The “Mall Gift” Who Wants to be President

Marco Rubio, the freshman Senator from Florida, now wants to be president. He touts his foreign policy experience, his experience in the Senate and his experience in the Florida House.

Let’s anatomize his experience.

In 2010, Marco Rubio was voted to represent Florida as one of the state’s two senators. Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, begins with Section 1: “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

In order for a bill to become law, it has to pass both chambers of Congress. All appropriation bills must originate in the House of Representatives with the Senate approving all appropriation bills. This is the job of a Senator: to vote on bills, to include appropriation bills, that then go to the President for approval or veto. In order to represent Florida and the people of Florida, he has to be there to vote.

And his record… in 2015, he missed keys votes on legislation, even legislation he originally co-sponsored. Here’s a brief breakdown:

  • January 6: Co-sponsors S1 Bill to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
  • January 29: Did not vote on the Bill to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline (that he co-sponsored)
  • May 12: Did not vote on HR1314 Bipartisan Budget Act 2015
  • June 2: Voted against* HR2048 Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring (USA Freedom) Act of 2015: this act prohibits the bulk collection of data and requires the FBI to show reasonable cause to a judge for approval to collect information on specific individuals. (*Yes he showed up to vote, but not on the principles he now espouses.)
  • September 30: Did not vote on HR719 Continuing Appropriations Act 2016
  • October 1: Did not vote on HR2029 Military Construction and Veteran Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2016
  • October 7: Did not vote on HR1735 National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016
  • October 22: Did not vote on S. Amendment 2564 Prohibits Liability Immunity for Corporations that Break User Agreements
  • October 26: Co-sponsors S.J. Res24 A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5, Unites States Code, of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to “Carbon Pollution.”
  • October 26: Co-Sponsors S.J. Res23 A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Source: Electric Utility Generating Units”
  • November 17: Does not vote on the two aforementioned Resolutions he co-sponsored.
  • October 27: Does not vote on S754 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015
  • November 5: Does not vote on HR2685 Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2016

This is just in the last year, 2015. His statement to Iowa voters that he has a 90% attendance record is pure elephant dung as reflected by his voting record just in 2015. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good tale; after all, most voters don’t bother to check facts. They see a some-what good looking young man who speaks well and seems likable, so he must be telling the truth, right? Does this seem just a little bit familiar (think 2008)?

In an October 25 CNN interview, he was asked about his voting record, or lack thereof, and his response was one of arrogance.

“A lot of these votes don’t mean anything because the president will veto it,” he answered.

Really, that’s his answer. The president will veto the bills; therefore, why show up?

During the December CNN debate, he attacked Ted Cruz for voting against the National Defense Re-authorization Act – a bill that funds the troops, according to Rubio – because it contained a provision that would allow the federal government to indefinitely detain any American without due process.

– Yet, wait for it… Rubio did not even bother showing up to vote this past year for the NDRA.

Rubio’s response was at the debate, “If you are an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS we are not going to read you your Miranda rights…” is another pile of elephant dung and a red herring because all that’s required is for the federal government to deem an American citizen a “terrorist” without proof and then to hold that American indefinitely without due process.

And he fancies himself a Constitutional Conservative – he must be reading Cuba’s Constitution because he surely isn’t reading the U.S. Constitution.

Back to the CNN interview, his justification for missing so many votes is that “Voting is not the only part of the Senate job. I mean, the most important thing a senator does is constituent service. We’re still involved in looking out for Florida’s issues.”

Again, for a man who touts the Constitution, it seems he is in need of a refresher course because as a U.S. Senator, his job is to represent Florida’s interests by showing up to vote on proposed legislation. However, he claims that he’s fully briefed and therefore, it’s all okay.

“I was just there this Tuesday. I got fully briefed and caught up on everything that’s happening in the world. I’m fully aware…. (I have a) staffer assigned to intelligence,” he said in the interview.

