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.

Must-See Video: Ted Cruz rips RINOs over Gun Control

There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.

There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.

Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.

Via NRO:

Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.

If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.

Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.

By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:

Video: John McCain sidles up to Chuck Schumer on Gun Control

There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.

Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.

At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.

McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.

Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.



As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:



h/t Hot Air

RINO Lindsey Graham 'honored' to have dinner with Obama while chiding Rand Paul's filibuster

On the same day that Republican Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, Barack Obama had dinner with 13 other Republican Senators. Perhaps there is not better allegory to illustrate the complete inability of Republicans to put forth a united front.

It didn't end there, however. The man who organized the dinner was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who spoke glowingly of the President while chiding Paul for filibustering.

This statement from Graham, from the Washington Post (via GWP) is outrageous:


If you think that was low, take a look at Graham the morning after, slamming Paul's filibuster after saying he was 'honored' to have dinner with Barack Obama:



At the end of the clip, Graham said 'the American people need to understand the threat we face'. Ironically, it is Graham who doesn't seem to understand the threat the Obama administration poses. Not only should Graham do some serious self-examination about praising the most radical Democratic President in the history of the United States while chiding a Republican counterpart who took a stand but he obviously doesn't understand the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in the United States.

**UPDATE** Here is the list of the 13 Senators who dined with Obama as Paul ate candy bars while speaking for 12 hours, via the White House Dossier:

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

This is not ok.

Video: Interview with Ted Cruz

In an interview with CBN, U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz said two very significant things that resonate with true conservatives. One was that Barack Obama is the 'most radical' president we've ever seen. The other is that by failing to stand on principles, many Republicans should share some blame for that 'most radical' president being elected in the first place (ain't that the truth!).

The biggest frustration among conservatives is an unwillingness (cowardice) to fight on the part of Republicans. It's early but Cruz is showing signs of galvanizing such conservatives. A consequence of that - as we found out with Sarah Palin - is relentless media attacks. The good news? Cruz's effectiveness will rise in direct proportion to how much he is attacked in the media.

Via CBN:



Here is the perfect example to demonstrate how best to deal with the media (pay attention, Boehner). After the mainstream media dredged up what they thought would be considered outrageous comments by Cruz years ago - that the Harvard faculty is rife with Marxists - the Senator from Texas did not go on defense; he went on offense with a super-appropriate tweet.

Via Ted Cruz:

MSNBC is shocked -- shocked -- to discover that there are Marxists on the Harvard faculty... youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi0…
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 23, 2013

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:

Video: Senator John Cornyn face to face with Holder: 'Resign'

At a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing today, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) lit into Attorney General Eric Holder. Shortly after Cornyn told Holder that the Attorney General had 'violated the public trust,' the Senator from Texas then told Holder that he should 'resign.' Clearly adding to Cornyn's anger are the recent revelations of national security leaks that have originated from the White House.

Before launching into his problems with Fast and Furious, Cornyn expressed frustration with Holder's appointment of two non-independent Attorneys to investigate those national security leaks. Cornyn is clearly not ok with these two individuals reporting to Holder directly and to make his case as to why, he segued into Operation Fast and Furious.

If Obama is behind the leaks, Holder has reason to be angry with the President because by leaking national security secrets, the White House has essentially kicked the already disturbed hornet's nest that is Fast and Furious.

Holder clearly is taking the brunt of it here, one day after it was announced that the contempt hearing would be held on June 20th.

This is a must-see exchange. The arrogance of Eric Holder is very difficult to beat.

Via Daily Caller:

Video: Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders channels Nathan Thurm

Despite the fact that the Democrats have not passed a budget in well over 1,000 days, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (the socialist moniker is official, not ad hominem) is living in a world where the Democrats passed one last year.

Via Breitbart:



I haven't seen that kind of denial since Nathan Thurm:

Video: Democrat Arlen Specter tells Republican voters to re-elect Orrin Hatch

The man who had no political future in the Republican Party after he helped put the 2009 stimulus bill over the top is now encouraging Utah's Republican voters not to "cannibalize" Orrin Hatch. Yes, Arlen Specter betrayed his Party and went to one where he fit right in. So, why would a Democrat encourage Republican voters to vote for Hatch based on the premise that Hatch has the best chance to win? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Wouldn't it make more sense for Specter to encourage those voters to go with the more conservative candidate if he has less of a chance in the general?

The answer is that "D" and "R" are both supposed to fall under the "E" (Establishment) umbrella. This clip should be an instant campaign ad for Hatch opponent Dan Liljenquist.

