Marco Rubio's speech at the Reagan library (1 Viewer)

[TexanFan02]

They're weaker because they're now dependent on an organization that is trillions in debt, has trillions more in unfunded liabilities, and whose long term solvency is in question. How many people would be in poverty if Medicare/Medicaid went away tomorrow? Is that number higher or lower than the number than of people that were in poverty before it was implemented? If so, I'd say that's some decent evidence that they're less independent of the government's assistance than they were before.

People are living longer and medical technology is prolonging the last years of life at a very expensive cost. And if anyone starts to get serious about the problem people start shouting "DEATH PANELS!!".

I had a professor at UT that had been on the board of directors. UT provides it's own health care to all current and former employees. He said 90% of the cost was for people in the last 6 months of their lives.

 

[bueno]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

World war will do that for you.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

Anyone who makes it from the lower to middle class did it through hard work. You may be cynical and say that they did it through illegal means, lottery, or on the dole, but you'd be wrong 99 times out of 100. Taking part in a government program aids those who work hard so that they are in a position to thrive. No one can thrive on the dole, it can only assist for a time.Government programs do not amount to "a bag of money" that can take the poor from the bottom 20th percentile to the top 20%th, so you should stop characterizing them as if they were.

 

[snitwitch]

This guy loves government handouts if they're going to the oil industry.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/24/your-daily-dose-of-marco-rubio-his-speech-at-the-reagan-library/23 minute speech, but well worth listening to. Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory. I haven't paid too much attention to this guy, but I understand now why conservatives have been raving about him. He is truly something special.

Do you ever think before typing?Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

 

[bueno]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

The poverty rate is getting back up to where it was in the 60's. The growth of the economy has stagnated and isn't anywhere near it was in previous generations. And this is before Bush took office. While the stock market was doing good in the 1990's, the growth rate of the GDP had completely stagnated compared to previous generations. Here's a look at the GDP figures: http://www.usgovernm...us_gdp_history. 80% growth from 1950 - 1960.

97% growth from 1960 - 1970.

168% growth from 1970 - 1980.

108% growth from 1980 - 1990.

71% growth from 1990 - 2000. 2nd lowest

45% growth from 2000 - 2010. lowest

So no, I wouldn't say the trends of the last half century indicate shrinking poverty or a more rapidly increaing economy.

So you really want to argue that the problems of the last decade were caused by social legislation enacted in the 1930s and 1960s? The only significant changes made in that time were a substantial rolling back of government poverty benefits in the mid-90s and the expansion of drug coverage in the mid-00s. Compare poverty rates from the 30s, 40s and 50s to now, even when we're having a severe economic event.

You are also looking at current year GDP growth, which doesn't account for inflation (which is why the 1970s look so high). The growth rate since the 50s has been much more stable and the 90s reflect the overall strong growth if you look at real GDP.

No, I'm arguing that your assertion that these programs vastly diminished poverty while also contributing to vast economic expansion previosly unseen isn't supported by the data.

I didn't actually make that assertion. In practice it's difficult to isolate any specific program or action taken within the economy and tie it to a direct outcome, because the economy is so large and complex that even directly measurable effects are offset and/or enhanced by other economic factors. That said, Is poverty lower now than it was prior to those programs being implemented... yes.

Did the largest and longest uninterrupted economic expansion in history take place after and during the implementation of those programs... yes.

Has virtually every measure of health and wellness improved since those programs were implemented... yes.

Did personal savings increase after SS passed? Yes, at least until the early 80s when monetary policy changed to substantially encourage borrowing and investing over savings.

Did personal investing increase after these programs passed... yes, in fact private investing in stocks didn't start to climb significantly until the 1980s when the retirement financial services industry started to grow.

Rubio is the one saying these programs made us weaker. So my simple question is, where is that weakness reflected other than in populist rhetoric of how great things were in the old days before the government came in and started taking care of us all?

I don't think you can find a causative correlation between economic expansion plus technological advances and social engineering.