Only an elected official can one get away with not showing up to do his job or showing up once a week to get briefed and still have a job. But I digress.

Taking his position to its logical conclusion, if he thinks it’s wasteful to cast a vote because the president will veto it anyway, what will he do should Democrats regain control of the House and Senate and he’s president? Not show up for work because it would be a waste since Congress wouldn’t pass anything he supports?

Moving on to his touted foreign policy experience.

The Conservative Solutions PAC is running an ad that states, “FACT: Marco Rubio’s attended more classified national security briefings this year than any other candidate. TRUTH: (Marco Rubio’s a) recognized foreign policy expert who will keep America safe.”

In other words, because Rubio has attended intelligence briefings, meetings which require no action, he is a foreign policy expert. Ignoring the fact that the ad doesn’t say who considers Rubio a foreign expert – maybe his staffer assigned to intelligence –  just that he is considered a foreign expert Well, let’s consider the claim of his expertise because he’s attended briefings…

Making that claim – that Rubio is a foreign policy expert because he’s attended briefings – is like saying I’m an ace pilot because I attend flight briefings.

Again, all this seems just too familiar.

Now for his record in the Florida House.

He blocked bills that made it out of committees with strong bi-partisan support such as a bill that would have allowed the deportation of up to 5,000 illegal immigrants in prison after they served half their sentence. He also blocked enforcement proposals such as a bill requiring employers to check workers’ status; a bill mandating increased cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies; bills that would have penalized farmers and government contractors discovered hiring illegal immigrants; and proposals requiring local police to notify federal authorities after arresting illegal immigrants, and stricter regulations on public benefits for illegal immigrants.

But hey, he played football as a youngster and that taught him a good many things… as he said in an interview in his hometown last year.

His experience is more along the lines of dishing out elephant dung with the hope that voters will accept it by the shovels, and to date, he’s been right.

As voters, it is important to look beyond the fancy rhetoric that rolls off his slick tongue and look at the record upon which he stands, not the record (and principles) he claims to stand upon, because his record clearly indicates that the only principle he subscribes to is the one that gets him elected.

This nation elected another Senator eight years ago with a similar background, who also spoke well and appealed to people’s emotions – let’s not make the same mistake again. Or as the title of this musing states, we don’t need another “mall gift” occupying the White House: pretty on the outside, but empty on the inside.

“The reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by appraising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experiences of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. Thomas Jefferson – Notes on the State of Virginia 1781-1785

 

“I’m not signing that **** thing!”

I have chosen to write about party politics for my first post because it is something I have been spending a lot of time pondering these last few months.

Before I begin, I must write, in full disclosure, that I am a registered Republican. So… for those who wish to stop reading now because of that, I would challenge you to read on… as you might just find yourself pondering party politics as well.

This past year, I ran for county commissioner. For those who do not know the process, in Florida, a candidate can pay a filing fee or get a set number of petitions signed. The petition method is one many candidate choose; it requires a registered voter in the district or area to print their name, enter their date of birth or voter registration number, address, signature and date. It is nonpartisan as the only requirement is the person completing the petition be a registered voter in the district or area – in my case, it was Santa Rosa County.

So away I went, attending events and going door-to-door to get petitions signed.

One Saturday morning, I walked a small neighborhood and came to a nice house. Before I could push the door bell, a man of about 55 answered the door. This startled me and the man laughed when he saw my expression.

“I saw you walk up,” he said.

I thought this was a good start since he seemed to be in a good mood. I laughed and began my introduction.

“Hi, my name is Yvonne Harper and I’m running for District 4 County Commissioner and if you are a registered voter, would you sign a petition for me. It’s doesn’t mean you will vote for me, only that my name can be put on the ballot.”

“Are you a Republican?” he asked.

“Yes, I am,” I replied.

“You’re a liar!” he harshly said.

At that moment I was taken aback because we had never met. I knew nothing of him and he knew nothing of me, yet there he stood, calling me a liar.

