Ted Cruz is reportedly shifting his focus away from Donald Trump in Iowa and to Marco Rubio:

This includes a hard-hitting new ad airing in Iowa that accuses Rubio of being a “Republican Obama” (link to the ad here):

The ad hits Rubio on immigration, taxes and cap-and-trade:

cruz4 cruz3 cruz2 cruz1

Team Rubio insinuates this is good news as it shows Rubio is surging with 3 days to go before the caucus:

Although Rubio is lowering expectations:

Coincidentally, conservative GOP Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska has been calling Donald Trump the “Republican Obama” as well:

***

Tags:
  • https://sites.google.com/site/joedecaro/home Joe DeCaro

    Rubio and Barack are both empty suits.

    • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

      …Bull$not. Rubio’s my 2nd choice, Cruz is my 1st, but this is a cheapshot.
      …On the one hand, friends, I’m disgusted at Cruz for resorting to this. Cruz is articulate enough to sell himself without resorting to Trumpanzee-tactics.
      …On the other hand, the fact that Cruz isn’t going after Trump…seems to be a hopeful sign for all of us here who don’t want that “unelectable populist posing as a conserv (DT)” to get nominated.

      • ryukidn

        You really are in a quandry … 🙂

      • mathewsjw

        Rubio’s ads have been calling Cruz a liar for months… so this is clearly pay back defense.. especially after Fox Establishment GOP News rigged the last debate then immediately afterward to Cruz’s face said you really are against amnesty..

        • Bill

          Agree. Rubio would be my 2nd choice behind Cruz, but he can hardly complain about tough ads. Rubio has repeatedly lied, especially in the debates, about Ted’s position on legalization. Hey, I get he wants to talk about anything else but his sponsoring the Gang of 8 bill, but it’s ludicrous to suggest Ted was supporting amnesty with his poison pill amendment. Chuckie Schumer said at the time it was a poison pill. All the Gang of 8 sponsors and supporters said this which is why they didn’t support it.

          Megyn Kelly said last night (after the debate) and tonight that she dug deep into the records and Ted’s been consistent on this issue, in that he has NEVER supported legalization for illegals, nor has he ever supported a path to citizenship for these illegal immigrants. Rubio is trying to be slick here, hoping people don’t know what Ted was doing and aren’t capable of understanding what really happened.

          • Maxx

            Here is a nice link on Cruz and his historical record on amnesty. Ted does support work permits, once his border protection parameters are put into place. No clear path to citizenship but the illegals would be allowed to remain and work here. Some would consider that amnesty, since they’re not being deported and would be allowed to remain. I suppose it depends on what your definition of amnesty is as to whether or not Rubio and Cruz’ current positions are world’s apart. I believe they are not. Ted’s own words, back in November:
            ““At that point, once we’ve demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally,” Cruz added. When asked if that conversation included the potential for a pathway to legal status, he repeated, “We can have that conversation with the American people once we secure the border.”

            That mirrors what Rubio said last night. Frankly, I think both would pretty much leave it up to the American people as to how to proceed once the border is secure. I’ve got no problem with that. Seems reasonable. We’re not going to deport 15 million illegals. Those who believe that are living in la-la land.

            http://time.com/4123317/ted-cruz-immigration-reform-amnesty/

          • mathewsjw

            Cruz does not, did not support amnesty and even Kelly admitted same.

          • Bill

            She said it again tonight. She dug deep into the issue and the record and Cruz has never supported legalization or citizenship for illegal immigrants. The Rubio people are just so desperate to change the focus off Marco’s horrible record on the issue. I understand why but it’s a little sad, because I actually like Marco as my 2nd choice. Just wish he could be a little more honest about a critical issue with Republican voters. If Marco just said, I lost my marbles for a second and made one of the dumbest decisions of my life that I promise will not be repeated, I might be able to chalk it up as youthful indiscretion.
            Next Marco will be saying Rush Limbaugh supported amnesty at that time because he said on his radio show he’d support legal status for the 11 million workers if they couldn’t vote or become citizens for 25 years. Of course, Rush didn’t favor amnesty, but like Cruz, he was sick and tired of the “we just want them to come out of the shadows, it’s not about citizenship”. Of course none of the libs where jumping to support Rush’s proposal either. What Rush and Ted did was expose the Rubio’s for the lie they were perpetuating. It was all about citizenship.

          • mathewsjw

            exactly,
            Rubio flipped on amnesty after election to Senate, and several times since back and forth when politically expedient.

            believe the key to Rubio is founding member to arrange the gang of 8 for amnesty, that’s the nail in the Rubio’s amnesty coffin.

          • Maxx

            Not deporting them and allowing them to stay is amnesty. Plum is purple, I don’t care what others say.

          • mathewsjw

            Cruz will not allow illegals to stay. Cruz will deport as they get arrested http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/10/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-deportation-guns-terrorism/

            Cruz will not create a Gestapo force (Trump’s plan) to go door to door.

            it’s really very simple

          • mathewsjw

            Cruz would not allow illegals to stay will deport. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/10/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-deportation-guns-terrorism/

            just NO Gestapo Force going door to door ala TRump which is highly unlikely for legality.

          • Bill

            Ted has explained his work permits. He said he would not support them in times of high unemployment, when the economy is struggling and lot of people are looking for jobs. If the economy was doing well and low unemployment he would. I don’t agree with Ted on the issue, but it’s not in the ballpark as bad as Rubio’s gang of 8.
            Rubio says secure the border first NOW, but he wasn’t saying that with his Gang of 8 bill. Who has more credibility? Rubio gets elected on “I will not support amnesty”, then one of the first things he does when he takes office is rush to join Chucky Schumer on an amnesty bill. Come on. This is like trusting Trump is pro life after supporting partial birth abortion, or even on immigration when he was criticizing Romney in 2012 for being to tough on immigration.
            We aren’t going to deport 15 million people, but you sure as hell can encourage them to self deport. Romney had it right. They’ll self deport if you fine the hell out of any business who hires an illegal immigrant. No jobs, and many will go back home. Will all of them leave? Nope, but a significant number will and it is very doable if the President has the courage to take on the Chamber of Commerce, who fights e-verify. Does Rubio have the courage? Come on, this is a guy who can’t take on the ethanol and sugar lobby. They’ll pat him on the head and say, “good little boy, Marco, you just let the status quo continue”.
            Hey, I like Marco on many of his positions, but the man has little political courage and absolutely no credibility on immigration. The Reagan commandment really applies with Marco, “trust but verify”.

          • Kate

            “one of the first things he does is rush to join Chuck Schumer…”

            No, he didn’t. He got elected in 2010, and Gof8 was in early 2013. He’s done plenty during his time in the Senate to prove his conservative credentials.

            He tried to help with the bill to make it less of a DNC/RINO garbage bill, and when it didn’t work out, he abandoned his support of the bill and realized it wasn’t the right path.

            He was a rookie Senator who got played by sewer rats like Durbin and Schumer. He’s not some lying dirtbag like Coulter (and now Cruz, apparently) would have you believe.

          • Bill

            Which is why he’s not the best choice. If he gets played that easily on a bill he should have known was unpopular with the base (he had to remember what happened with W in 2007 when he tried to do the same thing), then Rubio is going to get steamrolled on other issues. He’s a good man, and he’s worlds better than Obama and Hillary, I fear he’ll be little or no better than Bush (which wasn’t anything to write home about). I especially fear this because of Rubio’s thirst for entering into military conflicts.