 

[bueno]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

This changed when communities got larger than villages. Once someone becomes a member of the faceless masses versus someone you actually know, the amount of responsibility you feel over their well-being significantly decreases. He's completely flipped the causation.

I think the breakdown in family structure came after the institution of the New Deal.

 

[timschochet]

http://sistertoldjah...reagan-library/

23 minute speech, but well worth listening to. Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

I haven't paid too much attention to this guy, but I understand now why conservatives have been raving about him. He is truly something special.

Do you ever think before typing?Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

No, I never do.

 

[humpback]

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

Anyone who makes it from the lower to middle class did it through hard work. You may be cynical and say that they did it through illegal means, lottery, or on the dole, but you'd be wrong 99 times out of 100. Taking part in a government program aids those who work hard so that they are in a position to thrive. No one can thrive on the dole, it can only assist for a time.Government programs do not amount to "a bag of money" that can take the poor from the bottom 20th percentile to the top 20%th, so you should stop characterizing them as if they were.

Thanks for chiming in, but you're all sorts of wrong.

 

[meatwad1]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

He disagrees because it is obvious that unchecked entitlement programs have made our people the envy of the world. We are the most productive, the most enlightened, and the most intelligent people in the world. Everybody's a winner. Everybody counts.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

Anyone who makes it from the lower to middle class did it through hard work. You may be cynical and say that they did it through illegal means, lottery, or on the dole, but you'd be wrong 99 times out of 100. Taking part in a government program aids those who work hard so that they are in a position to thrive. No one can thrive on the dole, it can only assist for a time.Government programs do not amount to "a bag of money" that can take the poor from the bottom 20th percentile to the top 20%th, so you should stop characterizing them as if they were.

Thanks for chiming in, but you're all sorts of wrong.

You can't cite a single instance of someone moving from one tax bracket to another solely from government intervention, nor will you finding anyone promising that that was ever the case. Your contention is false.Edit: That is to say, you won't find any poor folks moving up thanks to welfare. Of course, you will always find the rich getting richer thanks to government intervention, but that is usually not a problem for people who are more worried about the poor getting assistance, for some reason.

 

[humpback]

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

Anyone who makes it from the lower to middle class did it through hard work. You may be cynical and say that they did it through illegal means, lottery, or on the dole, but you'd be wrong 99 times out of 100. Taking part in a government program aids those who work hard so that they are in a position to thrive. No one can thrive on the dole, it can only assist for a time.Government programs do not amount to "a bag of money" that can take the poor from the bottom 20th percentile to the top 20%th, so you should stop characterizing them as if they were.

Thanks for chiming in, but you're all sorts of wrong.

You can't cite a single instance of someone moving from one tax bracket to another solely from government intervention, nor will you finding anyone promising that that was ever the case. Your contention is false.Edit: That is to say, you won't find any poor folks moving up thanks to welfare. Of course, you will always find the rich getting richer thanks to government intervention, but that is usually not a problem for people who are more worried about the poor getting assistance, for some reason.

You can't site a single instance of that being my contention. It would be nice if people could take their partisan blinders off for a minute and actually take written words at face value instead of completely twisting them into something they're not.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think the breakdown in family structure came after the institution of the New Deal.

The New Deal was the "culprit" that moved jobs from the farm to the factory, from rural settings to urban settings? That had people moving away from where they were born?

 

[oso diablo]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

 

[Road Warriors]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

 

[Jackstraw]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?I just will never buy that. How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

 

[humpback]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?I just will never buy that. How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

Ah, another lefty who didn't watch the speech but thinks Rubio wants to eliminate social programs. Good stuff.

 

[Slapdash]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?I just will never buy that. How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

Ah, another lefty who didn't watch the speech but thinks Rubio wants to eliminate social programs. Good stuff.

The guy's speech is full of rhetoric about how these programs are wrong, weaken/bankrupt America, and should be preformed by the private sector. He has also already voted to significantly cut and block grant Medicaid, replace Medicare with vouchers, significantly cut and block grant food stamps, as well as additional large cuts to things like Pell Grants and low-income housing. Forgive us for taking his assurances that he is not out to demolish the safety net despite these facts with a huge grain of salt.

