this very well. Rubio does not. In fact, Rubio never spoke after his opening remarks and when Kerry is done, you won't know what questions Rubio asked or if Kerry answered them.

Rubio is a smart guy but he needs some serious coaching in this area.

Here is Paul's exchange with Kerry:



Here is Rubio's exchange with Kerry:

Rubio v. Paul in 2016? Rand wins Round 1 BIG

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are both considered to be frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016. They are also both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such, both men had the opportunity to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton some tough questions today about the State Department's handling of the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Contrasting these two exchanges becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Assuming that reality comes to fruition, either Rubio or Paul could be the face of the Republican Party debating Clinton in four years. How did each Senator do while having the upper hand in today's Senate hearing?

Though Rubio asked relevant questions, he came across as rather dispassionate and gave Hillary plenty of room to give long, meandering answers. He did not stop her when she got off track. Rubio looked rather weak today. No presidential timber shown today.



How about Rand Paul? Arguably the best exchange of the day, though an argument could be made that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves that distinction. Two things stand out in Paul's exchange with Hillary.

1. Paul stated clearly that if he were president during the Benghazi attack, he would have fired his Secretary of State.
2. When Paul asked the Senator if the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for shipping weapons to Turkey "or any other country", Hillary told him to check with the CIA. Are we to believe that she didn't know the answer? Hardly. If the answer was no, there wouldn't be any harm in answering it. Not answering it at all only raises the legitimacy of the question.

If all of this was round 1 between Paul and Rubio, Paul won going away.

Has Rubio been bitten by the Establishment Vampire?

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been a Tea Party favorite, much like South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was. Haley endorsed Romney and was thoroughly rebuked by her state's voters when Gingrich won going away.

Rubio hasn't officially endorsed Romney but he has come about as close as Sarah Palin has to endorsing Gingrich. In fact, Rubio's rebuke of Gingrich's ad that went after Romney for being anti-Immigration may have been almost as effective in deflating the Newtmentum in Florida as Romney's negative and egregious ads that targeted Gingrich. The Senator from Florida even rebuked Gingrich when the former Speaker likened Romney to Crist. Rubio defended Romney as someone who stood by him in his race against Crist.

As John Hawkins points out at Right Wing News, Romney didn't get behind Rubio until the Tea Party had spent a year pushing Rubio past Crist:

Back in May of 2009, I got together with Erick Erickson, Stacy McCain, and other bloggers to support Marco Rubio and went after the National Republican Senatorial Committee for endorsing Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio.... 

Back then, when Charlie Crist had what looked like an overwhelming lead and the support of the GOP establishment, guys like Mitt Romney were absolutely nowhere to be found. 

Of course, Mitt did eventually BOLDLY endorse Marco Rubio. It was almost a YEAR later on April 17 of 2010 and the GOP primary was already as good as over.

So why is Rubio siding with the establishment in this Florida primary? What has happened to these Tea Party favorites who wouldn't be sniffing higher public office if not for the conservatives who fought for them?

I can think of only two possibilities. Either Rubio got bit by an establishment vampire or it's nothing more than the disgraceful human tendency to betray instead of doing what's right.

Has Marco Rubio Betrayed the Tea Party?

This is an extremely disturbing development if true. All over the country, Republican primaries are being moved up. One such state is Florida, the home state of Tea Party favorite, Senator Marco Rubio. Florida's primary has been moved up to January 31st, from March. There has been an easily understood school of thought that says the moving up of primaries will benefit one candidate more than any other - Mitt Romney. Robert Stacy McCain is reporting that Marco Rubio's chief of staff worked hard behind the scenes to do just that.

Via The Other McCain:

Yet while the moderate Republican faction in Tallahassee was immediately blamed for the primary date-switch, only insiders knew that a key factor was a push from inside the staff of the Tea Party’s own 2010 hero, Sen. Marco Rubio. GOP sources in Washington and Florida say that Rubio’s senatorial chief of staff, Cesar Conda, has been a major force in persuading Florida Republicans to move their primary to January.