            Whether he lied (as Coulter would have you believe) or he was duped, I’m not sure either option is a glowing recommendation. Chuck Schumer is a lot of things, but conservative isn’t one of them. You also had McCain and Graham (he didn’t get the nickname Grahamnesty for nothing) sponsoring this bill which had about as much chance as not supporting amnesty as Bill Clinton has of getting elected to a third term.

          • mathewsjw

            check out the article mentioned: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/04/marco-rubio-the-republican-barack-obama/

            Establishment GOP praising Rubio, encouraging to become the Republican Obama

          • Bill

            Cruz kind of addressed the issue in the debate with a backhanded compliment of Rubio. The reason the establishment loves Rubio is because they think he’s the GOP Obama. It’s not about the views, but that Marco is young, articulate, a good debater, and slick. Ted took this and turned it around when Marco was attacking him (maybe on immigration). In the last debate Marco rattled off something like 10 things Ted had changed his view on and it was amazing how someone could rattle off so many things in so short of time. It was very Obama like. It didn’t matter that everything Rubio said was wrong or misleading, it earned “wows” from every single pundit.

            I’m not sure it’s the strongest attack against Rubio, but it’s fair. I’d go after the point that Marco lied about amnesty, a central reason he got elected to the Senate. If he’ll lie and so quickly break his pledge to the people of Fla, why should Republican voters trust him now? I’d also hammer on how he’s unwilling to stand up to corporate welfare, like subsidies for ethanol and sugar.

          • mathewsjw

            well at least one other person’s seen through Rubio

          • Maxx

            Rubio was fact checked on that list by someone on Fox and he was largely vindicated as being accurate on every issue. Ted did shift his position on ethanol at the last second. That’s a matter of record.

          • Bill

            Someone at National Review fact checked it and said Rubio either misled or lied about all but maybe one thing on the list.

            Not much of shift on ethanol. Instead of getting rid of the subsidy today, phasing it out over 4-5 years. I have no problem with that and it’s probably the more fair thing to do. I favor getting rid of all subsidies and tax write offs, but you would have to phase them out, you can’t do it all overnight because people have made business investments, etc, based on those subsidies/writeoffs.

            Ted’s position is sure a lot better than the pander bear Rubio who sucks up to ethanol in Iowa, and sugar in Fla, even though he knows it violates conservative principles.
            Rubio talks a good game but his actions don’t back it up. Rubio is probably as eloquent as anyone when talking about conservativism, it’s just a shame that he gets “amnesia” when it comes to applying those principles in practice.

            Rubio needs more time in the Senate. Maybe he’ll learn to grow in toughness, but for now he’s not the reliable ally we need in the WH. Good man, smart guy, but just too easily influenced by polls and the establishment.

          • barefooted_rascal

            Our politicians are elected to represent the people who elected them. I think it’s unfair to fault Rubio, or any politician, for a weakness of principles when the principles he was elected to represent are in conflict with one another. You’ll never get all the people to be of one mind, nor should they be, but I wouldn’t fault a politician for getting it “wrong” (from one point of view) from time to time while trying to take action under circumstances with conflicting demands. I place more blame on those in Congress who have been too cowardly to do anything at all.

            I like Cruz, and while he may represent my own personal views better than Rubio might, I also think that the job of a president is to represent the views of all Americans to the best of his ability. I strongly applaud Cruz’s willingness to have the courage to represent the values of those who elected him to the Senate, but I don’t believe that our country is in a place where Cruz’s values are representative of our country as a whole. (Even if I might wish that were the case.) I don’t think he is the strongest Republican candidate to put forth to win in a general election.

            As we are a people that are not of one mind (and thank God for that), there will inevitably be moments where compromise is needed, lest we continue to stagnate as our Congress has been wont to do.

          • Bill

            Our politician are elected to lead. They are not supposed to take polls and then decide what to do. Rubio was elected by the citizens of Fla to fight against amnesty. There’s video of him (in one of the campaign ads – Jebs?) back in 2007 saying he would never support amnesty, a pathway to citizenship. So he lied to the people who helped get him elected. That’s who he’s responsible to not the 11 million illegals who want amnesty to pass.

            One of the reasons we want politicians to clearly articulate what they are going to do, and provide specifics, is so we the voters then make the decision of what direction we want the country to go. If the Republicans get elected to Congress on a “Contract With America” they darn well better follow through on their promise in that contract. I don’t give a rats behind if the Dems don’t support it. As Obama has said (and he’s correct) elections have consequences.

            Nobody disagrees that you sometimes have to compromise. Reagan did this, but he never compromised on his core principles. What are the core principles Rubio won’t compromise on? Plus, it’s always better to compromise from a position of strength, not weakness. If you get elected telling the D’s, “we won’t take amnesty off the table, but we really want to get an immigration reform bill”. That’s the Rubio position of negotiation. Hmm, I wonder how that will work out. It’s better if they think the President (Cruz) won’t negotiate then they are happy to get anything, and see it as a win for their side. You don’t do what Trump does and announce, “I’m handing out deals, baby, step right up”. You’ll get eaten up.

            Why do you think the Repubicans in Congress always lose the budget battles with the D’s? It’s because they announce up front, “we promise, we won’t let the gov’t shutdown, etc”. Hello, the Dems must laugh their *sses off at this negotiating tactic. This is the Rubio strategy. The Cruz strategy is I just sure and hell might shut the gov’t down, so you better be willing to compromise a few things or no continuing resolution.

            Again, you have to have political courage, and if you don’t then you are just shuffling the chairs on the Titanic, but the ship is still going to sink.

        • Maxx

          There is a difference between calling someone out on their actual record (they’ve both gone back and forth on that, which is fine) then downshifting to a sleaze ad where your campaign attempts to paint a young and upcoming conservative as the new Barack Obama.

          I love me some Cruz but I’m disappointed that Ted let this ad pass muster. It’s beneath him.

        • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

          Oh FFS, “GOPe” = YAWn. How can FNC be “GOPe” when it (Fox) is so “sank in the tank” (the one whose Fake #AntiGOPe image was MADE by you IndyCons)? OH and what Rubio’s doing in those ads is called “competing with his opponents” (which Carly oughtta try sometime since Santorum is “after all” HER opponent). I’ve heard about Rubio’s ads being “lies” (more like “false conclusions”), but for Cruz to Obamanize Rubio via that photoshop is an Obamanable cheap-shot…It’s beneath Ted Cruz.

          • mathewsjw

            Trump tried to BLACKMAIL Fox News for $5 Million so there’s the How FNC got off the Trump plantation. FNC supported Trump until Trump’s attacks. Rubio’s not ‘competing with his opponents’, Rubio’s words are clearly supporting Amnesty.

