No, I’m not saying we shouldn’t vote for Rubio if he is the nominee. I am saying that he’s another McConnell/Boehner/Ryan and that means a slower March to the Collective. Eventually, you’re just as dead from a slowly metastasizing cancer, as you are from a fatal heart attack. Which makes moot, discussion of how he’s ‘mostly’ conservative.

I am saying that other than Cruz, every other current candidate takes America over the cliff, toward the rocks far below.

And, given the pathetic state of the public, it’s virtually certain that even Cruz can’t stop it. Trump’s supporters, referenced at the link above and Sander’s supporters, of whom 70+% embrace socialism… guarantee our collective fate.

But… a Pres. Cruz could use the bully pulpit to awaken some greater percentage of the public as to why the republic has seemingly failed, which is that a republic is only as strong as the aggregate integrity of its citizens. And, the greater that percentage, the greater the likelihood that something worthwhile can emerge from the ashes.

Since it looks increasingly likely, if not yet definitive, that he will not succeed, the future will be very grim indeed.

What I saw was Rubio and Jeff Flake arguing hard for better border security and stringent requirements for legalization without citizenship. The four Democrats were united and pushed back hard on any conservative arguments. The compromises were more toward their views.

The final bill was a mish mash with eight hundred and forty-four pages and over three hundred amendments – most by GOP Senators.
There was no chance it would pass a GOP controlled House.

The citizen pushback against passage was, I think, a wakeup call for Rubio. It became clear to him that nothing could be decided about the status of illegals until the border was controlled. Rubio also took a severe tongue lashing over the bill from Chris Crane, the head of the ICE union, at a press conference called by Senator Sessions. That blunt input also had an effect on Rubio’s views on immigration reform. He has tried hard to explain his change of mind, but the immigration hawks will never trust him. It probably means his candidacy is cooked.

Can Cruz beat Trump with Carson and Kasich lingering on in the wings. We may get a chance to see if Rubio can’t win Florida.

I can’t say I wasn’t “warned” if Rubio were president and betrayed conservatives?

I beg to differ. First of all, conservatives consider one false move a “betrayal”—and I’m not talking about Rubio here, I’m talking about my observations over time. One false move and you’re OUT. So if Rubio were president, I guarantee he would betray conservatives, at least according to many conservatives.

But let’s say it’s a real betrayal, an important and/or deep and meaningful one. How is it you’re setting yourself as a person warning a naive and trusting person (me)? I already said I only believe Rubio’s explanation “about 70%.” I already said I have reservations about him. He was not one of my original picks (Walker, then Fiorina, then Cruz). What part of this is unclear? What I have said over and over is that if he is the nominee I will support him. I don’t think any meaningful betrayal is in the offing, but I realize it may be.

So no, neither you nor anyone else would get to say you warned me.

Unless you’re saying I shouldn’t vote for him, even were he to be nominated.

By the way, don’t blame the “establishment” for what happened to Cruz. First of all, the back and forth between Cruz and Rubio has been equal, each calling the other “liar” and somewhat distorting the other’s record.

But the main actor in the Palinization (or whatever you want to call it) of Cruz has been Trump and his supporters, not the establishment. It’s been going on ever since Trump and his troops saw Cruz as the main threat to him. Character assassination, plus an assist from some dirty tricks by the Cruz camp. Carson took part, too, being nastily passive-aggressive to Cruz in the last debate (I wrote about it at the time). The people who have attacked Cruz are NOT primarily the establishment, it’s Trump supporters and the alt-right.

Did you see this? Rubio has a lot of ratings a lot higher than that.

But let me just say—and I’m saying this to everyone—I have said over and over what I think about Cruz, and that he has been my first choice for quite some time. But Rubio is acceptable to me. This is nitpicky “perfect is the enemy of the good” stuff. It’s fine to trust Cruz as a conservative more than you do Rubio—in fact, that’s how I feel, too. But the other person—be it Rubio if you’re a Cruz supporter, or Cruz if you’re a Rubio supporter—is not a demon. I have studied both their records a lot, and they are both flawed—Rubio more than Cruz, in that regard—but Cruz has not always covered himself with glory, nor has he during this campaign.

If either is nominated, I support him. I am sick of the circular firing squad.

Trump is different to me—he has no political record, and I find him a reprehensible character. What’s more, he can’t hold a candle to either Cruz or Rubio in terms of conservatism. He’s not even close. He is the only one of the three I perceive as a tyrant-in-the-making and a person with a character disorder (narcissism). That puts him in a different category from all the others.

Between Cruz and Rubio supporters, what I see is a circular firing squad right now.

Ted, while he’s also ambitious, has done a GREAT job as Senator, and has consistently shown up and taken on the powers that be. God bless him.

Still praying for Ted, though the extent and viciousness of the character assassination, with the Leftists and their collaborators, Estab. Repubs, has slammed him onto the mat. He’s been Borked. He’s been Palinized.

this is horrible

Yes, they are ALL politicians. The defining difference is, do they compromise their principles to the degree that they have betrayed any purpose beyond personal aggrandizement?

As we all know, the perfect can indeed be the enemy of the good. That assumes of course that the good is, in fact ‘good enough’.

My reading of Rubio is that his personal ambition is such that he betrayed his most specific, solemn promise to the people who had elected him and that, he did so solely because he needed a ‘big’ piece of important legislation to pad his Presidential resume.

His ‘explanation’ is too facile and hollow, for a man who reluctantly sided with his ideological enemies to prevent greater harm would have been far less eager to compromise, far more insistent that he, at least get something. The bill he signed on too, got him nothing and gave the dems everything they needed. He consistently lied to others as to what was in the bill and got none of the ‘fixes’ he promised. He said he’d drop out of sponsorship of the bill if it didn’t meet certain conditions but when it didn’t he continued to sponsor a bill that he then knew was a betrayal of everything he’d promised. A bill that if passed would have been far worse than any executive order Obama could have issued. Rubio’s evasions and that is what they are just do not stand up to close scrutiny.

That kind of man can have only one reason why his record on other issues is so consistently conservative. It cannot be virtue because he has already demonstrated a basic lack of virtue. Leaving as explanation that no ‘reward’ worth betraying his constituents on those issues has yet been offered. The day one does, he’ll betray on those issues as well. Just as a man who has once taken a bribe will not hesitate to do so again, when the reward for doing so is sufficiently attractive.

Should Rubio yet win the Presidency and, he then predictably betrays us again, you will not be able to say that you were not warned.

The Clintons of the world stand forth for all to see, the backstabbers somehow always manage to surprise ‘enough’ people. That is because we ALL want to believe that those who appear to agree with us are honest in their assertions. Liars… lie and there is no limit to how high the most convincing liars can rise.