After Jeb Bush announced his intention to run in 2016, the speculation turned to Florida Senator Marco Rubio and whether the junior senator would now be bumped out of the race. The reason for that speculation is due to the fact that Bush and Rubio share much of the same donor base and circle of political contacts within the state of Florida. The theory went that if Jeb runs, there won’t be room for Rubio.

Rubio vehemently denies that will be case if he chooses to seek the presidency and provided some insight into his 2016 plans in a recent interview. Report from the Sun-Sentinel:

In an interview with The Associated Press, the 43-year-old first-term senator said he had yet to make a final decision about whether to seek re-election to the Senate or run for president in 2016, but he spoke more confidently about making a bid for the White House than he has in the past.

“I believe that if I decide to run for president, we have a path to be a very competitive candidate, and ultimately to win,” Rubio said.

“I can’t guarantee a victory. Certainly these races will be very competitive, and there’s factors outside of our control that will determine a lot of it,” he said. “But if we made the decision to run for president, I believe that we can put together the organization and raise the money necessary to win.”

Should he run for president, Rubio reiterated Wednesday, he’ll do so at the expense of seeking re-election to the Senate.

“If you decide that you’re going to run for president of the United States, that’s what you need to run for. You need to be focused,” Rubio said. “If I decide to run for president, I’ll run for president. And I’m not going to be looking for some exit strategy or off-ramp in case things don’t work out.”

To be that forceful with a declaration that he believes he can in fact win tells me he is trying to muscle his way back into the conversation. If Jeb had passed on a 2016 run, he would ultimately be campaigning for Rubio and could be a good asset for him.

However, as it stands now, Rubio is at a disadvantage since much of the political energy in Florida on the Republican side will be trending toward Jeb. Anything from campaign advisers, staffers, and donors may be swallowed by the Bush campaign leaving Rubio reaching further to build an organization. That isn’t to say it can’t be done, it just presents a new challenge.


  1. Did no one notice the slap at Rand, who has the dilemma of having to drop his senate run if he runs for prez?

    “I’m not going to be looking for some exit strategy or off-ramp in case things don’t work out.”

    His implication is that if Rand is running for prez & senate, he won’t run that hard. . .the way Lieberman didn’t work that hard running for veep in 2000.

    • So that’ll be one way he stands out as being dedicated to the race in the eyes of donors who might think Rand won’t run as hard since he has a fallback option. Rubio is all in to win, or nothing.

        • Naw. Rubio saw it as a chance to “sit at the big people’s table.” Everybody ELSE on the committee has credibility:

          Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO
          Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-IL
          Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ
          Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC
          Sen. John McCain, R-AZ
          Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ
          Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY

          • Unfortunately for Sen. Rubio their “credibility” has a strong leaning left and he lost all Conservative credibility with that bad judgment.

  2. Rubio is a good conservative in many ways, yet his stand on amnesty is not there so it seems to me that the first American President of Hispanic descent then should be Senator Ted Cruz of Texas instead. In Cruz we get a conservative who respects the pro-life plank of the party platform as well as someone who respects the laws of the land on not going for amnesty yet he is also a patriot who will work to restore the economy, strengthen our national defenses, stand up to Castro in Cuba instead of embracing him as Obama disgracefully did last year at the Mandela funeral, and thankfully he will also follow through on working to repeal every word of Obama-non-Care, to the rescuing of our health care system in general, repealing a law that fully 75% of the electorate and 89% of doctors were vehemently against to begin with. Ted Cruz for President in 2016!

    • Victoria…I do not know you’re actual stand on amnesty but I do know that Rafael Cruz (father of Ted) was illegally living, off and on, for about 37 years in the United States before he became a US citizen. He did move to Canada for about eight years and became a Canadian Citizen, where Rafael Ted Cruz, Jr was born as a citizen of Canada. His mother was a US citizen which gave Ted dual citizenship but does not change his birth location. Rafael Cruz embraced Fidel Castro and fought for him in Cuba. Today, he says he is sorry for his actions so I accept that. It is beyond me why Ted Cruz would fight insurance in any form for fellow citizens, when he has the best insurance available through Goldman Sachs insurance program. His wife is an executive with the company. Goldman Sachs, the company that received 12.9 million dollars in government bailouts. Now, with few exceptions, Representatives and Senators, are insured through the Affordable Care Act ( a few have medicare and about 5 have insurance through a family member). Of course, this is very different from the nopay they once had. And this is one of the silent reasons Affordable Care has taken such an undeserved beating from Congress. Everyone needs to be insured. People who use the emergency room as their doctor and hospital entrance create an unsustainable tax burden on their county and state taxpayers..