            Get Educated as “Rubio the Republican Obama” was/is put out by Rubio Supporters to swing moderates to Rubio:
            http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/04/marco-rubio-the-republican-barack-obama/

          • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

            …If an SJW like you is gonna come here posing as an IndyCon-inciter, try to be more clever about it, such as by changing your screen-name, “MatthewSJW”.
            …”So there’s the (sic) how FNC got off the Trump plantation.” XQZME, social-justice warrior (that’s what your screen-name says you are), who says FNC is “off” the plantation just because they didn’t switch moderators at DT’s command? They should’ve been “off the plantation” 5+ months ago after Trump’s cyber-“attacks” on Megyn, anyway.
            …ALSO, you concern-troll, YOU get educated that Rubio’s comments are from 3 years ago, and so much for how Rubio’s words “are” supporting Amnesty. He’s changed his tune, I believe him, AND you misunderstood what “opponents” of Rubio I meant (his “Repub-field”-opponents, #Dummy, which is why I said Carly oughtta try “competing” with her opponents (like Santorum).

          • mathewsjw

            so you are telling me to change my God given name? last name initials?? REALLY…then go to hell

            Trump BLACKMAILED Fox News, never rebutted by Trump:
            http://fox17online.com/2016/01/29/fox-news-trump-asked-for-5-million-to-do-gop-debate/ so believe Trump saying it was not about Kelly, Not about Fear Factor, it was FAILED BLACKMAIL.

            So Rubio was Against Amnesty Before Campaign 4 Senate, then Pro Amnesty Gang of 8, Now Against Amnesty for campaign. GOT THAT.
            throw out Rubio’s Amnesty how about CONSISTENCY.

          • Deplorable Jesse-Messy Hammer

            …”So you are telling me to change my God given name?”, you say.
            …Oh wait, does that mean your name is J.W. Matthews? Well, if so, then I suggest putting the “jw” before the “Matthews” so’s you don’t get mistaken for a Social Justice Warrior. Secondly, I already stated my position on Rubio, and stop trying to convince me otherwise. Thirdly, WhoTF said I believe anything said by Trump, the biggest fraud ever to run for Prez? I was refuting what YOU said about FOX’s somehow disavowing Trump because his campaign tried to extort FNC (and the proper word is “extort” NOT blackmail in this case)…I SAID that it’s 5 months late for FNC to get off the Trump-bandwagon over threats involving Megyn AND for that matter there’s No indication that the likes of Sean Hannity aren’t still carrying the Don’s water.

          • mathewsjw

            only 1 “t” btw. have been using this id since computers were invented so there’s that.

            Trump’s tried or succeeded with similar @ other networks so it’s very believable

          • Deplorable Jesse-Messy Hammer

            Great googly moogly, Mathews, you are dense. I said that nothing said by Trump HIMSELF is believable. Wasn’t doubting (nor even talking about) whether he bullies other networks.

          • mathewsjw

            then I must thank you for backing Amnesty? good luck with that.

          • Deplorable Jesse-Messy Hammer

            For the last time: Rubio stopped “backing” amnesty almost as soon as he floated that trial-balloon. (And did it ever occur to you that Rubio floated the idea just to bait Obama into threatening to veto it #BecauseThoseEvilRepubs? Sure’s he11 it occurred to me.) Okay now, you just go feel as entitled to your own facts along with your own opinion…but DON’T put words in my mouth.

          • mathewsjw

            there is so much ‘bait’ out there Rubio’s chumming for illegals

            couple of weeks ago, Marco Rubio for Amnesty
            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marco-rubio-immigrants-217895

            Amnesty is Not Amnesty says Marco Rubio
            https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/rubio-gop-debate-amnesty-isnt-amnesty

            Rubio’s Amnesty problem:
            https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/02/02/marco-rubios-november-electability-problem/
            was for full amnesty Just Last June..

          • Charles Ray

            ” If you seriously think Morg Freeman isn’t implying what MLK said as just quoted, then you don’t know what the word “imply” means.”

            N, like I said, there is a difference between ignoring race entirely and not judging someone for their race. MLK never said anything about color blindness

          • Jesse-Messy Hammer

            FELLA, whenever the “comments are now closed” (within a day on most Disqus-sites) on a thread where I’M in the middle of an argument with someone, I give it up until next time if there is a next time OR I at least start off “on-topic” so’s I don’t look like an idiot posting a response on the wrong thread. You oughtta try it too, and you should also try NOT presenting your opinion or your interpretation as if it’s “fact”.

          • Charles Ray

            Good for you, that’s your choice, I choose otherwise.

            ” also try NOT presenting your opinion or your interpretation as if it’s “fact””

            You say that as If you didn’t do that EXACT thing

      • http://erickbrockway.com/ Erick Brockway

        Yeah, I expect this crap from the Trumpeter but I’d hoped Cruz was above it. Not liking it myself.

      • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

        Rubio is a Jeb protege and a fake conservative. Every recent significant conservative vote he has ducked in order to not harm his voting record. And the most significant thing he has done in the Senate since being elected is selling out his constituents on the Gang of 8 bill. With Rubio you are going to get more of the same old boys club crony capitalism and sell outs for cheap illegal labor. Cruz is my 1st choice but I would take Trump any day over Rubio.

        • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

          Good for you, and that’s all “moot” since you don’t even vote in primaries anyway. (Every time I’ve asked if you vote in Repub-primaries, you’re like “yeah I voted for Mitt last election”…Such nonsequiturs can only mean you DON’T vote in primaries, therefore you DON’T “support” anyone…I’m registered-R in NJ’s “closed-primary” because I’m actually gonna VOTE for Cruz to be nominee…Now that’s “support” as opposed to lip-service.) How is Rubio a Jeb protégé”: just because they’re both from Florida? Senator Rubio learned from G8 and backed off from it, and has otherwise been a staunch Anti-Cubamminst & defender of capitalism. TRUMP, however, has supported amnesty in the past too (so what makes DT superior to MR), Trump has been disingenuous since his campaign-kickoff charade (I ain’t the only one noticing DT can’t articulate conservatism worth a [email protected] unless he’s reading notes he copied from Ted Cruz), AND Trump is an unelectable populist-panderer who’s passed off by IndyCons as a “conserve”.

          • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

            LOL What are you babbling about? I’ve voted in every election both primary and general that Ive been eligible for. And no Rubio is actually a Jeb protege whom he worked for and mentored.

          • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

            …Mm-hmm, if you say so.

        • Maxx

          Ben, you need to do more research on Marco. He’s been the one fella to actually make a dent in Obamacare. He sure as hell has done more to damage to it then Ted.
          http://theweek.com/articles/594868/how-marco-rubio-stealthily-gutted-obamacare

          “Take, for instance, Ted Cruz, who is arguably becoming Marco Rubio’s biggest rival in the 2016 race. Cruz’s major claim to the Republican base is that he “stood up” against ObamaCare, leading the fight to shut down the government over defunding the law. But for all his talk, Cruz doesn’t have any actual results to show for his efforts. Rubio has been less bombastic — but much more effective.”

    • plukasiak

      I’d add cruz to that list. Donald is not an empty suit — he’s just a suit full of sh*t 😉

  • Michelle ✓classified

    Seems a fair assessment to me.

  • wrestlefan01

    a socialist,a woman being investigated by the fbi and a reality tv show clown.. pick your poison america

  • Kevin Giltrud

    Oh, right…. Pick on the short guy!!!

    Not saying that Rubio doesn’t deserve it… But he’s still short.

  • Maxx

    This smacks of desperation to me. Where was this ad two weeks ago? It’s almost like an admission that you knew last night slipped from your grasp and now you’re content to fight to preserve second place. WTF Ted? You’re better than this.