“Cesar used to be with Romney’s campaign,” one informed source explained to me in an interview today, adding: “Conda used his contacts to push the primary to the 31st because they want Romney in.”

Conda’s loyalty to Romney was highlighted in a Politico story by Scott Wong last week: “At least six past and current Rubio Senate aides, including chief of staff Cesar Conda and his deputy, Terry Sullivan, worked for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid, establishing a direct link and a line of communication between the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination and the front-runner in the Republican veepstakes. There’s also a trail of fundraisers, donors and consultants who have overlapping relationships with Rubio and Romney.”

If this is true, Rubio will have quite a mess on his hands and be reduced to having two choices. 1.) Conda is relieved of his duties or 2.) Conda remains on board and Rubio risks being branded a Tea Party Benedict Arnold.

The other person to watch is Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who is not only known as Senator Tea Party but went to the wall in order to make sure Rubio got elected.

McCain also explains the rationale behind Rubio's guys aggressively benefiting Romney with these shady tactics:

Some have speculated that, by delivering Florida for Romney, Conda would not only help Romney lock up the 2012 presidential nomination, but also secure the 2012 vice-presidential pick for Rubio.

Some may say this is just politics as normal but Rubio has been the quintessential poster child for a movement that at its core, rejects this type of thing.

If true, see which one of these two represents Marco Rubio:



h/t Hot Air

Will Marco Rubio Run in 2012?

Make no mistake; there is a loud sucking sound coming from the place where the favorite and most viable conservative Republican nominee for president in 2012 should be. Mitt Romney? Please. Newt Gingrich? No thanks. Mike Huckabee should just keep playing his Bass on that weekend show of his. Sarah Palin is better stirring the pot and would likely drive Democrat voters to the polls just to vote against her.

Conservatives are looking around en masse and wondering who in the world is going to rise to the top? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) would be excellent but has expressed strong reticence. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) would be as well but unfortunately, decades of leadership experience in the Military doesn't translate to the corrupting experience in Washington, D.C.

Enter Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). In the wake of his overt rejection of another Continuring Resolution designed to kick the budget can down the road again, the Tea Party is taking notice.

Via POLITICO:

Sen. Marco Rubio is done with the quiet freshman act.

With a landmark spending debate engulfing Washington, the Florida Republican has, virtually overnight, launched the national profile the conservative movement has been clamoring for.

During his first national interview Monday, Rubio pounced on President Barack Obama — from the friendly confines of Laura Ingraham’s conservative radio show. He blasted a statement to the media, pledging to vote against the Republicans’ short-term spending resolution and calling it a “nickle-and-dime” approach. And he’s vowed to vote against everything that comes through the Senate unless it deals with addressing the $14 trillion debt crisis.

Rubio has even given up an apparent Twitter moratorium, tweeting this week for the first time since his victory last November.

In the House, only 22 of the nearly 100 freshmen Republicans voted against the Continuing Resolution. As shockingly small as that number is, those 22 members are the ones who understand why they were sent to Washington. The balance, including Kristi Noem (R-SD), already seems to have been compromised. The argument that the next president needs more experience than someone like Rubio, West, or any of the other 22 freshmen is misguided. The type of experience that is supposedly needed is exactly the kind that is giving us establishment candidates.

The Tea Party doesn't want them.

Besides, by 2012, Rubio will have had experience as Speaker of the Florida State House and two years as a U.S. Senator.

We're on the eve of an election where experience inside the Beltway will be a liability.

Read it all.

VIDEO: CHARLIE CRIST HECKLES MARCO RUBIO

Florida Governor Charlie Crist is circling the drain in more ways than one these days. There's a lot packed into this 30 second clip but after Rubio is noticeably bothered by Crist's repeated interruptions, he turns lemons into lemonade with the comment about never having to deal with hecklers as opponents, only in the audience. That was bad enough for Crist but he made it worse by telling Rubio, 'welcome to the NFL' which garnered boos.