      • I personally know several Cuban families who left Cuba as entire families to avoid being forced to exist under the opression of Castro’s Communism. Because forcing them to return would have been a death sentence, American policy has allowed them to remain here once they set foot on our continent and they were not forced to return due to the danger it posed to those who escaped. The custom in Canada i to give children born there the citizenship of the mother and Ted’s mother was born here in Delaware, therefore he was automatically an American citizen. The Canadian citizenwhip is being dropped the last I heard, so that will not pose an obstacle to his candidacy for the Presidency next year. As to his father, Rafael Cruz is a Christian minister and if you listen to his many speeches at you tube you will find a man who deeply values his freedom and what our American way of life has made possible for him and his family. Ted reflected the expressed will of 75% of voters and 89% of physixians when he stood against Obama-non-Care which would if allowed to continue being implemented ultimately force all taxpayers to pay for baby murder by abortion and end up passively euthanizing the elderly for lack of care as is already being seen in socialized nations like Canada. Check out the video at you tube by John Stossel on the dangers of socialized medicine – it is a real eye-opener and then listen to the speech given by Ronald Reagan on the same topic and you might better underatand why we do not want that system here. Our sydtem is not perfect but it can be improved rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak by destroying it and so I deeply appreciate the determination expressed by Senator Cruz to repeal every word of that tertible bill.

        • Victoria, please provide a link that substantiates your claim that there is a custom in Canada to give a child citizenship to another country. It’s my understanding that a child born on Canadian (or American) soil is automatically given citizenship in that country. How could Canada give American, Russian, or Chinese citizenship?

          • You are correct in stating that a child is accorded citizenship in whatever country he is born and for that reason Ted Cruz started out with dual citizenship, the American citizenship being his due to the Canadian practice of children born there being given the citizenship of their mother (his mother was born here in Delaware) and the Canadian due to the location where the birth took place. He has to drop the Canadian citizenship in order to run for the presidency and, the last I heard, he was in the process of doing that. I do not have any links to prtovide but surely these facts are easily obtained through google searches. They are common knowledge.

            • Victoria: I have done an extensive search, and I find NO links that substantiate your claim. Please provide. “Everybody knows that” is not proof.

            • I do not have a link, but this was brought out during the several times that the Cruz eligibility topic was raised on Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Rising blog and each time the topic came up legal eagle Schlafly’s conclusion was that he is perfectly qualified to run for the Presidency based on all of evidence available, of which that was one factor in the discussion. Maybe you would know how to research the topic at the Eagle Rising web site. That is a technique with which I am not yet familiar. Given that Phyllis Schlafly has been a knowledgeable lawyer deeply incolved in politics practically my entire life (and I turn 60 this March), and she has no qualms with a Cruz candidacy based upon what she has investigated, it seems somewhat unnecessary for the rest of us to get wrapped around the axle over the matter so to speak.

            • Victoria: I have thought the “birther” issue was crap from the outset. But you have to be careful how you argue it. I find no link anywhere, including on the Schlafley site that says Canada determines nationality by bloodline.

              The section of the Constitution was put in there because it was common practice in Europe for the leader of one country to become the leader of another–by marriage. I think that’s the only reason for that clause. In fact, if you read it carefully, NONE of the presidents after about 1820 are legal.

            • In Canada it is the citizenship of the mother that is accordrd to the child born there and that is how Senator Cruz started out in life as being an American citizen since his mother was born in Delaware. He had dual citzenship due to the fact that the birth took place in Canada, so now he needs to drop the Canadian citizenship to run for the Preidency and the last I heard he was in the process of getting that accomplished. He was able to serve in the Senate based upon the fact that he was born with the American citizenship accorded to him as the son of an American mother even though the birth itself took place in Canada. You can be sure that he will have every t crossed and every i dotted if/when he in fact goes for that run. If he runs, I will be behind his candidacy all the way to the White House. He will make a great President along the lines of the next Reagan.

            • That’s such BS. There is no such Canadian law that says that Canada determines citizenship based on a mother. So, you’re now claiming if the mother were Cuban and the father were French, the Nation of Canada would call the kid Cuban?? Please find any substantiation to your claim or retract it.

            • Yes, that is their way of according citizenship to children born in their country and that is why Ted had American citizenship from birth since his mother was born in Delaware. It was all on Eagle Rising’s discussion on the topic and the concensus at the end of legal eagle Phyllis Schlafly’s blog on the topic was that Senator Cruz is fully qualified to run for the Presidency. Run, Ted, Run – this citizen will gladly back such a patriot all the way to the oval office!

        • The latest Rasmussen Survey (posted 1/14/2015) finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act, while 49% still view
          it unfavorably.