    The target goal is Trump. Not to ACT like Trump. Comparing a Republican with a 94% conservative rating to Obama? Hit Marco on immigration, that’s fine. His previous position warrants it but associating your fellow conservative to the opposition party’s leader is hail Mary, Willie Horton BS.

    Gotta tell ya, I don’t like how this primary season is going. Trump is sitting back and watching the two most highly-rated conservatives machete each other while Jeb has spent $30M attacking not the front runner, but the fella he lobbied for Vice President in 2012. Trump has to be sitting in his leather seat on his 757, seat cranked back, laughing his arse off while his opponents bloody each other.

    Enough of this crap. Reagan would be appalled at this circular firing squad. Have we not learned a damn thing from 2012 and how the constant attacks on Mitt from his own party damaged him irreparably in the general?

    • Victoria Richardson

      Mitt Romney did not fight for the nomination, come on everyone knows that.

      • Maxx

        What on earth are you talking about? He didn’t fight for the very nomination he won?

        I’ve lost track of how many articles I’ve read since 2012 that illustrated in detail how the primary attacks on Romney from his own became the Democratic blueprint on how to attack him in the general. There is a reason the 11th Commandment was created. It is asinine for Cruz to declare someone with a 94% conservative rating to be a Republican Obama. I love Ted but that kind of attack is pathetic and ultimately, damaging to our brand. Questioning Marco on Gang of Eight is warranted but come on….comparing him to Obama? I expect more from Ted. Very disappointed in this line of attack. It’s as if Ted is admitting he’s already lost Iowa and is fighting for second place. What kind of message does that send to undecideds there? Vote for the fella who’s already conceded?

        • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz

          Ted Cruz has a 97% Conservative Rating and Marco Rubio has a 79% Conservative Rating. https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard

          • Maxx

            That is one site. Here is the one I allude to. Heritage, where Ted enjoys a 100% rating.

            http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com//state/state/fl

          • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz

            Heritage is good too. Trouble is, Rubio has too many liberal tendencies.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            His Senate voting record says bullshit.

            He has the fourth most conservative voting record in the Senate.

          • Maxx

            Any campaign ad which attempts to paint Marco Rubio as some kind of liberal, as Cruz’ campaign has done, is so bush league, it borders on the comical. There is a reason every single liberal friend of mine, and yes, I have a few, fears Rubio. They laugh at the prospect of Trump in the general. Rubio? It’s almost as if they concede Hillary would have no chance. Just look at the optics. You’ve got the young, energetic, faith-based Rubio on one side of the debate stage, and the hacking, coughing, tired old liar on the other.

            Just repeating what I’m hearing…and the visual that they fear.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            You touched on the primary reason why I support Rubio – he would crush Hillary Clinton. That has been my opinion since the day he announced his candidacy last May.

            Trump could never win a general election and I have my doubts about Ted Cruz, even though I do think he’s more than qualified. I just think Team Clinton would have an easier time painting Cruz as too extreme, and whether people want to admit it or not, he’s not the most likable guy and that matters in a Presidential election.

            I think Rubio is the best salesman of the GOP brand since Reagan and being young, attractive, and Hispanic appeals to the general electorate better than anyone else in the party.

            There’s no doubt Team Clinton is terrified of Rubio and fears him more than any other candidate. It’s not even close.

          • Maxx

            Agree. Optics matter. Ask anyone who listened to the debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon had won. Those who had seen it thought Nixon lost. Why? Because he was sweating like Ted Striker in Airplane. The visual was awful. So, fast forward to 2016 and imagine a debate stage featuring burlap sack-wearing Hillary, looking like she just ran the Iditarod after climbing Mt. Fuji, defending Benghazi in between dry coughs while Rubio is staring at that train wreck wondering if he should have made the chivalrous decision and brought a bottle of Nyquil as a debate gift.

            She would have spent months trying to out progressive the socialist Sanders, damaging her with centrist Democrats who can barely recognize their own party anymore. These type of voters are ripe for the picking. In addition, you’ve got the Latino vote AND youth vote…and let’s just be honest…the female vote, where Marco does appeal, for whatever reason you want to choose. Rubio paints a conservative picture that is likeable to many, who otherwise, would turn their noses at conservatism.

            This morning on MSNBC, they were trying to shill the narrative that Rubio had a terrible debate. They were working that angle right from the top of the hour while waxing poetic about Trump’s decision not to show up. Democrats can always be counted on to tell you who they fear. For Mika Brzezinski, Marco Rubio might as well be Jason Vorhees.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            I think it’s a smart move by Rubio to repeat that Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to face him.

            Not only is he absolutely right, but it’s a good way to sell your candidacy now that the voting is about to begin and voters are starting to pay more attention and becoming more pragmatic.

          • Bill

            That’s changing the window curtains. Go bold, go big. Rubio is neither. I want to do more than move the deck chairs on the Titanic. I want someone to get an aircraft carrier and move everyone off the Titanic. With Rubio the ship is still going to sink, maybe more slowly, but it’s still going down.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            That’s the argument Trump supporters have made the last 7 months.

            The problem with that is that Trump can’t change anything in Washington if he has no chance of winning a general election and the Republicans lose a lot of seats in Congress.

            The GOP needs to nominate someone who can win or they won’t be changing anything.

          • Bill

            Even if Trump could win he wouldn’t change anything. He’s boasting about making deals and being friends with Pelosi. The problem isn’t we haven’t had enough deal making. The problem is the Boehner’s and McConnell’s have been all too willing to make deals with liberals. Trump will expand the gov’t. The guy supports socialized medicine, etc. He’s part of the problem. We need someone in the WH who will say “hell no” when they send a spending bill for him to sign that increases the deficit/debt. He needs to stand up against not only the Dems but the R’s.

            Trump isn’t any different ideologically from Hillary or Bloomberg. Rubio is much further to the right than those clowns but Rubio lacks the courage to take on the special interest groups and people within his own party. Cruz is the only one who will possibly do it. Rubio would be like changing the curtains.

            If the GOP electorate/establishment isn’t willing to go bold on conservative principles in today’s environment, they never will.

          • Karla1953

            Ah but there is a reason for that…………………….Joe cannot abide Rubio I think he is a tad bit green around his gills for what ever reason. Morning Mika has been pushing Trump along with Joe so much I am waiting for them to change the shows name to Morning Trump. Then again I think Joe thinks there is a place for him there somewhere……………..his brother has introduced Trump here in FL from what I have read LOL

          • Maxx

            With Scarborough and Rubio, it’s personal. The fella just doesn’t like him for whatever reason. Not sure what the history is between the two in Florida politics. I might research that for grins. Meanwhile, his daily critique of Rubio borders on the deranged.

          • Karla1953

            I have wondered it is personal but not sure that they really crossed paths………..maybe Joe looked at what might have been before the whole dead intern thing(that is sketchy though IMO)and that is what drives it. It is beyond deranged the whole shoe/boot thing highlighted that though also IMO

          • Bill

            Yet Nixon won 2 elections, and one of them a landslide. JFK won because he was able to get out the dead vote in record numbers in Cook County.

            In a normal year, I might agree with you to play it safe and go with Rubio. There’s no need. Hillary is so unpopular the class dunce should beat her. Her negatives are through the roof high. The word most associated with Hillary is “liar”. I’m not worried about ANYONE of the Republicans (outside of Trump) beating her. She’s a horrible candidate to boot. She’s in a battle with a guy who’s a self described Socialist. Why is everyone so afraid of her? She’s got serious legal problems. If she falls you have Sanders.

