I use the term ‘mess’ since that is essentially what happened when Florida Senator Marco Rubio, champion of the Tea Party and a potential 2016 contender, pushed a hard sell on immigration reform to conservatives in 2013. Rubio’s version of reform included a pathway to citizenship which quickly became synonymous with amnesty and the Senator was no longer in the good graces of the GOP conservative base. As of today, the legislation Rubio was pushing went nowhere and the issue still looms despite his strident and vocal support for it in the past twelve to twenty-four months.

However, it now appears that Rubio is working on rehabbing his conservative credentials and beginning his push for launching a campaign in 2016.

Report from ABC News:

He’s a 42-year-old freshman senator, but when asked by Jonathan Karl on “This Week” if he’s ready to be president, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida answered without hesitation.

“I do … but I think that’s true for multiple other people that would want to run … I mean, I’ll be 43 this month, but the other thing that perhaps people don’t realize, I’ve served now in public office for the better part of 14 years,” said Rubio. “Most importantly, I think a president has to have a clear vision of where the country needs to go and clear ideas about how to get it there and I think we’re very blessed in our party to have a number of people that fit that criteria.”

When asked if he was qualified to run, Rubio reiterated that the Republican Party has several qualified candidates.

“The question is what — who’s vision is the one that our party wants to follow?” he said.

Rubio has held pretty tightly to staunch conservative positions on most issues outside the topic of immigration reform. Has his star power diminished within the party or does he still have room to resurrect his former Tea Party glory from 2010 and become a serious threat in 2016?

21 COMMENTS

    • Only news because we’re not allowed to be skeptical or debate the issue. Otherwise, yawn.

      Pretty much any “climate scientist” who believes that computer models are better than actual recorded temperatures and history is a moron pushing an agenda. Rubio is fighting a headwind that calls people “deniers,” as you just demonstrated, and good for him.

      Global warming/climate change/climate disruption is a total scam debunked by actual data. The only “deniers” are those who refuse to acknowledge the actual data and would instead prefer to live in fantasy land of made up of junk.

      “Marco Rubio says human activity isn’t causing climate change”

      That’s because… it’s true. The end. Thanks for coming, get your coats on the way out.

  1. On what DATA and analysis does Rubio claim that it isn’t POSSIBLE that the actions of humans have any impact on the earth and its systems? He has no proof–just doubt. Doubt is healthy.

    I am a CHAMPIONSHIP skeptic, as should be evident by now, but if it’s an agenda to claim humans cause climate change, it’s MORE of an agenda to categorically claim that humans cannot possibly have any impact at all.

    I’d say it’s POSSIBLE that humans are changing the climate. The only honest debate then, is whether we do something–just in case–and what?

    Climate change deniers are like atheists. Yeah, fine. What if they’re wrong?

    • In summary, you’re a skeptic but one point of view (not yours) is more of an agenda than the other (yours).

      You framed it as saying the only debate is whether we do something or not about what you claim is possibly happening. I’d rather debate whether it is happening or not considering we have data and history to examine and we can compare that to the models. I reject the premise of your debate.

      We haven’t seen any rise in temperate for nearly 20 years. The polar bears are more prevalent than ever. Antarctic sea ice is at record levels. There’s your data. Even as emerging countries grow, even as industry expands, etc…. China does whatever they do.. India… etc…

      According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

      Again.. the recorded data of actual temperatures says that there’s no issue of rising global temperature yet we’re told otherwise. We’re told storms like Sandy, Katrina, etc.. are due to climate change which is a lie. We’re told the “next” season will be worse than ever which hasn’t been true for many years now as the hurricane forecasts are repeatedly wrong about the number and severity of storms.

      So you tell me again about the “what if they’re wrong” line of questioning? What if the so-called scientists are wrong? Will we base public policy off science that is speculation at best, and agenda-driven at worst when we have data which directly contradicts the computer models? Tell me how that seems like a wise direction to head given the frequency of error when models forecast whether we’ll have rain and what the temperate will be next Monday, let alone next century.

      Were we talking about Rubio? I forgot.

  2. I’m not arguing “for” climate change. I am just skeptical of anyone who says they have divine truth, and everyone else is wrong.

    Well, then, of course, I’m also dubious about a ton of scientists on one side, and a politician on the other (you know, the presidential candidate whose parents were not citizens when he was born).

