Arthur Louis's Blog

Arthur Louis

Arthur Louis
Location
USA
Birthday
February 28
Title
retired
Company
retired
Bio
I was a writer and editor for more than forty years with four newspaper and magazine publishers. I am the author of two non-fiction books: "The Tycoons" and "Journalism and Other Atrocities," and one novel, "The Little Champ," all available on Amazon.com

MY RECENT POSTS

Arthur Louis's Links

Salon.com
DECEMBER 13, 2012 12:54AM

The GOP Comeback? It's Spelled R-U-B-I-O

Rate: 2 Flag

I am getting sick of hearing Republicans moaning about how their party has grown out of touch and irrelevant, how President Obama’s narrow victory in the 2012 election demonstrates that the world has passed the GOP by, how the chances of a GOP victory in 2016 and even beyond are approximately zilch.

It’s to be expected that the Democrats and their media buddies will talk that way, to boost their spirits and try to undermine the will of the opposition. But it is inexcusable for the leaders of the Republican party to accept this guff, to run around tearing their hair and crying and generally behaving like girly-men, to propose changes in their party’s core ideas and traditions that would turn the GOP into Democrats-light.

You can’t win, guys, if you insist on obliterating the important ways that you differ. That is the way to become irrelevant for sure.

I see a simple solution for the party’s supposed woes: Convene the next Republican National Convention in the coming year, instead of waiting until 2016. Do away with the GOP primaries and bring everybody together to nominate Marco Rubio by acclamation as the party’s next presidential candidate.


The Florida senator is a one-man demographic marvel. He is young, he is Hispanic, he believes in the core, conservative Republican values, he is spot on about fiscal responsibility, yet he also has expressed openness toward fresh ideas that could be added to the traditional GOP mix, including, not surprisingly, immigration reform.

He also is a man of considerable charisma, certainly more so than Mitt Romney. And he is a phenomenally articulate, powerful speaker.

Hispanic voters, of which there are 12 million or so, went 70 percent for Obama this year, which is about in line with their usual support for Democratic candidates in national elections.


I am not going to suggest that Rubio can pull 100 percent of the Hispanic vote. But suppose he boosts the GOP share to 50 percent from 30 percent. You can’t overestimate the powerful emotional effect of a candidate who campaigns in certain neighborhoods and speaks to his listeners in their first language. If he gets 50 percent of the Hispanic votes, that alone could give him a majority of the popular vote, all other votes remaining unchanged.


But would they remain unchanged, or essentially so? Not likely. In 2012 the Democrats ran a candidate of undeniable charisma – at least in certain circles – but whom are they likely to run next time?

Hillary Clinton? Have you seen her lately? She couldn’t win the nomination in 2008 against a first-term, black senator at a time when she still had her figure and paid attention to her grooming. Is she likely to win in 2016 looking like a sixty-nine-year-old beached whale with seaweed hair?

I don’t want to sound superficial about what makes a candidate desirable, but in this country looks certainly help, or hurt.

You might say that Hillary is a stronger candidate now because she served as secretary of state. But she is the secretary of state who let Benghazi-gate happen. And even if you ignore Benghazi-gate, can you say that we live in a better, safer world thanks to her stewardship?

If you cut away all the chaff, Hillary’s defining traits are dullness, triteness and a foul temper.

Hillary can count on good support from the distaff side, of course, although perhaps not as much as she thinks. Along with Rubio’s other fine qualities, he is kind of cute.

Another candidate from the 2008 primaries who might make a run this time is our endearing vice president, Joe Biden. He does have the advantage of looking and behaving more like the Democratic party’s mascot then any rival.

I don’t have to remind you what a disgusting loony he is, but I will remind you that by November 2016 he will be just shy of his 74th birthday. Nobody that old, not even Ronald Reagan and John McCain, has ever headed a major-party presidential ticket. He already is just about non compos, and imagine what he will be like in his eighties.

Let’s see, who else was contesting the Democratic primaries in 2008? Oh, yes, John Edwards.  And let’s not overlook Al Sharpton.

If we have learned anything in the past several elections, it is that a presidential candidate must stand a good chance of winning Florida’s electoral votes if he wants to be competitive. Rubio is very popular in his home state, which went for Obama by only about 70,000 votes.  Of all the states that chose Obama, Florida did so by the smallest percentage.

If Rubio can hold onto the states that Romney won, and add, say, Florida, Ohio, which gave Obama only 51 percent of its popular vote, and one or perhaps two among Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire – none of which gave Obama as much as 53 percent of their votes —  then that’s the old ballgame.

Why am I suggesting that the GOP nominate Rubio right away, rather than letting him work his way through the primaries, where he might win anyway?

Simply this: Although well-known, Rubio probably does not yet have the kind of name recognition a candidate needs to win the presidency.  If he begins campaigning nearly four years before the election, his name will be on everyone’s lips by Election Day.