Via Daily Caller:


Eating RINO is not cannibalism. Cannibalism is what people like Specter have been doing to their country. Here is Specter in 2009 answering questions about his stimulus vote:

Proof Dick Lugar's loss a good thing; John Kerry thinks it's Tragic

36-year Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (RINO), one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate (take your pick between him, Graham, and McCain) lost his primary to the Tea Party-backed Richard Mourdock. The argument for Lugar - made by the same establishment that wants Mitt Romney to be president - is that he knows how to compromise, which is exactly why the Tea Party wants him out.

Establishment types should also check their loyalties on another front. They're not the only ones upset at Lugar's loss. So is one of the Senate's most liberal Democrats - John Kerry, who is calling Lugar's loss a "tragedy."

Here is a portion of Kerry's statement, via ABC:

This is a tragedy for the Senate and the loss is particularly felt by all of us who have been privileged to serve with Dick on the Foreign Relations Committee,” Kerry said. “It’s a blow to the institution during a period when the institution itself has been strained. Whether he was serving as Chairman or Ranking Member of our Committee, wielding the gavel or working the floor, Dick’s approach to governing was always the same:  he wanted to find serious answers to some of foreign policy’s most vexing questions. He’s a class act and a gentleman and in a Senate that has seen so much change and transition these last years, his expertise on complicated issues honed over 36 years simply can’t be replicated.

If you're ever called a "class act" by John Kerry, it's time to question whether you've crossed the rubicon into the abyss.

Here's another excerpt from Kerry's insane screed:

It will soon almost sound cliched to say that America is safer today because of Dick Lugar’s 36 years of service in the Senate, but it really does bear repeating.

To quote Archie Bunker, "you are defective."

h/t Hot Air

Senator's Bizarre reason for not demanding that Holder resign

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R) has garnered a reputation for being one of the more conservative senators but his endorsement of Mitt Romney notwithstanding, Coburn's spokesman gave a curious response when asked why the Senator has not called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over Fast and Furious.

Via the Daily Caller:

A spokesman for Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked him yet again whether his boss thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should resign over the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

When TheDC first asked Coburn in November where he stood on the calls for Holder’s resignation over Fast and Furious, he said he wasn’t joining the surge of congressmen demanding Holder step down. At that time, there were about 40 members of the House demanding Holder’s resignation.

“No,” Coburn said when asked if he supports the resignation calls. “I think it’s unfortunate what happened. The question is: Will we ever know who knew what and when?”

When TheDC followed up shortly thereafter with Coburn’s spokesman about why Coburn wasn’t joining his colleagues in demanding Holder’s resignation, the spokesman said Coburn was “busy trying to cut spending,” so he wasn’t getting involved.

Ok, so in November, Coburn thought Fast and Furious was "unfortunate." Since then, it's become blatantly obvious that it was something far more nefarious and involves high ranking people at the Justice Department. When pressed, he said he was "too busy" doing his job.

Now, Coburn is failing to give a coherent answer in response to a question about him having enough time to endorse Romney AND focus on cutting spending.

Since then Coburn has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary contest — a political decision not related to “cut[ting] spending.” Coburn’s spokesman wouldn’t answer when TheDC asked how he found time to endorse Romney, but couldn’t find time to look into Holder’s job performance.

The Oklahoma senator’s spokesman also wouldn’t say whether his boss stands with Romney on Holder’s fitness for office. In December 2011, Romney said that “either Mr. Holder himself should resign, or the president should ask for his resignation.”

As the DC points out, Coburn called for Alberto Gonzalez's resignation under the Bush administration and Holder's involvement in Fast and Furious is far more egregious than anything Gonzalez did.

Read it all.

That Bestiality Question is Dogging Jay Carney 'Barker'

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Video: WH Press Secretary Jay Carney asked about Obama's position on Bestiality

No doubt, reporter Les Kinsolving was inspired to ask Jay Carney about bestiality based on the December 1st CNS News story that reported on the Senate voting to legalize it in the military. I discussed this on the December 4th show and blogged about that here. The issue has to do with a Senate vote to repeal article 125 from the Uniform Code of Military Justice by an overwhelming and shocking margin, 93-7. Here is what Article 125 says:

"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Speculation is that the intention to repeal this article was more about mainstreaming homosexuality in the military but this embarrassing inconvenience seems to bolster the argument that once you legalize gay marriage, etc. you can then move to animals. Nonetheless, Kinsolving asked Carney about this and the latter would not answer the question while feigning disbelief that it was asked and ultimately went to another reporter saying that he wanted to move to something 'more serious.'