Sorry to say it but Kendrick Meek has more class than Charlie Crist, who doesn't appear to have emotionally matured beyond his toddler years.

via Breitbart

VIDEO: MARCO RUBIO V. CHARLIE CRIST

If ever there was a debate that more clearly delineated the differences between two Republican candidates for Senate, it's this one with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. All through this campaign, Charlie Crist has been portrayed as the moderate candidate and Marco Rubio as the conservative one. This debate only serves to reinforce those notions. Frankly, I was surprised at how willing Charlie Crist was to entrench himself as a moderate Republican, esp. in this political climate.

For those who don't have time to watch the full 9+ minutes....

2:35 mark: Wallace challenges Crist on "the hug" between he and Obama over Crist's support of the Stimulus bill.

5:58 mark: Wallace references the only three Republican senators who voted for the Stimulus bill - Olympia Snowe (MN), Susan Collins (MN), and Arlen Specter (PA) - and then asks Crist if he'd have voted along with them if he was Senator. Shockingly, Crist says he would. This one should floor you.

7:40 mark: If you're a conservative in Florida and had any doubt who to vote for before this, it should be pretty clear after this. Wallace leads in by saying that Rubio identifies Jim DeMint (R-SC) as his favorite Senator (here, here). Conversely, Crist's favorite Senators are John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-NC). Wow.

Game, Set, Match..........Rubio.....Right?



Not so fast. Via Hot Air Pundit comes this video in which Crist seems to be dodging Wallace's questions about whether or not he would run as an Independent if he loses to Rubio:



Based on the fact that Crist is pointing to RINOs McCain and Graham as his Senatorial heroes, I am highly skeptical that he will run as an Independent when he loses to Rubio. I personally believe this is all pre-election banter designed to goad the other side. If Crist were to switch, it would create a lot of headaches for a Republican establishment that is more concerned with finding common ground, diffusing controversy, and appeasing its political opponents than it is in actually standing for something.

h/t to Patriots and Heroes

VIDEO: CHARLIE CRIST RESPONDS TO RINO ACCUSATIONS

Much of this video makes for ponderous viewing but the part worth watching starts at the 2:45 mark when Maggie Rodriguez of CBS asks Florida Governor Charlie Crist to respond to accusations that he's a RINO.

His response? Well, he attempts to discredit those who call him that by implying that they'd have to call Reagan a RINO as well.

Uh, sorry Charlie. Reagan wouldn't have signed on to the $787 Billion stimulus, nor would he have endorsed cap & trade.



Politico has more.

VIDEO: WHY CHARLIE CRIST IS NOW CRISP, AS IN TOAST

Not sure if he's already been re-named yet but he ought to be. Charlie "Crisp" is toast and the biggest reason is his alliance with Obama this time last year when the Stimulus bill was all the rage. Now, those who knew better are all EN-raged and Crisp was on the wrong side then. There's nothing he can do about it either.

Marco Rubio is pulling away and Crisp is going up in flames, mainly because of "The Hug".

Buh bye, Crisp. You're toast.

Watch "The Hug"



h/t to Hot Air Pundit

CORNYN STILL DOESN'T GET IT

There are some thick-headed Republican senators out there who just never seem to wise up. Texas senator John Cornyn voted for TARP despite his constituents overwhelmingly telling him not to. Those constituents were proven right. Back in May, as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn threw his support behind Florida Governor Charlie Crist for the 2010 SENATE RACE there despite conservative objections that it was too early and that Crist was too moderate.

Lo and behold, Marco Rubio is now neck and neck with Crist. Instead of Cornyn deferring to the conservative base of the Republican party after they proved him wrong again, he continues to double down, saying that conservatives need to be more realistic in their expectations in the 2010 elections.