Furthermore, an extra-early nomination would help counter the customary dirty, Democratic, slash-and-burn campaign. Romney didn’t have quite enough time to fully redeem his image after the Democrats set out to destroy him with their vile ads, but Rubio would have plenty of time to demonstrate conclusively that he is not a felon, a murderer, a tax cheat, an animal-abuser, a job exporter, or whatever else the Democrats cook up in their sick but fertile minds.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Lots of "ifs" their friend.

Remember, "if" your uncle had titties - he'd be your auntie.........

;-)
.
sky,

If I didn't have the ifs in there, if I insisted that I knew what would happen, then you would be even more skeptical. There you are, a few more ifs. That's life.
Arthur,

True enough. Imagine how stupid I wouldn't look if I learned when to use "there" instead of "their" ....... ;-)
.
Denial is a funny thing. Romney was destroyed with his own words...by himself. That 47% video was not a Democratic stunt. Romney did it to himself. Then recently Taggart Romney said that Mitt wanted it less than anyone he had ever known.

Look, stop blaming the Democrats for the GOP's problems. The GOP's problems are the GOP. The party is tearing itself apart and in freefall. Boehner is pulling his own bills from the floor. McConnell is filibustering himself. Cantor is declining to seek the Speakership. The GOP adjourned rather than pass disaster relief for Sandy. Chris Christie blames the congressional GOP, not Democrats. Yep, denial is a funny thing. The more you deny it, the funnier you get, Art. At this point it is hilarious. Keep it up.
Denial is a funny thing. Romney was destroyed with his own words...by himself. That 47% video was not a Democratic stunt. Romney did it to himself. Then recently Taggart Romney said that Mitt wanted it less than anyone he had ever known.

Look, stop blaming the Democrats for the GOP's problems. The GOP's problems are the GOP. The party is tearing itself apart and in freefall. Boehner is pulling his own bills from the floor. McConnell is filibustering himself. Cantor is declining to seek the Speakership. The GOP adjourned rather than pass disaster relief for Sandy. Chris Christie blames the congressional GOP, not Democrats. Yep, denial is a funny thing. The more you deny it, the funnier you get, Art. At this point it is hilarious. Keep it up.
Bill Beck is exactly right, right, right, right, right.

This latest Republication capitulation on the fiscal cliff issue is indicative of a party in collapse. The idea that the party will suddenly grow balls on the debt limit issue is ludicrous because the party will be met with the even more potent threat that if it doesn't go along with Obama, the country will be totally disCREDITed.

No, it's better just to acknowledge that it's all Obama for now. The only thing that will convince the ignoramuses that elected him will be the collapse of the economy, credit, and currency of the United States. Then, when the cookie jar is empty, perhaps conservatives will be solicited for solutions. Rubio is as good as anyone to supply them.
Perhaps you wonder why Bill Beck submitted two identical comments. In fact, he submitted ten identical comments, but I deleted all but two of them. That still should be enough to satisfy Bill, and more than enough to satisfy everyone else.

In the past I have asked Bill not to submit comments on my blogs because they invariably degenerate into racist lunacy. However, I have let this one (or, in fact, two) stand, because I detect no racism.
Arthur, defending oneself against racist attacks is not racist lunacy. Second, I defy the concept of "race" as a scientific platform from which to claim superiority, thus, I do not make such claims. I defend from receiving them. That would be an important distinction to grasp.

Second, if the comment posted ten times, consider it is Open Salon's "multiple errors." I have no need for ten, or even two. Anyone can see that.

The GOP is pulling itself between being a significant player in making legislation, and a permanent minority status business model for the right fringe. If the GOP were to choose to pull the debt ceiling stunt and declare an impasse over not paying bills that it has already incurred, it will do damage to the economy. It will also do serious damage to itself as a party. The economy will recover faster than the GOP will in that event.

And Gordon, bit by bit, the economy is improving. The only thing that could make the economy suddenly go wrong would be some external shock, or a silly political stunt like defaulting on debt. These wont be attritubable to the President. These are also no reflection of economic policy. Time and facts have boxed your ideology into a corner.
I can't pass this up. I find the irony quite amusing. Ok, your thesis is that Rubio is the essence of the "GOP comeback", and why? Well, his strength, as you see it, and Hillary Clinton's weakness, as you see it. And wht do you say are those? Arthur, you claimed that, well, here are your words, "She couldn’t win the nomination in 2008 against a first-term, black senator at a time when she still had her figure and paid attention to her grooming..." Now, let's look at that for a minute. One, you are either declaring that the "black" candidate is inferior becasue of his race, OR you are acknowledging that race in this society is an obstacle for political success on the national level. Now, since you oppose racism, as any right thinking person should, you and I both disagree with the former, and both agree with the latter. Am I right? Of course I am. It fits the logic of your premise regarding Hillary Clinton's weakness, as you see it, as a candidate. You go on to say that her appearance will be a hinderance. There is some truth to that, although it can't be absolutely determined. If I wanted to focus on that, I'd say that it depends on the person in question. It is debateable that Clinton's profile transcends her physical appearance more than a relatively unknown candidate. Special circumstances attach to her specifically.

