* * *
What boxer Sonny Liston’s manager said of him (Sonny had
his good points, the trouble was his bad points) is true of Marco Rubio.
His strengths include intelligence, articulateness, and,
usually, cheerfulness. His misjudgments involve, in ascending order of
importance, the Senate immigration bill of 2013, sugar, Libya, and S-590.
Together these reveal a recurring penchant for ill-considered undertakings.
Rubio’s retreat, under withering political heat, from the
immigration bill was undignified but not reprehensible.
* IT'S RUBIO'S SUPPORT - BEHIND THE SCENES TODAY (AND
HISTORICALLY!) - THAT IS REPREHENSIBLE! THIS ALONE DISQUALIFIES HIM FROM
CONSIDERATION. LET HIM JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND MOVE THEM TO THE RIGHT
INSTEAD OF BEING A CANCER FROM WITHIN AS A REPUBLICAN.
Rubio's "sugar addiction" is a reprehensible
but not startling example of the routine entanglements of big government and
big business. He has benefited from the support of Florida’s wealthy sugar
producers, who have benefited from sugar import quotas and other corporate
welfare that forces Americans to pay approximately twice the world price for
sugar. What is, however, startling is Rubio’s preposterous defense of this
corporate welfare as a national-security imperative: Without our government
rigging the sugar market, “other countries will capture the market share, our
agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate, you know, housing and
so forth, and then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point
we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”
(*SNORT*)
* WHAT A FRIGGIN' MORON! (DOES HE ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANYONE
WILL BUY SUCH BLATANT AND SELF-SERVING SOPHISTRY? THIS IS THE KIND OF ARGUMENT
ONE EXPECTS FROM HILLARY CLINTON REGARDING HER "CHARITY!")
This promiscuous invocation of national security brings
us to Rubio’s enthusiastic support of the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton
intervention in Libya, which Rubio faults for having been insufficiently
enthusiastic.
* GIVE RUBIO A GUN AND A PARACHUTE AND DROP HIM OVER
BENGHAZI...
(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)
* FRIGGIN' CHICKENHAWK SON OF A...
(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)
This 2011 plunge into a tribal society’s civil war, this
eight-month assassination attempt using fighter bombers, this supposedly "humanitarian
imperialism" appealed to Secretary of State Clinton and other progressives
precisely because it had no discernible connection to any vital U.S. interest.
Rubio supported this third adventure in regime change in the Muslim world since
9/11, perhaps on the principle that practice makes perfect.
(*SNORT*)
* SERIOUSLY... FOLKS... EVEN IF RUBIO WERE TO MOVE TO THE
RIGHT OF TRUMP ON IMMIGRATION AND TO START DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN CAPITALISM
AND CRONY CAPITALISM... RUBIO'S NEOCON VIEWS DISQUALIFY HIM AS BEING JUST TOO
DAMNED STUPID TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
Today, Rubio's sensible complaint is that the Obama
administration (like the previous administration regarding Iraq) had no plans
for preventing chaos after the Libyan regime was decapitated. His not-at-all
sensible implication, however, is that America should have buckled down to
nation-building there.
(*NODDING*)
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Rubio’s misjudgment regarding Libya indicates a
susceptibility to slapdash foreign policies.
His support of S-590, the Campus Accountability and
Safety Act, indicates a susceptibility to trendy temptations, carelessness
regarding evidence, and indifference to constitutional values.
* BUT IT GETS WORSE, FOLKS... (KEEP READING...)
Wielding irrelevant laws, spurious social science, and
financial coercion, the Obama administration is pressuring colleges and
universities to traduce standards of due process when dealing with students
accused of sexual assault. Claiming that a 1972 law prohibiting sex
discrimination in education somehow empowers the government to dictate
institutions’ disciplinary procedures, the administration is dictating that a
mere “preponderance of the evidence,” rather than “clear and convincing”
evidence, be used in determining a life-shattering verdict of guilt.
Stuart Taylor Jr. and K. C. Johnson — a lawyer and an
academic, neither Republicans — write that the administration justifies this by
citing a single “resoundingly discredited” study purporting to prove an
epidemic (involving one in five women) of campus sexual assaults.
The administration opposes allowing accused students to
cross-examine their accusers, and favors a form of double jeopardy — allowing
accusers to appeal not-guilty findings.
(*DRUM ROLL*)
Rubio is one of twelve Republican senators collaborating
with the administration by co-sponsoring legislation that would codify
requiring improvised campus disciplinary proceedings to supplant law
enforcement and the criminal-justice system.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Proposed by Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the
legislation is, as Taylor and Johnson say, “designed to advance the
administration’s agenda.” The legislation’s language radiates prejudgment: By
repeatedly referring to accusers as “victims,” it presumes the guilt of the
accused. Taylor and Johnson write: America’s universities are in the grip of a
dangerous presume-guilt-and-rush-to-judgment culture. . . . An entire
generation of college students is learning to disregard due process and the
dispassionate evaluation of evidence. And dozens of clearly or at least
probably innocent students, whose cases we will detail in a book we are now
writing, have been branded sex criminals, been railroaded out of their
universities, and seen their hopes and dreams ruined.
(*SIGH*)
By co-sponsoring S-590, Rubio is helping the
administration sacrifice a core constitutional value, due process, in order to
advance progressives’ cultural aggression. The next Republican president should
be someone committed to promptly stopping this disgrace, not someone who would
sign S-590’s affirmation of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment