Because “Iran doesn’t want the US more involved in fighting ISIS because Iran wants to fight ISIS itself, and to use ISIS as a lever for increasing it’s influence in Syria and Iraq, which might be harder if the US takes on a larger role” explains Iran’s motives but implies nothing at all about the Obama Admin’s motives in dealing with them.
Well, right. The focus of the cited article was about why this made no sense from Iran’s perspective, so that was what I was explaining.
But the answer to why Rubio would think this motivates the US is equally obvious from his comments. If you think it is obvious that the US should be doing more to battle ISIS (as Rubio presumably does), then you’re left searching for an explanation of why the US isn’t doing more. If Iran indeed wanted the US to have a smaller role, then it is perfectly plausible that this would influence US policy given our desire to make a deal with Iran.
I don’t know why Rubio hasn’t issued a clarification of his comments if he was making the argument you’re suggesting, RP. It’s just odd given that he’s been widely lampooned as a dope for linking Iran and ISIS the way he did.
So he’s brilliant at making stupid plans. Well, I for one am reassured.
One good reason is that, whatever Rubio actually believes, many of his supporters subscribe to the “all Muslims are the same and evil” school of thought.
Right now, he’s fighting to have a place in the godforsaken land known as the Republican primary. If he clarifies any comments, it certainly will not be to add nuance. That word is just…too French.
To get back to the OP:
I think I can let Omg speak for conservatives, up to a point. Immigration reform, or rather the GOP base’s reaction to the idea, took Rubio back to square one.
He’s certainly got time to get a fresh start with the GOP primary electorate. The problem is, he’s got to find a way to distinguish himself in an extremely crowded field. Unless the guys already on the leader board self-destruct*, he’s gonna have a hard time getting people to pay attention to him. Having played himself out of the game in 2013, he’s in a weak position to play himself back in.
- In a way that the GOP primary electorate would regard as self-destructing, rather than something that would disqualify him in our eyes, since basically the entire field has already done that for most of us.
ISTM the argument for a Rubio candidacy will boil down to his supposed expertise on foreign policy, and he can point to his membership on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as some sort of credential. However, he faces two problems. One, every time he weighs in on matters of foreign policy he makes a fool out of himself. Two, his stance on any given issue might as well have been produced by some sort of Automated Hawkish Policy Position generator. He can always be relied on to take whatever is the most aggressively pro-interventionist, militaristic, and anti-diplomacy perspective on an issue, and in that respect he’s indistinguishable from most of the field. I don’t see Rubio bringing much to the campaign in the way of insight or knowledge that really differentiates him from a generic Republican, and hence whatever “expertise” or knowledge he may have locked away somewhere seems to be wasted on him and on his hopeless campaign.
In regards to this, and Rubio’s supposed foreign policy expertise, politicians and the media often put emphasis on resume items without regard to how well they actually did their jobs.
Rick Scott is not a very good governor, and Marco Rubio really doesn’t know very much about foreign policy. Rubio is a very smart, very serious man, with a great deal of potential. Let’s not waste that potential by putting him in a job he’s not ready for. If the man really wants to be President, he remains one of the most attractive VP prospects, just as in 2012. Nowadays VP is a good apprenticeship for the Presidency rather than a guy just waiting for another guy to die.
Someone unprepared to be President is unprepared to be Vice President. IMHO.
True, but the Vice Presidency has no formal duties that anyone with a pulse can’t handle. Since it’s very unlikely that a President will die within his first couple of years of office, I think most voters are okay with someone not yet ready, but considered a bright promising candidate, to take the job. I think Rubio meets the VP threshold.
The clerk at the gas station is prepared to be VP, it’s not a tough job; unfortunately, he is not prepared to be President, therefore we don’t want him for our national spare tire.
A case in point:
[QUOTE=Sen. Marco Rubio]
And more than anything else, the [Israelis] deserve to be treated with more respect, not less than the respect this President and this White House is giving the Supreme Leader of Iran.
[/QUOTE]
Um, dude?
We have no problem with the fact that Israel is a nuclear power with several dozen warheads, while we are currently imposing heavy economic sanctions on Iran until it abandons its nuclear program and commits to inspections, just in case they might get a bomb someday.
We have substantial cooperation with Israel on military and intelligence matters. This is obviously not the case with Iran.
And we give billions of dollars of foreign aid to Israel each year. I believe our aid program for Iran is at the annual level of $0.00.