But it is your first premise that I find ironic, given your distaste for, and accusation of, a topic degenerating into "racist lunacy."

That "black" candidate that you previously cited as an indication of Clinton's weakness is a racist premise which is defied by the facts. That "weak" candidate on the basis of race was elected in 2008 to the Presidency, and re-elected in 2012. That candidate, weak on the basis of race, was elected with a broad spectrum of support across racial and religious boundaries, while his opponent in both cases was supported by a more narrow demographic which reflect his own race, age, and gender. Now given that, your premise is that Rubio is the essence of a "comeback" because of his ethnicity. First, the delicious irony is that this is a argument based on race. It contradicts the logic behind the demographics, and it completely ignores the policy which explains why the broad demographic base which supported the President in tewo races exists, and defeated the two candidates who opposed him. Those policies still align with Clinton, or Biden, or the Democratic nominee for indefinitely, unless the GOP makes a substantive change in policy.

So, in brief, your argument about Rubio is that he is Latino (even though Latinos voted 70% for the Democrat), and Obama was black. That doesn't strike you as "racist lunacy?" At the very least, it is illogical, and very amusing.
Bill,

It is just about impossible to reason with you. You see any argument as a personal attack on you (or the President) for racial reasons. That is loony.

The point I was making about 2008 is that Hillary was such a dud that she was beaten in the primaries by a most unlikely candidate, a first-term senator and a black. Going in, what professional handicapper would have expected a candidate with those credentials to win?

I, for one, was glad when he did, but he disappointed me terribly during his first term -- his campaign was one big lie -- and I turned against him. His color had nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned, but you don't seem capable of accepting this, so I won't waste my breath further.

As for Rubio, I like him a lot based strictly on policy, and he would be my favorite candidate even if his folks came from Finland. But all other things being equal, it would be wise to choose him over a non-Latino, because of the extra votes that might draw. That's politics in a democracy, Bill.
Arthur, you injected race into the thread with this comment. You made a false accusation about me causing the discussion to "degenerate...", etc. My comment was pointing out that irony. Look, the formula for your disingenuous accusations always starts with, "you feel", etc. You base a premise on some emotion or whatever that you attribute to someone rather than asking.

Conversely, I took your words to task. If I attribute a feeling to you without words, they are the benefit of the doubt, like when I said, I presume that you "oppose racism."

You use one dishonest dodge after another to avoid the fact. The GOP is tearing itself apart, and the notion that Rubio is a Latino would be salvation for a party with a nativist immigration policy is a pipe dream. It is not an attack on me or the President, Arthur. I disagree with your thesis about Rubio and the party. I disagree with your premise regarding the Latino vote. The reasoning is there. The only questionable thing is your willingness to reason. My statement said that the notion that Obama as a "black candidate" shows Clinton to be weak for not beating him is flawed, given the demographic, and the re-election. That is reasoning, Arthur. My mention of it was to answer your injection of the subject with the comment below. They are your words, Arthur, not mine.

"In the past I have asked Bill not to submit comments on my blogs because they invariably degenerate into racist lunacy. However, I have let this one (or, in fact, two) stand, because I detect no racism."

"Hillary Clinton? Have you seen her lately? She couldn’t win the nomination in 2008 against a first-term, black senator at a time when she still had her figure and paid attention to her grooming. Is she likely to win in 2016 looking like a sixty-nine-year-old beached whale with seaweed hair?"

"...a sixty-nine year old beached whale with seaweed hair..." And you say that I am not reasonable?
Bill,

I am beginning to think that I should be flattered by your attention. You read me as carefully as a Jesuit reads the New Testament. You remember things I wrote in the past, or at least you take the trouble to look them up and comment on them. This is flattering.

If I ever decide that someone should write my biography, particularly one that emphasizes my writings, I shall put you on the short list.

Just don't call me a racist, Bill. You remind me of a certain writer here (or ex-writer, it seems) who used to call everyone a homophobe if they disagreed with her about the weather.
Good stuff. I'm glad you're flattered. I created a post addressing that curiosity with some few facts. Check in out, in case you missed the PM with the link.

http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_beck/2013/01/14/dearest_arthur
Libs hate it when a black, Hispanic, etc... leaves their plantation. That's why they fought so desperately to kill Estrada's Supreme Court nomination.

Rubio will give them fits.
Harrison, I hope you are correct.
Comments are now closed.