This may all sound ridiculous but Kinsolving is simply shining a light on a very disturbing development; 93 Senators voted to make bestiality legal in the military. Assuming they didn't mean to (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), this reality highlights a major flaw in our legislative branch that, are you ready for this, involves not reading legislation.



h/t GWP

Senate Vote: Bestiality in the Military is A-Ok

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Second US Senator Calls for Holder to Resign

The running tally for the number of Congressmen and Senators who are calling for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder over operation Fast and Furious is now 52 and 2, respectively. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) joins his colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) on the growing list.

Via the Daily Caller:

The pressure appears to have gotten to Holder. On Tuesday he lost control when TheDC asked what he thought of the surge in calls for his resignation. 

“You guys need to — you need to stop this,” Holder said at a White House event. “It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.” 

Subsequently, the White House refused to comment when TheDC asked if President Barack Obama plans to hold Holder to the same standard he applied to former attorney general Alberto Gonzales when Obama, then a U,S. Senator, demanded Gonzales’ resignation in 2007. 

Inhofe told TheDC he thinks Holder’s reaction is a sign that the Obama administration and Holder have been “caught” doing something wrong and they don’t know how to deal with it other than to attack the messenger. 

“Any time someone gets caught doing something like this, if they can [they] blame it on what they consider to be a minority,” Inhofe said. “And they consider the right wing to be minority, even though they’re wrong — if they can do that, they think they can somehow try to transfer the wrongdoing to another party in showing that they have a motivation for this to do things that are not honest.”

This is in no way insignificant. Inhofe is a more prominent and well known senator than is Isakson and this movement is showing signs of the wrong kind of inertia for Holder.

Moreover, though there are no Democrats on the list of legislators that are calling for Holder to step down, the closer we get to the election, the more likely that is to change, especially in battleground states / districts.

Reminder: December 8th, the Holder showdown with Issa promises to be more compelling than a Wrestlemania cage match.

Videos: Takeaways from Eric Holder Testimony in front of Senate Judiciary

At yesterday's Senate Judiciary committee hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder faced questions about Fast and Furious but not exclusively on that operation. There are several noteworthy exchanges but there are many more that are not worth revisiting. In short, all of the exchanges between Holder and Chuck Grassley / Holder and John Cornyn are worth watching. Early on, Holder took exception to Grassley bringing up the details of an alleged private conversation between the two in which Holder told the Senator that someone had been held accountable for a letter that contained false statements.

Grassley does well here:



Senator John Cornyn had two cracks at Holder and did well both times. At one point, Cornyn asked Holder if the latter had apologized to the Brian Terry family. Holder said he hadn't. Cornyn followed up by asking Holder if he'd like to take the opportunity in the hearing to apologize; Holder refused. Here Cornyn's first exchange with Holder, which is very good:



Toward the end of the hearing, Cornyn had the opportunity to grill Holder again; he did not disappoint. In this exchange, Cornyn asks if Holder knows the distinction between Fast and Furious and an operation carried out under the Bush administration known as Wide Receiver. When Holder basically pleads ignorance, Cornyn asks him if he's 'winging it.'



There was one very interesting exchange between Holder and Democrat chairman Patrick Leahy (VT). In an attempt to give Holder the opportunity to clear up his testimony on May 3rd, in which the latter said he'd only heard about Fast and Furious 'over the last few weeks,' Leahy didn't do Holder any favors. Holder's attempt to clarify that there is no real difference between a few weeks and a couple months fell flat. Here is that exchange:

Via Michelle Malkin:



The other Republican who had an opportunity to grill Holder was Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Though he raised some valid questions, he seemed to get mired in legalese and ended up doing most of the talking. Grassley and Cornyn did a better job of making Holder answer several questions in the limited time they had available.

Here is the full hearing for those who have nothing but time on their hands. Note, even if you qualify, you will want to fast forward through most of it. It was disappointing to see Senators Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham choose to confront Holder on completely different issues. Their inability or unwillingness to jump into the Fast and Furious fray seemed out of place. You also might want to check out Chuck Schumer's exchange with Holder if your blood pressure is too low. It is quintessential partisanship as Schumer focuses on Operation Wide Receiver under the Bush administration and calls for the Senate Judiciary committee to investigate that while the House Oversight committee continues to attempt to uncover the truth about Fast and Furious.

To that, I say Mr. Schumer should be careful what he asks for. What he finds may end up being more damaging to the Obama Justice Department than he thinks. Fast forward to the 1:10:34 mark for that one.

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

Harry Reid Uses the Nuclear Option

You might have to read the specifics of what happened multiple times, before you understand exactly what happened here (I did) but suffice it to say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to go to the mat with a 'Nuclear Option' that serves to completely re-write the rules of the Senate. And guess what? Obama's jobs bill is at the root of it all. To sum up, Harry Reid so wants to avoid a vote on the latest Obama monstrosity, that he has pushed the button to prevent that vote from taking place. In reality, he should be mad at Obama but he seems to be so far off the rails that he's taking it out on the Republicans and shooting future Democratic Senators in the collective foot.