 

[humpback]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?I just will never buy that. How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

Ah, another lefty who didn't watch the speech but thinks Rubio wants to eliminate social programs. Good stuff.

The guy's speech is full of rhetoric about how these programs are wrong, weaken/bankrupt America, and should be preformed by the private sector. He has also already voted to significantly cut and block grant Medicaid, replace Medicare with vouchers, significantly cut and block grant food stamps, as well as additional large cuts to things like Pell Grants and low-income housing. Forgive us for taking his assurances that he is not out to demolish the safety net despite these facts with a huge grain of salt.

If that's what you want to hear...

 

[Slapdash]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?

I just will never buy that.

How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

Ah, another lefty who didn't watch the speech but thinks Rubio wants to eliminate social programs. Good stuff.

The guy's speech is full of rhetoric about how these programs are wrong, weaken/bankrupt America, and should be preformed by the private sector. He has also already voted to significantly cut and block grant Medicaid, replace Medicare with vouchers, significantly cut and block grant food stamps, as well as additional large cuts to things like Pell Grants and low-income housing. Forgive us for taking his assurances that he is not out to demolish the safety net despite these facts with a huge grain of salt.

If that's what you want to hear...

The bold is not an opinion, it is the plan he voted for. Whatever though, let me know when you actually want to discuss something as opposed to trying to catch other people in their biases while ignoring your own strong ones.

 

[humpback]

Rubio is just an attractive, well-spoken, charismatic version of conservative nutjob that we've seen repeatedly. You are being swayed by those traits, not the content of his thoughts. This was one of the most predictable timmy posts ever.

what makes Rubio a nutjob?

Not agreeing with a progressive agenda? Seems to be the litmus test for nutjobs in some corners of the FFA.

If you are gonna be for eliminating social programs and don't acknowledge that a certain portion of society will fundamentally be abondoned then your not being honest. Would families and churches etc step up if they were eliminated? Sure. But lets say this won't happen in 10% of cases and people won't be able to give fully adequate help in 20% more. Thats a pretty rosy projection in my mind. You extraploate those numbers and your talking about at least 30% of the most vulnerable in our society that are basically forced to live and die like animals. MILLIONS. In the richest society in the world. And we're cool with that? That is the conservative vision of America? The so called Christian right?

I just will never buy that.

How about lets control some health care costs. Trim some if we have to and (gulp) let people pay a little more taxes.

Ah, another lefty who didn't watch the speech but thinks Rubio wants to eliminate social programs. Good stuff.

The guy's speech is full of rhetoric about how these programs are wrong, weaken/bankrupt America, and should be preformed by the private sector. He has also already voted to significantly cut and block grant Medicaid, replace Medicare with vouchers, significantly cut and block grant food stamps, as well as additional large cuts to things like Pell Grants and low-income housing. Forgive us for taking his assurances that he is not out to demolish the safety net despite these facts with a huge grain of salt.

If that's what you want to hear...

The bold is not an opinion, it is the plan he voted for. Whatever though, let me know when you actually want to discuss something as opposed to trying to catch other people in their biases while ignoring your own strong ones.

I forgot, I was the one who had my mind made up before even watching the speech, convinced that he wanted to eliminate social safety net programs based on a quote which said nothing resembling that. You got me.

 

[bueno]

I think the breakdown in family structure came after the institution of the New Deal.

The New Deal was the "culprit" that moved jobs from the farm to the factory, from rural settings to urban settings? That had people moving away from where they were born?

Where am I implying causation in that sentence?

 

[TexanFan02]

I think the breakdown in family structure came after the institution of the New Deal.

The New Deal was the "culprit" that moved jobs from the farm to the factory, from rural settings to urban settings? That had people moving away from where they were born?

Where am I implying causation in that sentence?

When you reference the institution of the New Deal. Why not just say after the 1930's?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Best part of speech

Doubt most will watch all 23 minutes of this...