            No, now is the perfect time, might be the only time in my lifetime, the GOP should nominate the most conservative candidate. Ted is smart, he’ll whip Hillary in a debate, and he’ll be attractive to blue collar Dems who are getting killed with illegal immigration. He has the ability to shake up Washington, to reduce the size of Washington and move the power back to the states and local gov’t. He can take on what is really offensive in Wash, corporate welfare. Rubio can’t and won’t do these things. If Rubio can’t stand up to the ethanol lobby in Iowa, or the sugar lobby in Fla, he’s not up for the job that needs to be done to fix Wash.

          • Eliska

            Yes and give us amnesty!

          • Regular Rufus

            If Rubio wins the nomination, I’ll write in Jim Webb in the general, as he’s more conservative than Marco.

          • Maxx

            Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

            Supports Roe v. Wade and abortion rights

            Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

            On gay marriage: “I think this has been a good thing for the country.”

            Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness.

            Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program.

            Supports alternative sources instead of drilling ANWR

            Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

            Co-sponsored signing on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

            James Webb, at one point, was my boss. He’s a moderate Democrat and I rather like him but he is, in no way shape or form, a conservative.

          • Bill

            No he’s not. There’s a reason he was running as a Dem. He’s conservative as a Dem, but Rubio still has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. He’s just not a bold or courageous conservative who will make the changes needed to fix Wash. That’s why I’m supporting Cruz.

          • barefooted_rascal

            Regarding Rubio, this is pretty much what I hear from people as well. And while I’d like to think I’m not “old” yet, I’ve noticed that the folks that I talk to that are younger than me seem to lean toward Rubio or Paul, so Rubio appears to have the ability to draw in some of the younger crowd. I don’t know if I agree that Trump wouldn’t beat Clinton. I actually think he very well could. However, I think Clinton is the only Dem candidate that Trump might have a shot at beating, and with the evidence mounting against her, I think it’s certainly possible that another Democrat may enter the race. Given that it’s so late in the game, my guess is that they would put forth Biden to run. I don’t see them rallying around Sanders.

            So imagine a Trump v. Biden race. Terrifying thought, really, but it could happen. Trump is the one candidate who might actually make Biden look sane. Both men have a propensity to say outrageous things, and Biden’s already been given a free pass. Hell, it’s even described as endearing when he does it. My point is, Biden has a lot more charm than Trump, and I could easily see him picking up the undecided voters.

            So, in light of all this, I’m finding myself compromising a bit between the candidates I personally identify best with, and the candidates that I think actually have a shot of winning. There are a lot of great candidates running, but some of the ones I like best aren’t the ones who are likely to have the most appeal in a general election. I want a candidate who can do well against any Democrat, not just Clinton. I’m still undecided, but leaning toward Rubio as that guy.

          • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz

            In turning around the country and rolling back the debt and leftist bile, you vote for the most conservative candidate, not the 4th best when it comes to conservatism.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            There’s not much of a difference between the most conservative and the fourth most conservative, especially when the fourth most conservative member would beat Hillary Clinton while the most conservative probably wouldn’t.

            As William F Buckley used to say “Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.”

            That candidate is Rubio.

          • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz

            Hogwash. Elections are a marathon. And Rubio is an establishment shill.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            So stay home and sulk and watch him win the nomination.

          • JP

            That’s like a recipe for a Democratic victory. You have to be able to win swing voters. I think a vote for Trump or Cruz is not in any way different than voting for Hilary or Bernie in the general.

          • JD Son✓Мой Wiz Is The Шиза

            No. If Cruz gets the nomination, he will get the swing voters and many more votes than people realize. Cruz has a massive ground game.

          • JP

            Yeah, the whole Rubio’s not a real conservative thing is coming from people who are either politically clueless, or people who just kind of want to smear him to better chances for their own candidate. The latter is politics since forever, and Rubio has shown he has a thick enough skin to take it without whining. But the former just drives me crazy!

          • Giuseppe Franco

            The irony of it all is that the RINO allegations has primarily come from Trumpbots, which is laughable.

            I think Rubio is doing the right thing. He’s spending more time conveying an optimistic message and driving home how much Team Clinton is terrified of him instead of just slinging mud at his opponents.

            Now that’s not to say Rubio hadn’t done any attacking of his own, but he usually doesn’t go on the offense like that unless he’s hit first.

          • Bill

            He’s probably more conservative than any candidate running not named Ted, but he can’t hold a candle to Ted in consistency towards conservativism.

            My biggest objection to Rubio is I fear he’ll be like George W. Bush. A cowboy on defense, and someone who goes along to get along with moderates and D’s. We all agree that Washington is broken and as corrupt as any place on earth. The only way to fix this is to have someone who’s willing to take on members of his own party. You have to be willing to take a 2×4 over the head of a Mitch McConnell if he’s holding up conservative legislation, or he’s trying to ram through some big spending bill. He has to be willing to veto bills sponsored by his own party in Congress. If he’s not wiling to do this then you are just changing the curtains, you aren’t fixing Washington.

            I don’t think Rubio has the courage (he has yet to show it at least) to do this, nor do I think he has the will. Look at his pandering to the ethanol lobby in Iowa. Goodness, if the ethanol lobby brings you to your knees, no chance you are going to stand up to the real powerful lobbyists, like the Chamber of Commerce, the big banks, Wall Street, etc. Cruz might not even be able to pull it off but I believe he has the will. He might be the only person on the national scene that can pull it off. He’s certainly the only Republican in this race who can.

            So, do Republican voters just want to politicians to pay the token lip service to smaller gov’t, or do we (the voters) actually want them to do something? If it’s just lip service, it doesn’t matter who you vote for but if it’s real results, I’ve seen nothing from Rubio to make me believe he’s the guy.

          • Maxx

            Bill, we agree on most issues but with Rubio, we part ways. I don’t think Marco has to worry too much about relationships with his fellow Senators when (if) he’s President. They’ll be lining up to kiss his arse at that point. It’s amazing how quickly “establishment” politicians rediscover their individualism when they’re sitting in the big chair. If Marco tacks a bit too close to centrist real estate, they’ll remind him of George Bush’s one term and I think no fella as young as Rubio wants a one and out.
            They’ll keep him tempered. We both like Ted but honestly, I find the path to the White House significantly more difficult with Cruz than with Rubio. I’m willing to take my chances with Marco because I think the most important goal in November is actually winning…not choosing who is the most conservative with the percentage difference, according to Heritage, being 6% between them.

            Frankly, I’m more concerned about who we’re sending to the House and Senate at this point. We’ll need majorities with a Republican in the WH to truly shift things back to sane levels.

          • Bill

            Don’t get me wrong, I like Rubio, and unlike with Romney and McCain, I won’t have to hold my nose to vote for him. However, he’s like pale imitation of Ted to me.

            I just disagree with you in the fear of Hillary. Anyone not named Trump can beat her and I think beat her. She’s toxic. My niece and nephew (both are college students) are caucusing for Bernie, but both have said they would never vote for Hillary in the general, they can’t stand her. She’s not a role model for young women, and the college age girls don’t like her because they think she let her husband walk all over her with the affairs and then going out and trashing the women who made the charges. Don’t fear Hillary. Fear Trump.