Imagine how this race would look like now had the The National Republican Senatorial Committee, chaired by Cornyn, withheld support for Crist and let things play out. Erick Erickson at RED STATE also points out that the NRSC also scoffed at Pat Toomey's chances in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter. Specter is now a reeling Democrat who looks very vulnerable.

So Cornyn and the NRSC jump into bed with Charlie Crist because of the poll numbers in Florida and now Crist is tied to or behind Marco Rubio. The NRSC also said Pat Toomey was not a viable alternative to Arlen Specter and even after Specter jumped to the Democrats, the NRSC worked valiantly to try to convince every other Republican in Pennsylvania to get in so they wouldn’t have to deal with Toomey.

Erickson goes on to explain the issue Cornyn and Republicans seeking to put up moderate candidates are facing:

Here is the problem for the NRSC and the Republican Establishment.

They are panicked.

The tea party movement outpolls the GOP.

The conservative challengers are performing as well as or better than the establishment picks.

The NRSC lost in Pennsylvania.
The NRSC is going to lose in Florida and California.
The NRSC is losing in Kentucky.
The NRSC may very well lose in Colorado and New Hampshire.

On a different but related note, everyone needs to remember what happened in 2004. Rick Santorum, along with Bush, threw his support behind Specter in the primaries, thereby dissing Toomey at the time. Specter won and Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. In 2006, Santorum lost his seat to Democrat Bob Casey in part, due to a lack of conservative turnout. In 2009, Specter became a Democrat.

End result? In late 2006, Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. In 2009, it had 2 Democrat senators by following the moderate Republican model.

No thanks. Cornyn needs to pipe down and get in line.

Read the WHOLE THING

VIDEO: MARCO RUBIO AD AN UPPER CUT TO CRIST

This ad will continue to hurt Crist and bolster Rubio because it serves to put the former in the same box as Obama, and rightfully so. Crist is opposed to offshore drilling and supported the $787 Billion stimulus bill as he hugged Barack Obama in a demonstration of that support.

Rubio has exploited "the hug" in an ad that will hurt Crist. As Obama's poll numbers continue to fall, look for Rubio's to rise because part of his strategy is obviously to tie the put the two on the same sinking ship. Have you seen Obama's poll numbers lately?

Another thing this ad does is demonstrate what's wrong with the stance of Gingrich and Steele which is party before movement.

The American people seem to be rejecting that idea very strongly, looking for a new direction.

VIDEO: CHARLIE CRIST IN TROUBLE

Yes, the video is extremely well done. Certainly, the music and the lighting go a long way in elevating Charlie Crist's 2010 Republican opponent, 38-year old Marco Rubio.

That said, don't overlook the strength of Rubio. He comes across as a very passionate and principled conservative who is concise and powerful in his speech. His message is resonating with people and as the conservative movement grows, so will he.

This video a must-see:



On another important note, I noticed that Rubio made a forceful statement about the Rifqa Bary case (17-year old girl who converted to Christianity and fled her Muslim parents - she is currently awaiting a judge's ruling on September 3rd). Here is Rubio's statement:

Miami, FL – U.S. Senate candidate and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio today issued the following statement regarding Rifqa Bary’s court case:

“America has a rich tradition of religious freedom that is enshrined in our
First Amendment. Today in Florida, this freedom could be at stake as a court considers the case of 17-year old Rifqa Bary.

“This young woman fled from Ohio to Florida, fearing she would be killed for converting from Islam to Christianity. As the court weighs the facts of this case, I hope it will take her expressed fears seriously and not rush to an irreversible decision that may ultimately endanger her.

“It is imperative that state officials use every legal tool at their disposal to properly evaluate Rifqa’s best interests. Florida has a responsibility not only to protect her innocent life but also to defend her sacred right to worship freely.”

Yes, Crist is the one in the hotseat on this case as the Governor and may choose his words more carefully but Rubio's statement may ultimately help Crist do that right thing if the judge does not.

Here's a link to RUBIO'S SITE