And we do all this for Israel while the Prime Minister of Israel routinely and publicly craps all over our President and tries to undermine him domestically.
In short, God, what a dunce. If foreign policy is his strong suit, he doesn’t have a strong suit in any meaningful sense of the word. He should be pushing a broom somewhere for a living, not representing one of our largest states in the U.S. Senate, let alone considering a run for the White House.
Luckily for him, it’s hard to be too stupid to lose your Republican cred.
It’s all relative to who you are running against and who you are wanting votes from.
Compared to the others presumed to be running in the GOP primary? Hard to look like the foreign policy fool in that crowd. Really who among that group is more expert? Jeb? Did you hear any of his foreign policy interview? Rand Paul? Be real.
Who is he pandering to? An anti-Obama crowd and those fundamentalists who believe that Israel is a necessary precondition for The Rapture and who are more hard line in their unquestioning support than 99% of the American Jewish community.
I would posit that that statement is less stupid than cynical glad handing. He has learned that pandering is the only possible path forward.
It gets worse:
“Unconditional support?” What ally receives, and ever should receive, “unconditional support?” Why should we extend unconditional support to an ally if and when our national interests diverge from theirs?
But what is truly delusional is Rubio’s idea that treaty allies like France and the UK are sitting around shaking their heads in disappointment at Obama’s stance toward Israel and Netanyahu, asking themselves, “Merde alors, if the US doesn’t give Israel unconditional support, can we really feel safe in our own alliance with the US?” The inconvenient reality for Rubio is that, on the contrary, our closest allies would most likely be deeply gladdened and reassured if the US suddenly started dealing with Israel like a normal country.
Purest unalloyed nonsense from this supposed serious thinker on foreign policy.
Is it better or worse that statements like that aren’t actually what Rubio thinks, but political statements that show he’s “sticking it to the Libs” like his supporters want?
Do you think anyone runs against opposition in an election without saying what they believe target voters want to hear? He in particular tried the principled approach on immigration policy, actually speaking some commonsense about immigration reform, and the backlash destroyed his primary contender stock. He’s been trying to regain his true conservative cred ever since. And still hasn’t. His not being believed to be a true conservative is why he is not considered a real contender.
If he’s running he’d be an idiot to say anything other than statements like that. Even Rand Paul, the isolationist, who stands against sanctions on Iran, and for cutting off all foreign aid, including to Israel, has been trying to find ways to massage his message into being a supporter of Israel. It’s what Iowa wants to hear, if nothing else.
Better, certainly, since a President Rubio would follow his beliefs absent the teet-suckling Israel lobby that is critical to his nomination.
That’s a dangerous assumption to make. Six of the nine Veeps who have assumed the presidency have had less than one year’s experience as Vice-President; three have had less than half a year’s experience. The most important qualification for Veep is that they can step into the job on a moment’s notice, not that they’re busy apprenticing.
Tyler 31 days
Fillmore 461 days (1.26 years)
A. Johnson 42 days
Arthur 199 days
T. Roosevelt 194 days
Coolidge 881 days (2.41 years)
Truman 82 days
L Johnson 1037 days (2.84 years)
Ford 250 days
Average for the nine is 353 days, just under one year’s experience. Some, like Tyler, A. Johnson and Truman, served out almost an entire term as President.
Nor is this just a phenomenon of the 19th century; the last Veep to take office, Ford, had less than a year.
Perhaps. It also seems that the candidate who picks the greener VP usually loses. As a matter of fact, the last three candidates who picked young, inexperienced VPs lost: Ryan, Palin, Edwards.
Now that it looks like Rubio is planning to announce a presidential bid in the next couple weeks, it’s as good a time as any to ask: what (seriously) is he thinking?
In running for president, Rubio gives up the chance to run for re-election to the Senate. While I think his odds at winning the nomination are considerably better than, say, Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina, he’s very much a long-shot against Bush: less access to big money donors, less impressive resume, similar policy positions on important issues like immigration. It’s not impossible that Rubio beats Bush to the nomination, but ISTM the most likely scenario of all this is that Rubio’s career in politics is over come 2017.
Which is it? Does he really have no interest in continuing his work as (an undeservedly high-profile) senator and potential future presidential candidate? Is he angling for a talking head gig at Fox? Are his odds of becoming the nominee (or VP pick) better than I’m giving him credit for?