“No, I’m not,” I offered.

“You’re a Republican and you’re all liars,” he shot back.

“Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do not lie,” said I.

This did not nothing to assuage his passion and he stated, with conviction, that the most liberal person ever wrote the Constitution. I could tell this conversation was going to get interesting and as I love discussing America’s Founding Fathers, I thought that maybe there was hope for this conversation and the dialogue would be one of exchanging ideas. I replied, “And who would that be?”

“James Madison,” he said, as if I was the biggest idiot on the planet.

I can never resist correcting people who think this, so I calmly stated, “James Madison did not write the Constitution as there were 55 men at the Constitutional Convention. He drafted it because he was the Secretary and kept impeccable notes. However, he wasn’t the only one with input. Also, Gouverneur Morris wrote the preamble.”

“No! James Madison wrote it and he was a liberal!,” he said.

Trying to get on the same page, I asked him to explain what he meant by “liberal” and he replied that Madison favored a big federal government.

“Well, actually, according to the Federalist Papers, of which he wrote many, (“I know, I’ve read them,” he interjected) then you know while he favored a stronger federal government, he believed it should be limited in scope and nature and that it would rely on the people, not that the people would rely on the government. And this is what I believe. I believe government should be limited and first and foremost exists to protect our liberties.”

To this he replied that I didn’t know what I was talking about and then he began a tirade about how evil Republicans are and how corrupt they are in Washington. I attempted to tell him that as county commissioner, I would not be responsible for federal law and that is as far as I got, because at that point, my husband walked up and he spat out,

“I’m not signing that damn thing!”

With that he walked into his house and slammed the door.

Well, so much for that, I thought.

Now before you get too upset, it must be noted that there were many people whose first question was, “Are you a Republican? Because if you’re not, I’m not signing it.”

Over the months, leading up to the Primary, I was blessed to meet many wonderful people, but sadly, many considered my party affiliation over more important matters, such as the kind of person I am, what I believed or what I thought was important for the county.

After the primary, I found that I could not support the winner. For those who do not know, Florida has a closed primary system, meaning only registered Republicans could vote for the six Republican candidates. Now if anyone other than the the winner had won, I could’ve supported the candidate, but I couldn’t not support the winner. The reasons at this point are not relevant.

Well, because I believe in standing for what is right and supporting the best candidate, I supported the Libertarian candidate for the General Election. Again, another conversation took place that left me wondering just what country I lived in.

At a Republican meeting, I was told by a woman, “If you can’t vote for the Republican candidate, then don’t vote.”

Not sure if I correctly heard her, I asked, “So what you’re telling me is that if I can’t vote for the Republican, I should not vote at all?”

“Yes,” she said, without the slightest hesitation.

I stood there, stunned into silence – which at that time was a good thing – that I would be told not to vote if I couldn’t vote “Republican.” It didn’t matter that the Libertarian candidate was ethical and had  a history of working hard and holding local government officials accountable – all that matter was she wasn’t a Republican.

Fast forward to election day. As I stood outside one of the polls supporting another candidate, several voters came out and asked me about the candidate whose shirt I wore.

Having to remind myself that I was representing this great candidate, I told them about her. In my head I was thinking, “What?!? Are you kidding?!? You just voted – what difference does it make now?”

However, I kept it professional and after telling the person about the candidate, I asked, “So who did you vote for?”

“I don’t know, I voted straight Republican.”

Wow!!! In other words, the voters who said this didn’t know who they voted for, they merely looked at party affiliation and voted accordingly. Now, before you think, “Yeah, just like a Republican,” unfortunately this happens in both parties. The one deciding factor when it comes to voting for a person, the one that tops all others, is party affiliation.

My next post will attempt to explain why this way of voting is bad for our country, but for now, I will leave you with words from a man who understood human nature and warned against dividing ourselves into party.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally…

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; And sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…

It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.”

– George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Until next post… happy thinking.