H/T to Hot Air for providing a link to perhaps the best, easiest to understand explanation for what happened, via Philip Klein at Beltway Confidential:

In a stunning turn of events this evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used an arcane legislative maneuver to effectively rewrite Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes on the majority.

The buildup to this point started on Tuesday, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on President Obama's jobs bill as well as other Republican priorities by offering them as amendments to the China currency bill. Reid blocked the move.

Tonight, McConnell made what's called a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments. Such motions are almost always defeated, because they require a two-thirds majority to pass. But they're another way for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes. Even though the minority party doesn't get a direct vote on the amendment, how somebody votes on the motion becomes a sort of proxy for such a vote. In this case, for instance, if Democrats had voted down a motion for a vote on Obama's jobs bill, it would have put them in an awkward spot.

Though it's been the standing practice of the Senate to allow such motions by the minority, tonight Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order, and was ultimately backed up by Democrats.

Klein closes by saying this isn't a 'nuclear option' because it doesn't deal with filibusters; it deals with the amendment process. Nonetheless, it's certainly in the same spirit and it certainly changes the Senate rules.

It is fascinating, however, that the reason Harry Reid has gone to such lengths is the result of his unwillingness to allow his party to vote on a Bill supported by the POTUS, who is a member OF that party. This is shocking on many levels. This is prideful anger on display. Reid is too blinded by that anger to even realize that Obama's the source of it. Nonetheless, he's directing it at the Republicans.

Tangentially speaking, I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what John McCain thinks about this. Back in 2005, he was the Republican who led the infamous 'gang of 14' to prevent a Republican nuclear option involving the filibustering of judicial appointments, which was far more warranted. Appointments are supposed to get the 'advice and consent' of congress, not death by filibuster.

Hot Air has more.

Video: Why Marco Rubio will be a Future Leader

I can't recall seeing a freshman Senator ever smacking down one of the most senior members of the Senate before but Marco Rubio (R-FL) did just that to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) from the Senate floor. The subject was the debt ceiling and Rubio was landing blow after blow against the establishment. He did so well at it that Kerry apparently couldn't resist the urge to intimidate the young, inexperienced Senator. Unfortunately for Kerry, Rubio batted him down like an annoying gnat and Kerry didn't know what hit him.

Rubio can string extremely cogent and powerful thoughts together very quickly. It will serve him well as a presidential nominee one day. It will serve the Republican nominee very well to put him on the 2012 ticket. After watching this, ask yourself what a debate between Rubio and Biden would look like.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Nothing Good can come of this: Reid and McConnell Working Together on Debt Ceiling 'Backup Plan'

What is it about people like Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell? What about last November do people like him not understand? The elections were about staying away from working together with Democrats. It's being reported that McConnell is now working with none other than corruptocrat Harry Reid on another version of a supposed 'backup plan' if debt ceiling talks go nowhere. The American public voted Republicans in office to DEFEAT Democrats, not work with them. These establishment politicians are really thick.

Via Chicago Tribune:

WASHINGTON — A plan by the Senate's two top leaders to allow President Obama to raise the debt limit without congressional approval is emerging as the most likely strategy to avoid a looming federal default.

The plan being drafted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would lock in roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years — a figure considerably smaller than Republican leaders or President Obama had been seeking.

Administration officials have said they still would prefer a more sweeping deal on the deficit, but they signaled the idea would be acceptable to Obama.

$1.5 trillion over ten years is nothing short of kicking the can. This government needs to get its budget balanced and stop spending more than it takes in. Period. Of all the Republican leaders, House majority leader Eric Cantor has been the one who has been presenting the Tea Party stance more than anyone else but it would seem that Boehner, et. al. are roping him back in to the establishment fold.

Conservatives, particularly in the House, seem likely to oppose it. But with efforts to deliver a larger deficit-reduction deal still stalemated, the new plan, which builds on a proposal put forward earlier in the week by McConnell, could provide a way out of a dead end that has become politically and economically perilous.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated such "last-ditch" efforts may become more palatable in the time ahead.

"What may look like something less than optimal today, if we're unable to get to an agreement, might look pretty good," Boehner said.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, toned his hard-line stance Thursday, saying, "There is a dose of pragmatism in all that we do."

That is disheartening news. Any time Republicans attempt to work with Harry Reid, there is nothing good that can come out of it. Nothing. Yet, once again, the Republican establishment appears too weak to stand up to their Democrat counterparts.

Disappointing news.

h/t Weasel Zippers