            Why do you think Rubio will now have a backbone? The guy has repeatedly caved to special interest (ethanol, sugar, immigration). What happens if the Republicans in Congress a pork laden budget deal, like we repeatedly saw during the W administration? Will Rubio veto these bills? No chance. He’ll sign them because the party tells him to sign on. He’s not going to worry about not being re-elected because he’ll be doing what the GOP congress wants. The George HW Bush example isn’t a good one because he broke the “No new taxes pledge”. George W. Bush spent like a drunken sailor and he got re-elected.

            If you really are serious about reducing gov’t, reducing spending, you need to vote for Ted. He’s the only one who will attempt to do it. The only one with the courage which is why all the establishment senators hate him. They love Rubio because he’s putty in their hands, but they know Ted means business, and they aren’t pushing Ted around.

          • Giuseppe Franco

            There are several groups that grade Republicans on conservative purity, and you’re right, HAFA is the gold standard and most trusted among those groups.

          • plukasiak

            how do they account for the significant number of votes that Rubio didn’t bother to show up for?

          • Maxx

            From what I’ve learned, all of those votes were for issues where Marco’s vote would not have swayed the numbers in any direction, which is why he kept his commitments on the campaign trail.

            His OPINION on those particular issues, are for anyone to gather. Now, whether or not that matters to a voter is a personal issue. He’s my state Senator and I don’t have an issue with his voting record. He’s been there for the votes that mattered.

          • Bill

            My only problem with his missing a vote is the budget deal. Don’t be a coward, let us know where you stand. Do you support shutting down the gov’t or not? The others aren’t a big deal as it’s to be expected for anyone running for office. This wouldn’t make my top 10 things I disagree with Rubio about.

        • Bill

          No, it was a coronation, with the establishment handing him the crown before even 1 vote was cast. Geez, it was bad enough Romney was outspending everyone 5-1, but then you had the party leaders stacking the deck and declaring Mitt the winner, everyone shouldn’t even bother to run.
          I still think if the party establishment in Iowa didn’t “steal” the election from Santorum, we might have had a different outcome. It was so close they shouldn’t have announced anyone a winner, but to announce Romney, it cooked Santorum. It did little good to Santorum to correct the records 3 weeks later.

          If Rubio has similar views on immigration and carbon taxes, as Obama, it’s fair to compare them. I agree, I’d prefer him to just attack him on the positions. I’d hammer Rubio day and night on the Gang of 8, and I’d hammer him on his hawkish military position.

          The country wants a strong military and a strong defense, but they don’t want soldiers dying in another fruitless middle east war. Rubio seems hellbent on sending troops to Syria, when we don’t even know if the leader replacing Asaad would be worse (he probably would since he’d likely have ISIS connections). We don’t need another cowboy, like W, who’s sending troops all over the world fighting unnecessary wars and nation building. Reagan was all about peace through strength, but he was acting like Rambo sending combat troops to every country fighting a civil war.

          • Maxx

            Winning Iowa is overrated. It would not have given Santorum much traction beyond that caucus. Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan all lost Iowa. I agree that the party had ordained Romney but the party has traditionally acted that way…passing the mantle to its “next in line” as they did with Dole and McCain, albeit to less than successful results (but that’s a topic for another debate). That doesn’t mean Romney didn’t earn it. He still had to make his case, which he did. Yes, he outspent others 5 to 1 but in the end, the people decided he was our best representative and I agreed with them. It sure as hell wasn’t going to be Newt, Cain, Perry or Santorum.

            As far as hawkish Rubio, I am more a fan for his aggressive position on rebuilding the military, as opposed to Rand Paul who wants to financially dismantle it and I do agree with Marco’s position on Syria, as do many seasoned veterans. Defeating ISIS is going to require boots on the ground. It cannot be done from airstrikes alone.

            You mention previous wars and “nation building” but no Iraqis were entrenched in the United States in 2003, killing Americans. You cannot compare Iraq in 2003 to ISIS in 2016.

            Finally, boots on the ground has many meanings and I’m sure Rubio isn’t declaring a full scale invasion. He recently said “The only way to defeat Isis is for Sunni Arabs themselves to reject them ideologically and defeat them militarily. They must be defeated on the ground with a ground force that is made up primarily of Arab Sunni fighters from Iraq, from Syria, but also from Jordan, from Egypt, from the Emirates, from Saudi Arabia.”

            There are many levels of BOTG, as we discovered in Pakistan.

            A good read.

            https://news.vice.com/article/heres-what-us-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-really-means

          • Bill

            Reagan lost Iowa because he skipped the debate. Reagan was furious his staff had given him such terrible advice and fired a number of his top staffers the day after the caucus.
            Romney didn’t win jack. Sorry, the GOP could have nominated MIckey Mouse and won the same states Romney won. Newt or Santorum wouldn’t have lost a single state Romney won, and I’d argue they would have won some states Romney lost. Mitt was a terrible candidate. If you don’t want to fight Obama, stand on the sidelines and let the big boys play. He deserved to lose because he ran a crappy campaign and Obama’s team ran circles around him.
            There’s a large middle ground between Ron Paul isolationism and the neocon interventionism of Bush/Rubio. Rubio’s policy is a loser. It doesn’t matter if you are ready to charge up the hill to fight in Syria the American people aren’t, and if you don’t have public support you won’t win. It’s a dumb strategy. So, we put boots on the ground to fight an enemy we don’t know what they look like. I’m pretty sure an ISIS follower looks just like the sweetest moderate Muslim you can find. We aren’t talking about nations, we aren’t talking about standing armies. Plus, he wants to take out Assaad. And replace him with what? These are the question the Bush/Rubio’s never want to answer or can’t. But hell, full steam ahead, it will all work out in the end.
            What’s the objective? How do accomplish this? How do we get in and out? What do we do with Russia if they go tell us to f*** ourselves when we talk about troops on the ground? The interventionists never ask/answer these questions, they just go full cowboy, so we get into two stupid and unnecessary wars like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Waste of precious resources, both people (which is the most important) and money.
            And Rubio has ZERO credibility on the security issue since he was Mr. Open borders. He didn’t seemed too concerned with who was coming into this country when he was cheerleading the Gang of 8 bill. Ted makes us more safe. Stop illegal immigration. Lockdown the borders. Build a wall. Increase border security and use high tech on the border. Make a commitment to keep out illegals. And don’t accept a single Syrian refugee.
            You mention BOTG not being a full scale invasion. So what does Rubio mean. 10,000 troops like Obama’s proposing. I saw a military expert who laughed at the proposal. Said you either put in 100-150K troops and destroy ISIS off the map, or you put no boots on the ground, because 10K won’t do sh*t and instead will just provide more targets for ISIS to kill. He actually supported the Cruz way because he said the public will NOT support the level of troops on the ground to eliminate ISIS.
            The Rubio way is to go in guns a blazin’ without having a clue what you are doing. Cowboy interventionism. No, we’ve already seen what a losing proposition the Bush interventionism is so we don’t need to replay that horror film.