    I Googled “climate change skeptics” and came up with this pretty damned funny debate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

    Seriously, the skeptic says, “I just don’t think all the science is in yet.” I think that’s a reasonable statement. But that’s not the same as Boobio saying he (via Ouija board or something) knows for a fact that there is definitely no climate change.

    BTW–if your post had been “Joe Biden says Sky is Falling Due to Climate Change,” I would have quibbled with that, too.

    • “BTW–if your post had been “Joe Biden says Sky is Falling Due to Climate Change,” I would have quibbled with that, too.”

      That post is coming shortly to test your claim…

      Those who call people “deniers” are saying specifically that they have divine truth and that everyone else is wrong.

      Phrases like, “the debate is over” or “consensus is in” are basically saying there is no room for dissent any further, so, in short, shut up if you are denying this unassailable truth of climate change/global warming/climate disruption.

      • Nate, you’re so “easy” sometimes.

        First, YOU were the one who used the term “deniers”–TWICE–so I was just responding to YOUR wording (which you then repeated a third time).

        When I tried to find arguments, I Googled “skeptics,” which I feel is at least neutral, and since I consider myself a universal skeptic, thus, it a positive term.

        Second, yes, terms like “the debate is over,” “consensus is in,” and “unassailable truth” is EXACTLY why I am critical of Rubio. I don’t know, you don’t know, and Boobio certainly doesn’t know.

        You’re not going to find any post where I have said (a) global warming/climate change is a fact, or (b) we need to take drastic action. I just think it is weird that politicians are arguing with scientists about science.

        MEANWHILE:

        • In 2011, Chris Christie said “When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts.”

        • Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckabee, and Huntsman all endorsed “cap and trade.”

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/05/11/pretty_much_every_republican_front_runner_used_to_support_cap_and_trade.html

        • The Burger King of candidates (“have it your way”), Jeb Bush said in 2011, “It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately man-made.” He seems to be saying “it” exists, and that at least to some extent, it’s “man-made,” but just not “disproportionately.” –What?

        • Rand Paul, the most “politician” dude we have, has said he suspects that the climate is changing, but, “not sure anybody exactly knows why.” Smooooth.

        Then, there’s this guy:

        • Your buddy, Mike Pence, in a 2009 interview, said “I’m sure reducing CO2 emissions would be a positive thing.”

        • You used the word deny in your first post… am I wrong? Responding to your words since the word “deny” didn’t appear on this page until you wrote it.

          A universal skeptic wouldn’t discount the opinion of another skeptic. By reading your posts, I think you’re a lot less skeptical about this than you claim.

          Finally, it’s pretty easy to “know” the truth on this issue when we have the data that proves computer models wrong. Politicians are weasels, look at the actual data. Not the computer models, not a campaign speech, not wild predictions, the actual data. Then tell me why it’s crazy to argue with the scientists who seem to be ignoring the data in favor or made up computer models that fit their pre-conceived agenda.

          You’ve bought it already, I can tell. I know it’s hard to resist with the constant barrage from every media outlet and nearly every politician. You should do more research independent of politics. See this piece from the Weather Channel founder where he destroys the notion of man-made global warming:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3313785/Weather-Channel-boss-calls-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-history.html
          http://www.inquisitr.com/1243054/weather-channel-founder-climate-change-is-a-scam/

          He’s just a crazy loon too, right? The moral of the story is that it doesn’t matter if 90% of the population thinks one thing, that doesn’t automatically make it correct. A championship skeptic should know that.

          • I’m not sure anyone besides you and I will ever see this discussion, but here it goes. . .

            No, you are wrong. I did use the word “denying,” (not deny), but that’s different from “denier,” which is a pejorative. You used “denier” three times, and I used it once up to now.

            Second, I did NOT “deny the opinion of another skeptic.” First, Boobio is not a “skeptic,” he’s a bible-thumping proselytizer. And it’s not his “opinion,” it’s his “firm belief,” and I tend to reject all “beliefs.”

            And, you’re wrong that I’ve “bought it.” As in the Obamacare discussion, I don’t really give a sh*t. I just don’t like people running around, waving their arms, screaming what I must believe.

            As for John Coleman. . .

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29

            –he started out as a “weatherman” (like Nicholas Cage, in “The Weatherman”) at the age of 19, and was famous for helping bring us the scourge known as “happy talk” instead of news. Later, he stood in front of a green screen. Then he talked someone into thinking the world was ready for a cable channel of people standing in front of a green screen. Impressive credentials. Oh, wait, he did get a BA in journalism.