This reads like a mindless Facebook post.Re-post in your status if you agree!

 

[bueno]

I think the breakdown in family structure came after the institution of the New Deal.

The New Deal was the "culprit" that moved jobs from the farm to the factory, from rural settings to urban settings? That had people moving away from where they were born?

Where am I implying causation in that sentence?

When you reference the institution of the New Deal. Why not just say after the 1930's?

If you had followed the entire conversation you would see that Mathias and I were both referring to the comment that "But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities." So saying after the 30's doesn't fit into the discussion at all. We had cities before the 30's, yet family structure in social units bigger than a village was still not weakened until after the New Deal, which is the reference that Rubio seemed to be making.

So Mathias' timeline that it related to urbanization doesn't ring true to me, as urbanization preceded the New Deal, which preceded the breakdown in family structure. However, that doesn't mean I was assigning causation here, only that the timeline didn't work. One could easily have used WWII and probably made a causative arguement too, but that wasn't the point at all.

 

[oso diablo]

Best part of speech

Doubt most will watch all 23 minutes of this...

This reads like a mindless Facebook post.Re-post in your status if you agree!

LIKE

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rubio: 2016 decision coming 'soon enough' to build 'campaign it takes to win'(CNN)Sen. Marco Rubio said he'll make a decision on running for president in the next few weeks and feels confident that he could obtain the resources to "credibly run a campaign and win," despite an increasingly crowded GOP field taking shape.
In a wide-ranging interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the Florida Republican also gave his thoughts on Republican efforts to defund the president's executive action on immigration, and further explained why he won't support the administration's new Cuba policy.

2016

Rubio, who released a new book "American Dreams" on Tuesday, said he's still deciding whether he thinks he can be more effective as president or as a senator under the new majority. He has already said he won't run for both offices in 2016.

With power players Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush now considered likely contenders, Rubio said "they're both credible and well-funded" candidates but argued there would still be room for his campaign if he decides to plow forward.

"I'm confident that if we decide to run for president ... we will have the funding and the resources necessary to credibly run a campaign and win," he said.

"But I understand that the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to do that," he added.

Romney tells donors he's considering 2016 bid

Bush and Romney have already been in active in talking with big-money supporters and securing financial resources, making it strategically more difficult for other potential contenders like Rubio to lock down support from the GOP's donor class.

Rubio, 43, will huddle with donors and supporters at a retreat he's hosting in Florida later this month, where plans could be formalized for 2016. He said he doesn't have a date in mind to make a decision, only saying he'll decide "soon enough so that you can build the kind of campaign it takes to win."

Source: Rubio on track for 2016 run

Pressed on whether that means "within the next few weeks," Rubio replied: "Yes, soon."

Executive action

To combat President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration — which would allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the country temporarily -- Republicans on Capitol Hill are pushing a strategy to tie funding for the order to a must-pass spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

House GOP plans immigration showdown

Rubio, however, questioned whether it was the right move, saying he's not in favor of "something that would be traumatic for the country or something that would put the nation in danger."

"I could support that, but ultimately if there's going to be a veto threat — as I'm sure there will be and the consequences of that is that we can't secure our nation -- that would be a real problem for a lot of people," he said. "For me included."

He added "if there was a way to do it that overcomes that obstacle, I would be all for it."

Rubio was among a bipartisan Gang of Eight senators who helped craft a comprehensive immigration reform package that passed in mid-2013 but failed to advance in the House.

He said he doesn't regret being part of the process but argued he wouldn't do it the same way again.

"We learned that you're not going to reform immigration law in America with...everything all in one big bill," he said. "I think that is true for multiple topics. I think that is especially true when it comes to immigration."

As he also lays out in his book, Rubio said the "only way" to address immigration reform will be through a sequence of bills, rather than one massive reform package -- with the first step being to better enforce current immigration law and with a pathway to citizenship as an ultimate goal of reform.