          • Maxx

            I’ve got too many old friends from my Naval War College days who disagree with your assessment on how to combat ISIS, as do I. Hell, that’s no surprise as admirals and generals have disagreed for decades on how to fight wars. We’re worlds apart on this one and will have to agree to disagree. Drones are all the rage but they’re not the answer in Syria. Boots on the ground is the answer and with regards to American people wanting or not wanting a full scale invasion, that waffles depending on how many are killed stateside from an ISIS attack. Watch how quickly they’ll change their mind if we have Paris in Manhattan. Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. I was against it, having chewed my fair share of real estate over there in 1991. I thought we were chasing the wrong enemy however, fighting ISIS is something that we all agree is warranted but like the admirals and generals, we’ll disagree on the blueprint.

          • Bill

            I worked 25 years in logistics for the Army, and have dealt with my share of colonels and generals. Many of the recommendations/changes Rumsfeld made were not smart decisions in weaponizing of the army. He also did some very smart things.

            We have a military that has been fighting in wars for almost 15 years. You have soldiers going on repeated deployments. The country is tired of fighting wars and sending troops to foreign countries to deal with civil wars. What did we accomplish in 15 years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? They are a bigger clusterf*** than ever. We would have been better off leaving Saddaam in power, and we never should have sent a large force in Afghanistan. It’s a giant hellhole with no gov’t, not infrastructure, led by warlords.

            Syria? Who are the good guys, who are the bad guys? I get a chuckle out the neocons, like McCain, who says we need to support the moderates in the country. Who the hell are the moderates? They are all nuts. The “moderate” rebels are trying to wipe out all the Christians. Stay out. Fine, if you have location of some ISIS bad guy bomb them or send in special forces to wipe them out, but no large ground force. Let the UN and the Arab countries take the lead.

            The public doesn’t want a war. Sorry, but not even Paris wets the people’s appetites for us sending ground troops to Syria. The number of people who died in 9-11 is tiny compared to the number of lives lost in the invasion/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. That doesn’t even mention the terrible cost in injuries (loss of limbs, etc) and the mental problem these soldiers deal with when they return.

            We need a new strategy. The invade all the countries strategy isn’t working. Secure the homeland, secure the homeland, secure the homeland. Stopping the Rubio open borders plan is a great place to start.

    • plukasiak

      Reagan was elected at a time when the willingness to compromise with Democrats was not seen as the kiss of death for GOP candidates. This is indicative of the massive changes in the GOP over the last 35 odd years — and IMHO, Reagan would be appalled at the way in which the party devolved to the point where the 11th Commandment is merely political nostalgia.

      • Regular Rufus

        Compromise is fine, it has just turned into “roll over and play dead”. If you give up everything, it’s surrender, not compromise.

        • Giuseppe Franco

          Having the fourth most conservative record in the Senate is anything but rolling over and playing dead.

          Immigration is not a single issue litmus test that defines conservatism.

          • Regular Rufus

            I was responding to this statement made by plukasiak: ” when the willingness to compromise with Democrats was not seen as the kiss of death for GOP candidates”

            My response is WHY compromise is now considered the kiss of death. Neither plukasiak nor Kiss has the fourth most conservative record in the Senate.

            Who are you talking about?

      • Bill

        Reagan HAD to deal with Dems as they controlled both the House and the Senate when he became President. Plus, Reagan wasn’t pulling a George W. Bush and letting Ted Kennedy write his signature legislation (No CHild Left Behind). Reagan formed a coalition with blue dog Dems, who were conservative Dems, mostly in southern states. There aren’t any conservative Dems anymore, they have come over to the Republican party.

        I live in Iowa, which is a purple state and the D’s (holding political office) in this state are pretty hardcore liberals. We had Tom Harkin for many years as Senator and he was as liberal as they came. JFK would have been to the right of ALL these guys. My dad often voted for Dems until Jimmy Carter (he actually caucused for Carter in ’76). Then the party went loony left and my dad never voted for another Dem at the state or national level. He agreed with Reagan, he didn’t leave the Dem party, they left him.

        If the Dem party had more guys like Evan Bayh, I’d have no problem working with them, but they don’t.

    • Bill

      My gut, and from I’m hearing from people who know the state of Iowa (I live here) better than anyone, is the Cruz people are extremely confident they will beat Trump in Iowa, and they are worried about Rubio possibly beating him. They don’t fear Trump, they are worried about Rubio in the long game. Rubio has the organization, money, charisma, etc. Trump has no organization and is willing to spend no money.

      The word is a few days ago when Trumps mic went out at some event he went off about how he’s not paying for that mic. Well, the reason is Trump’s people didn’t have any money so they used the cheapest contractor they could find to supply the equipment.

      This is the big leagues and you better be able to handle some hard ads in the primary season because you are sure as hell going to see much worse from Hillary and the Dems in the general. Mitt didn’t lose because they beat him up. He lost because he was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign. The 47% comment played right into the stereotype of Republicans and then you would have thought Mitt was applying to be the best man at Obama’s wedding. Good grief, it’s a Presidential election, take off the gloves and fight, scratch the other guys eyeballs out if you have to.

      Look at ’08 and Obama and Clinton beat the hell out of each other. There was talk of whether the party could unite, etc. It primed Obama to be ready to beat up on Bush and McCain in the general. McCain thought he was going to get the favorable media he got in the primary, and that many of the Dems would love him because he was every D’s favorite Republican. Romney was another one who was every D’s favorite Republican and the media loved him during the primary.

      The media is ALWAYS going to hate the GOP candidate, the Dems are ALWAYS going to hate the GOP candidate. Embrace it. Do what Reagan did and talk over the mainstream media. The party will unite if we don’t nominate another squish, like McCain, Romney, Jeb, or Trump. The party will unite behind Rubio or Cruz. They are both conservatives and people realize that you sometimes hit below the belt in the heat of a primary battle but you move on to beat the real scary monster, which is Hillary.

    • Kate

      I totally agree. This was what I was hoping to see on the Democrat side- Hillary and Biden in a nasty bloodbath for the nomination.

      Instead they’re playing footsie with each other over there (let’s be real, they’re barely attacking each other), and we get to watch the the most conservative guy in the race run nasty attacks on the second-most conservative guy in the race.

      You’re right, Trump is loving this. So is Hillary, for that matter. The two of them couldn’t have written a better script for this election cycle…

  • grais

    It’s bound to get ugly. At least this is ugly about something real, and it’s not just Trump’s tween girl crap.

  • Dwayne Mountain Dew Camacho

    Dear Republicans …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_(Ronald_Reagan)

    (does not apply to trump…for he is not a republican)

    • Victoria Richardson

      According to the majority of Republicans, he is the front runner. Donald Trump for President 2016

      • tops116 ✓Quipper

        “According to the majority of Republicans”

        Fun fact, sweetie: having 35% is not a majority. That is 16 points below a majority. More to the point, it means that 65% of Republicans aren’t in favor of Trump. Now, that’s a majority.

        • Stephen

          Maths is hard…

      • Giuseppe Franco

        Since Trump and his followers love to tout polls, I wonder if Trump will mention this weekend that 50% of non-Trump supporting Republicans claim they will NEVER vote for him.

        Kinda hard to get elected when most people in your own party can’t stand you.

        http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/29/poll-only-half-of-nontrump-republican-voters-would-support-him-in-general-election-n2110994

        • Maxx

          Breitbots love to quote the polls but they conveniently avoid those which state Trump loses to Clinton in the general and does even WORSE against Sanders.

          I continue to make this analogy but sending Trump to represent conservatives in the general election is akin to sending a rally car across the mountains (primaries) to race in the Indy 500 (general).

          Not a wise choice.

