Avatar, Rubio Reborn
February 22, 2010 at 6:21 am 18 comments
Political Columnist
WordPress
Marco Rubio’s campaign was practically dead on its feet from the moment he announced his bid for US senate. His opponent Charlie Crist, the popular Florida governor who once enjoyed a two-thirds job approval rating and a double digit lead over Rubio, was seen as the experienced candidate with the best service resume to compete against the democratic nominee. Despite the odds of a true rebirth, Rubio’s dying campaign was transformed and resurrected by far-right conservatives in joint hands, singing and swaying to Patsy Cline’s “Crazy” during a sacred grassroots ceremony. The conservative rite would totally erase Rubio’s legislative past and replace his very soul with conservative values, producing the perfect grassroots candidate.
The former Florida House Speaker did not have much of a record for conservatives to hide, alter or spin, which made him the perfect candidate to rebrand, repackage and present. Throughout his 8 year tenure in the Florida House, Rubio proposed no real legislation of conservative significance; in fact he did not sponsor much of anything. As Speaker he sponsored three key legislative bills, one of which true conservatives would find fault: HJR 1567, Eminent Domain; HR 9183, Speaker Daniel Webster Hall; and HR 9073, Bay of Pigs Invasion – the latter of two bills where the only bills he proposed in the last two years of his speakership. The Eminent Domain bill he proposed, legislated reasons for allowing property forcibly seized by government to be transferred to private persons/entities, one of those reasons being for private business opportunities.
Even with conservative grassroots support, Rubio’s campaign was a bit wobbly and not quite used to the new-found strength of its legs. His campaign still needed time to convince themselves of their new conservative identity before Rubio would begin to travel around Florida masquerading as the true conservative. His memory of his legislative past may have plagued and prevented him from being as bold as he is today because without the grassroots, Rubio would have otherwise headed a dead senate campaign.
Rubio realizes sooner or later his record may become a factor. And he has positioned himself to counter future criticism on some of his weakest attributes, illegal immigration being one of them. In the recent US census controversy about whether or not illegal immigrants and non-citizens should be counted as part of the census, Rubio moved to appear on the strong side of the immigration debate at the expense of the US Constitution; though the Constitution clearly states all persons residing in the US should be counted, Rubio thought he could strengthen his position by saying illegal immigrants and initially non-citizens should not be counted.
There should not be any ambiguity when it comes to the census, because the Constitution contains the use of the term citizen, in describing the rights and privileges of such. Crist was right by not using the census as a political tool to create a wedge between the American people.
In a time where the American people are calling for a return to the Constitution, whether we are away from it or not, our representatives we send to Washington should at least know it. Rubio has been claiming that he is the candidate that would adhere to the Constitution, but so far he has not demonstrated an understanding of the Constitution, neither has he taken the appropriate and politically tough stance on the census issue. He could have used this opportunity to clarify how an accurate census allows the American people and businesses to track trends in incomes, population, birth rates, and identify future areas of investment – for a start. Without an accurate census corporations would not know where to locate, for example, a Petsmart because fearful people would not identify how many pets are in their household.
What can happen in this senate race has happened in the past, where a true candidate that would have been good for Florida was derailed for political reasons. In 2006 Harris was sacked because of her independence and willingness to tackle issues that were not in line with the establishment’s agenda. Instead another candidate was hailed as the better choice; hence the race between Rubio and Crist.
To find and verify the information provided in this op-ed please visit http://myfloridahouse.gov click on bills, and select the session and sponsor, and you will be able to view the legislative history of Rubio between 2000 and 2008. The link also provides access to the office of the governor, which will provide some insight to the policies Crist supported.
STOP! Don’t leave! If you enjoyed the read, please subscribe or sign up for email notifications from my blog and never have to check for new posts again. If not, please check my blog at least three times a week for new posts and updates. All comments are welcomed; please keep them clean and civil. I thank you for your readership.
Related Posts:
Marco Rubio: Backseat Driver http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/marco-rubio-backseat-driver/
Charlie and the Tea Factory http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/charlie-and-the-tea-factory/
Tea Party: Democrats getting served http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/tea-party-democrats-getting-served/
Entry filed under: Florida US Senate race, Politics. Tags: .