Cuba

Following Obama's announcement last month to loosen the U.S. embargo on Cuba, Rubio said he still plans to vote against any new funding for a U.S. embassy in Havana.

He also criticized the Cuban Interests Section in Washington — a diplomatic mission in the nation's capital — as "almost an exclusively intelligence gathering outpost."

"I mean, they conduct no diplomacy and there are a large number of people trying to get into Cuba," Rubio said. "The reason why our Interests Section is so busy is the large number of people trying to get out of Cuba."

2016 Republicans slam Cuba announcement

The junior senator from Florida, whose parents emigrated from Cuba, said any policy change towards Cuba must be met with "reciprocal steps."

"If you want a better relationship with us economically, that should have been as a result of an opening politically on the island of Cuba," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/politics/rubio-cnn-interview/index.html

No comment here but I think the GOP could use some fresh blood, they should urge Rubio to run and if they know what's good for them they will get Susan Martinez in the race too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Best part of speech

Doubt most will watch all 23 minutes of this, so above link should take you to the last few minutes, where Rubio talks about his Cuban grandfather and why American was so important to him, and thus to Rubio now. Very good stuff.

This is nice.

At 19:00, on. About his grandfather and his experience here and coming from Cuba.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too religious for my tastes. I'm in FL so I might here more about this guy than others, but I'm not a fan.

And by religious, this post meant [gasp] Catholic.

 

[Joe Summer]

He's going to get steamrolled by Jeb.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[SIZE=24pt]Wealthy fans could lift Marco Rubio in 2016[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), shown here speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, is working to line up donors for a possible 2016 presidential run. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]By Ed O'Keefe and Matea Gold[/SIZE] March 5

[SIZE=12pt]Jeb Bush’s success in rounding up GOP donors as he pursues a likely presidential run has created a big question for his fellow Floridian Marco Rubio: Will there be any money left for him? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That’s where Norman Braman comes in. The billionaire Miami auto dealer and longtime Rubio benefactor is expected to put as much as $10 million into a pro-Rubio super PAC if the senator decides to run, according to people familiar with his plans.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“If there is a super PAC that’s founded, I will give substantially,” Braman said in an interview, declining to be more specific.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“I don’t pay any attention to that other distinguished Floridian,” he added, referring to the former governor. “I respect Jeb Bush, but I think we need someone who represents the next generation.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Support from Braman, a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles football team, is exactly what the 43-year-old first-term senator needs. Rubio is expected to announce his presidential campaign next month, but he faces big hurdles as he prepares to do so. In a year when many donors are excited about governors such as Bush and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, his profile as a rookie senator with dazzling oratorical skills — similar to the Democratic incumbent in the White House — is a harder sell.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Rubio slams Obama's foreign policy at CPAC(2:59)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) urged the audience at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference to consider what must be done to ensure America remains "exceptional." (AP) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]While Bush has been conquering the country’s money capitals with high-dollar fundraisers, Rubio has been on his own national tour, quietly expanding his financial base and reconnecting with donors he first met during his insurgent 2010 Senate campaign.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]After confident performances at a January gathering of conservative donors in Rancho Mirage, Calif., and the recent Club for Growth conclave[/SIZE] in Palm Beach, Fla., Rubio is winning over a small but wealthy group that sees him as a fresh party face willing to outline specific policy ideas, according to multiple GOP strategists and fundraisers.