          • bil_g

            Now that’s an analogy I can get behind. Though I am trying to figure out what rally car to relegate Trump to. It’d be in the GRC and not the WRC, I do know that.

  • marcus tullius cicero

    …Ted Cruz for the win….

  • Acuda4me ✓Please!

    Gonna be a long weekend.

  • Richard Cox

    Shift in Cruz ad focus could also mean they think the polls are fluffed for Trump and the actual showing for him will be weak. So, they turn the guns on the next greatest challenge to them. I’ll take either Cruz or Rubio. Anyone else currently running in the WH next year and we are done.

    • Richard Cox

      Yup

  • Giuseppe Franco

    Well, if Rubio is the “Republican Obama,” then I’ll take it since Obama was elected twice.

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    So, what Team Cruz is saying is that Rubio can win general elections. *snicker*

    Seriously, that’s a decent ad, though I say it suggests worry among Team Cruz that all that talk about Rubio gaining steam in Iowa is legit.

    • JV

      nah

      its more of a better safe than sorry smack down

      • Maxx

        Rubio is now at 18% in Iowa and that was BEFORE the debate last night. Internal polling determined this attack ad.

        Love the cat!

  • Karla1953

    Hey it is the Primary and things happen however it is interesting that he still seems almost laid back at times when it comes to Trump. Then again as much as I dislike polls they are all over the place and Rubio has been picking up slowly but surely while Ted not so much. Then again they are both on my short list 🙂

  • Jimni27

    He’s partly right, there are similarities:
    Obama vs. Rubio : Both young Senators, both make people believe there is hope for uniting our country.
    Obama vs. Cruz- Both rigid and uncompromising
    Obama vs. Trump- Both narcissistic.

  • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/heroes-behind-the-badge/heroes-behind-badge-sacrifice-survival.html Meatzilla ✓ᴵᴿᴿᴱᴰᴱᴱᴹᴬᴾᴸᴼᴿᴬᴮᴸᴱ

    pffft… you go, Marco boyee!

  • Regular Rufus

    Now that Fox News is on the Rubio bandwagon, Cruz has to go big.

  • globalcrap

    Rubio flip and flop with the illegals aliens, and the dream act. Cruising with Cruz

  • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

    Odd. Something seems to be wrong with the Trump machine.
    He dropped from 41(or 37)% to 31% in 3 days.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

    • kayerob

      Cruz Has Never Been Above 21 In Any Poll So Yea And Now Rubio Is Catching Him.

  • http://wandererswaysite.wordpress.com Wanderer

    It’s like we all forget that this happens every four years, or didn’t all muse about how these things would come back to bite (insert candidate’s name here), or suddenly don’t want politicians held accountable for their records because one happens to be “your guy” or the one doing the accusing is not “your guy.”

    I’ve liked Rubio but this makes the point (a bit starkly yes) that he’s done some questionable stuff. Give me a break with the “oh Ted Cruz has no people skills he’s such a meanie” nonsense, yes he’s “my guy” but when that’s the best people can throw at him in response it’s like telling him he’s ugly.

    • JPT

      Poor playmate skills, I suspect, are the least of Sen Cruz’ deficits. I am holding out hope he will be the candidate in November whose campaign evisceration will expose just the sort of creepy which places him in the annals of political history right next to his spiritual doppelganger, Joseph McCarthy.

      • http://wandererswaysite.wordpress.com Wanderer

        Little girl, didn’t I tell you upvoting yourself doesn’t make you look cool? Go back to your sandbox and keep your play pretend to yourself, adults are talking.

  • All for Naught

    Two thoughts: Either Cruz’ internals show Trump falling so money aimed at Rubio or Cruz falling aiming at Rubio to preserve second place finish. Interesting. So the Establishment (Bush PAC), the Outsiders (Cruz) and the MSM are all attacking Rubio. Things that make you go hmmmmm…..

  • ryukidn

    Rubio outright lied about his amnesty position to get elected. Then, onc ein DC, he helped author … AUTHOR … the gang of 8. He is still for amnesty, but he tries to temper his position by saying he’ll secure the border first.

    Rubio is a big ole lying RINO!

  • tamanator

    Rubio is like Hillary–cannot be trusted. He is now the establishment-indoctrinated water boy.

    • Ruy Diaz

      Dude is rated over 90% by ever conservative ‘rating’ organization out there. Just like Hillary. Right.

      • tamanator

        Sure, by democrat conservatives!

        • Ruy Diaz

          And that’s why Idiocracy will win in the end.

          • tamanator

            Better than a bunch of liars–look who are running the country now! A whole bunch of liars, from the White House to the Senate and Congress in both parties!

  • The Dragon

    I don’t care for Rubio, but no he’s no Obama. Trump is the Republican (a term I hate to use for him even) Obama.

  • The_Kat ✓vilified

    I don’t know if I have ever known the Iowa caucus to determine the winning candidate so I’m not all that concerned at this point. I’m a little disappointed that Cruz would take out negative ads against Rubio. I always thought that’s what their favorite PACs were for so they don’t get their own hands dirty.

  • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

    Aside from what people might think of the ad, I saw this trouble coming for Marco way back when he was championing amnesty. I soured on him when he fought so hard for it, and Cruz is just reminding us. He made his own bed.

  • PNWShan

    I am a Ted Cruz fan, but not a fan of this ad. Seems to be an overreach. Could even backfire. If he wanted to make up for the debate, using Megyn Kelly’s admission that Cruz was right would have been better.

  • drw

    “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Popularly known as Reagan’s 11th commandment.
    Seems to me that just a few short weeks ago one of our candidates claimed to be an adherent to this when asked why he wasn’t sharing his opinion on one of the other candidates. Apparently hypocrisy is a characteristic not exclusive to the left. Of course everybody does it to an extent although not usually in quite so blatant a manner.
    This is…..disappointing.

  • wharfrat

    Rubio can’t be trusted,he is out to help himself and line his pockets with what ever he can get,he has no experience at being a leader and is too young to be a good President,we are just about finished with the worst President ever and we can’t take a chance on another loser like Obama.

    • Ruy Diaz

      Cruz is a few months older than Rubio. 45 and 44. Geez.

  • SnarkyGCat

    Ad reeks of desperation.

  • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

    Fox News since the debate has been all Rubio hero worship. I watched the debates and Rubio looked like a liar to me especially when they showed that video.

  • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

    Rubio is a Jeb protege and a phony conservative. Every recent significant conservative vote he has ducked in order to not harm his voting record. And the most significant thing he has done in the Senate since being elected is selling out his constituents on the Gang of 8 bill. With Rubio you are going to get more of the same old boys club crony capitalism and sell outs for cheap illegal labor. Cruz is my 1st choice but I would take Trump any day over Rubio

    • Kate

      “a Jeb protege…”

      While Jeb mentored him when he was younger (when he actually had a decent conservative record as governor), I highly doubt that Jeb is happy that Rubio decided to run for President as well this year and steal his thunder.

      Rubio’s even admitted that other, older politicians told him that it wasn’t “his turn” yet, and that he should wait to run. He’s not an establishment guy, and he’s WAAAAY more Conservative than Trump could ever hope to be.

  • goldwater89

    Cruz is pathetic

  • coolercoleman

    How many knives does Rubio have to put in your back on amnesty before you judge his actions over his rhetoric.