            Yes, I did go to your link. Basically, his argument is, “nuh-HUH!!”

            And, finally, no, opinions of 90% of the public doesn’t matter. But 97% of experts would impress me. If I gave a sh*t.

            • Nate: If you’ll review my posts, you’ll see that I never said anything at all about the alleged facts about climate change. I was just complaining about people screaming and pretending to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the topic.

              AND–well, I just like jerking you around when you’re so totally invested in an issue that you’ll go off on it.

              But, most importantly, as my dad would say, it’s clear that in this discussion, at least, you don’t know sh*t from shinola.

  3. Back to the main topic. The gist of this thread is that he thinks as a freshman senator at 42 that he would be a swell president, right?

    Well, Senator, I saw Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, I wish he had been a friend of mine. . .Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

    • An universal truth:

      The shortest distance between two politicians is through your wallet….

    • Goethe…thanks for remembering a Texan’s (Lloyd Bentsen) greatest line: “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Considering all his inadequacies, Dan Quayle was a gentleman, replying “That was really uncalled for, Senator”. Wouldn’t it be “swell” if today’s politicans followed his example?

      • Tess: I guess my iPhone ate my reply. Here it is again:

        I don’t think it had to do with “gentlemanliness,” I think it’s just the best the boy could do. If I’d been in that position, I would have commented on Bentsen’s advanced age–or noted that he and Mondale were both “retreads” at a time when we needed fresh ideas.

        I’ve always admired Bush41, but Quayle was a real “empty suit,” which explains why he fell to total obscurity after 92 (and nearly ignored after 88). Reminds me of Vaughn Meader’s comedy album “The First Family,” when a Texan voice said, “I’d like to say something, if I might,” and he has JFK say, “MUST you, Lyndon?” I’m sure that’s how the White House felt about Quayle.

        If he would have dumped Quayle and picked someone of substance, even Dole, there would be no Clinton dynasty. But “Poppy” Bush has always been the gentleman you talk about–loyal and generous of spirit.

  4. Come 2016 no-one will remember Rubio or Jeb, or The Fat Jersey Pig Christie — they’ve had their 15 minutes….

  5. Goethe – Climate change; do multiple Googles with broad open questions. Look at climate history in small chunks, large chunks, impact of natural phenomena (i.e. volcanos, earthquakes (and other tectonics), fires that burned for years, smashed by meteorites). Realize the audacity and arrogance of humans to propose they can screw up the aging process of a ~4.5Gigayear dynamic metamorphic substance in a ~13.5Gigayear universe. ?Humans? who have only been around a couple of Hecto-Kilo years and whose carbon footprint has impacted climate for only the last 6Deca (60) years.
    Let’s face it – take away all the grant money and then do another census!!! It is always true, follow the money!!

    Rubio can push back all he wants – there is no front runner in the Pub atmosphere and unless Koch and similar $$ supporters get behind a conservative candidate – the RINOs will destroy the GOP and it will be another 8 years of Liberal rule!!

  6. Sam…The International System of Units was not a favorite study of mine. I think you are saying that when the planets accreted around 4.5 billion years ago, they contained a mixture of all the elements. As our planet warmed up chemical elements (atoms) were forged together to form a dynamic metamorphic substance. The carbon footprint you speak of is very heavy….an annual 8.5-ton carbon footprint. I would like to see the world I live in cleaned up… solar concentrating power plants plus wind, and smaller electric vehicles along with compact mass transit options. And stop the Frackin…it consumes an enormous amount of our water supply and when it, along with all the hidden chemicals are withdrawn, it can, and has, contaminated water sources.

    • I think it’s funny that the people who say humans couldn’t possibly have an impact on an ecology that’s billions and billions of years old–are in the same group with people who say God threw together the dinosaurs (and everything else) five thousand years ago.

      Of course, those people are looking forward to the end. . .

    • Actually, someone recently said that we are NOT “destroying the earth.” The earth is billions of years old, and its ecology keeps changing. It’s just that it may not continue to sustain our particular species.

      Reminds me of a great B-movie called “THEY LIVE.” Starred WWF wrestler “Rowdy Roddy” Piper, 1988. The premise was that all our pollution is really intentional–as an alien species is changing earth’s atmosphere to suit THEIR species, not ours.

      The coolest part was that if you wore special glasses, you could see that all the advertising, everywhere, has subliminal messages to be docile and to obey authority.

    • Tess Liehard — the googleing, clueless sciolist…posts another idiotic opinion again…LOL.

Comments are closed.