1.
keiron Jackman | February 22, 2010 at 6:43 am
For the political movie geeks, I hope you caught the Avatar reference when the Avatar people were transferring the main character’s soul, Sam Worthington/Corporal Jake Sully, into his avatar body in the forest, and the reason for choosing the song Crazy by Patsy is because Crazy was Ross Perot’s official campaign song, the ultraconservative that ran against Bush and Clinton in 1992.
Well I thought it was funny; then again I am a geek.
2.
lexington rick | February 22, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Good writing.
3.
Audrey | February 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Great reading,you are very insightful.
4.
Audrey | February 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You are very insightful.
5.
Audrey | February 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm
good article
6.
Frank | February 23, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Check your version of the Constitution. Apparently we’re reading different versions.
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 2 – The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
7.
keiron Jackman | February 24, 2010 at 5:05 am
if you Keep reading and see the constitution further clarifies, ” the Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” that should reiterate what I said — all people, w/exception (i guess) of indians not taxed, are counted…so we don’t count Indians for representatives. And therefore RUbio is wrong!!!
8.
Andy | February 24, 2010 at 12:04 am
You wrote : “Rubio moved to appear on the strong side of the immigration debate at the expense of the US Constitution; though the Constitution clearly states all persons residing in the US should be counted”
Actually it says “Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
Nowhere does it says “everyone” AND back then salves only counted as 3/4 of a person for all “enumeration” matters, as law directed.
So cut the crap man
9.
keiron Jackman | February 24, 2010 at 5:03 am
if you Keep reading and see the constitution further clarifies, ” the Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
10.
Andy | February 25, 2010 at 3:37 am
Allright, technicaly it’s the 14th amendment that says that but Ok… I was wrong too, turns out it’s 3/5 of a person for a slave not 2/4.
The larger point is that not everyone was being counted, on the basis that not everyone payed taxes or had civic rights (slaves) so there is no reason to asume everyone needs to be counted just for being in the country (or state).
11.
Frantz Kebreau | February 24, 2010 at 4:22 am
Keiron, have you heard about the small and apparently insignificant book titled; “100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future”? by Marco Rubio. All 100 ideas passed the House and 57 became Law. With his leadership in the House, 57 Laws were passed and 100 Bills came out of the House. I hardly think that is trivial.
By the way, the Eminent Domain Law restricts Government in its actions to transfer property to another entity. It is a restriction of a current law. Restricting and Limiting Government, I call that Conservative.
Here is the wording; Restricts certain transfers of property taken by eminent domain to certain natural persons or private entities; preserves the government entity communications services eminent domain limitation; clarifies that use for eminent domain means public use or public purpose; provides that the prevention or elimination of a slum area or blighted area does not satisfy the requirement under the State Constitution that a taking be for a public purpose, etc
12.
keiron Jackman | February 24, 2010 at 5:11 am
I am not sure it changes what I said. Yes it restricts, but I think that word should be changed to charters, or even controls the means of how government can dispose (whether for profit or not) of property. And the provides that prevention or elimination of a slum area or blighted area …be for a public purpose = (means) they can pretty much take everything but a rich neighborhood and turn it over to private interests. It’s a pretty wide/liberal language use there.
13.
Anne Green | February 26, 2010 at 1:03 am
You can argue about the meaning of the Constitution’s words as to counting everybody or not. But , if you look at census pages of the counts from 1790 to 1930 on ancestry.com or genealogy.com you willl see that “aliens”, citizens, and people who had submitted a letter of intent to become a citizen were counted.
14.
Andy | February 28, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Yes but back then we had open immigration, intent was then as good as citizenship… only makes sense. But it is not the case anymore.
15.
Wendy | March 4, 2010 at 1:49 am
This is going to be very interesting. Can’t wait for August 24.
16.
Mark | March 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm
“Throughout his 8 year tenure in the Florida House, Rubio proposed no real legislation of conservative significance; in fact he did not sponsor much of anything.”
Isn’t that one of the basic conservative principles, less government?
17.
MyKisa | March 28, 2010 at 11:00 pm
…I prefer Libertarians….
18.
ben | October 31, 2010 at 1:13 am
what a stupid ass you are. ghet some real education. not from the socialistic ed system in the u.s.