[SIZE=12pt]“There are a number of people in a similar financial position that have indicated strongly that they will be supportive,” Braman said.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Among Rubio’s supporters is a cadre of donors who participate in the political network organized by industrialists Charles and David Koch, according to a person familiar with their thinking. Rubio has also been intensely courting casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The two had a long one-on-one dinner Monday at a Washington steakhouse.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The backing of a handful of enormously rich financiers for an allied super PAC could help keep Rubio aloft in the competitive GOP primaries, much as Adelson did for former House speaker Newt Gingrich in 2012. Rubio advisers also say he has made enough inroads with the broader donor class to be able to raise significant funds for his own campaign operation — perhaps $40 million to $50 million by next year’s Iowa caucuses.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“I don’t think Marco is going to hurt for money at all,” said Scott Weaver, who heads the public-policy practice at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein and is helping spearhead Rubio’s fundraising efforts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Rubio also has the financial support of Wayne Berman, who served as national finance chairman for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 GOP presidential campaign and was a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Rubio advisers say he does not need to match Bush’s massive fundraising apparatus, which is expected to bring in as much as $100 million by early spring. The plan is to run a lean operation, begin visiting early-primary states and get to the first debate in August — visits and stage performances that they argue will help tilt the momentum in his favor.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The senator is widely regarded as one of the party’s best communicators — something that has helped him win over donors in one sitting.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“I’ve been at events this year where people will come in and have a notion of who they will likely support, and by the time they spend an hour with Marco, they say: ‘I’m in. What can I do?’ ” Weaver said.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In the coming weeks, Rubio will work to cram in as much face time with major donors across the country as possible. His next stop is an appearance Friday at an American Enterprise Institute conference, at a luxury resort on Georgia’s Sea Island, that will be attended by some of the biggest givers on the right. After that, Rubio is scheduled to meet with a group of top chief executives in Manhattan early next week.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But the aggressive travel schedule has contributed to Rubio’s distinction as the most absent senator. He has missed 8.3 percent of Senate votes since joining the body in 2011, according to GovTrack, a nonpartisan group that catalogues government activity.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]George Seay, a Dallas-based investment manager, said he first met Rubio during his 2010 Senate campaign at a meeting of the Legacy Political Fund, an organization of conservative business and civic leaders whose former members include Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]After that session, Seay said he concluded that Rubio “would be likely to be successful at the presidential level and would be outstanding in the position.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]At the Club for Growth gathering in Palm Beach last week, Rubio impressed the crowd with his compelling biography as the son of Cuban immigrants and how he handled domestic and foreign policy questions.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“I measure candidates on three issues: Can their policies grow our economy? Can their policies protect us culturally? Can their policies protect us physically?” said New York venture capitalist Ken Abramowitz, who was among those in attendance. “He got an A each time. I walked him to his car and I congratulated him.” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Still, Abramowitz said he is still “in the learning phase.” Among the potential candidates he views as most compelling right now — along with Rubio — are Bush, Walker and Cruz.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]While much of the money in his home state has gravitated to Bush, Rubio still has the potential to raise large sums, some GOP fundraisers say.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“The vast majority of the significant donor community has signed on with Jeb, and my guess is that’s going to hold true throughout the campaign,” said Tallahassee lobbyist Brian Ballard, a top Bush fundraiser. “But Florida is a big state with a lot of wealthy folks who I’m sure find Marco’s appeal very compelling. I could see him still doing well in Florida.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But Mac Stipanovich, another veteran Tallahassee operative, said Rubio would struggle to find financial support in Florida. “I don’t know anyone in Republican circles in this state who isn’t with Bush for president,” he said in a recent interview.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Stipanovich said he recently conducted a marketing research poll for a private-sector client that found Florida Republicans preferred Bush, followed by Walker second and Rubio in third place.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Rubio’s most valuable financial backer is Braman, who sells Audi, BMW, Porsche and Rolls Royce vehicles at dealerships in Florida. He first met Rubio when he was a state legislator on the verge of becoming Florida House speaker.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Braman — estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.9 billion — said he walked away from the meeting convinced that “this is an extremely intelligent, bright young man.” He became a donor, benefactor and family friend, traveling with Rubio to Israel at one point. Rubio’s wife, Jeanette, works part time at Braman’s family foundation.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]When Rubio left Tallahassee for Washington, the Miami businessman was among those featured in a tribute video for him. On camera, Braman predicted that Rubio someday would be president.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“I haven’t changed my opinion,” he said.[/SIZE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubio-hopes-theres-still-enough-money-for-his-own-2016-campaign/2015/03/05/7de9256e-c2a2-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html