          • Not all polls are accurate. The way in whch people were being dropped from their insurance policies and by the doctors they had wanted to keep because of the changes, it is only common sense that people were waking up to the disaster that is socialized medicine and just as when 75% of the voters and 89% of doctors vehemently oppoosed it when it was rammed down the collective American throat, most have not lost sight of what was brought out in the John Stossel video on the topic in which Canadians spoke of their coming here for decent care because it was not available to them under their system of socialized medicine at the time. If that disaster sticks, we will have nowhere to go for decent care and neither will the Canadians! People who are awake concerning the issue know this.

            • You are right, Victoria…not all polls are accurate. What was the source of the poll you quoted? I don’t understand the concern about doctors vehemently opposing the
              healthcare act because it has no language that places any restrictions on a
              doctor’s diagnosis, treatment orders or medicines he may prescribe. The primary reason doctors are resentful is due to the fact they feel they don’t make enough money when treating patients with Affordable Care or Medicare. Yet, all doctors are free to opt out of anyinsurance, anytime.

              Canada does not have socialized medicine. The Canadian health care system was
              built around the principle that all citizens will receive all “medically necessary and hospital physician services.” To that end, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories finance and run a statewide health insurance program. There is no cost-sharing for the health care services guaranteed under federal law in Canada. Canadians (about two thirds) take out private, supplemental insurance policies (or have an employer-sponsored plan) to cover these services. Sound familiar? If John Stossell reported that Canada’s has socializes medicine, he needs to recant.

            • Just go to you tube and check it out for yourself. Stossel was not manufacturing ideology – in that video, he personally interviewed a number of Canadians who came here to receive the care they needed but could not secure under the socialized medicine system prevalent there. Don’t take my word for it – check out the video for yourself – just go to you tube and ask for John Stossel on socialized medicine and you will hear it from the people themselves whose conclusion could be paraphrased as: “we chose to live, and that’s why we came here for the medical care that we needed instead of waiting in Canada for medical attention that might not have been forthcoming until it was too late to save our very lives”. Ted Cruz for President to repeal every word of Obama-non-Care and then let us make adjustments as necessary to what had been the best medical system in the world. Yes, doctors are free to opt out of any insurance – have you noticed how many are dumping all of their Medicare patients today (if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor – LIES), how many people have been kicked off of the insurance policies they liked because they did not include coverage for abominations like abortion, how policy insurance premiums have been soaring through the roof? – so much for “affordability”. That bill was grossly misnamed since it is neither affordable nor is it care. By the way, even hospitals across America have been rejecting patients with that type of “insurance”. As to why doctors from the outset stated they would either change professions, leave the country to practice elsewhere or take an early retirement, it comes down to the fact that the government is coming between the doctor and patient, making life and death decisions for us and that is just plain unethical. Real doctors who honor the foundation of good medicine contained in the directive “primum no nocere/above all, do no harm” and who value the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath which would compel them to respect the sanctity of human life and protect and preserve every single one regardless of age, whether inside or outside the womb, or health condition, simply do not take kindly to the government telling them who they can and cannot save. When you need surgery, “take an aspirin and call me in the morning” just will not solve the matter and that is where we are being left by this bill and good doctors know that which is why 89% of them are on record as having vehemently opposed the bill all along. A physician who read the bill revealed that it will result in severely rationed care to people over age 65, so seniors are on the track for passive euthanasia if it is not soon repealed. Ted Cruiz for President, to the saving of America, literally!

            • Virginia…Utube is not a reliable source for any debate. Who were the Canadians that came here for medical attention? Did they receive the care they had anticipated and at what cost since their treatment in the US had to be on a cash basis. United States
              doctors and Hospitals are not dumping Medicare patients for Medicare is their “bread
              and butter”. Many do refuse Medicaid.

              I was totally unaware of the threats made by doctors that
              they would change professions, retire, or leave the country. Too bad they were
              idle threats for that caliber of character needs to go.

              The Affordable Care Act does not, in any form or fashion, tell a doctor what treatments or surgeries he can give a patient. Nor does it tell him what prescription to write. Nor does it allow passive euthanasia. However, this procedure is requested
              by many families and prescribed by doctorsin terminal cases through the use of a morphine drip for many, many, many years. I would like to know what severely rationed care is forthcoming. Under Affordable Care law, providers are required to cover former co-pays for screenings, medications and immunizations. Medicare regularly provides coverage for many of these services, although it is not required to do so. Affordable Care law will not allow Insurance companies to deny health care due to pre-existing conditions or cancel coverage for people who become sick. Cash strapped parents can keep college students,til age 26, on their insurance plan. No longer are there lifetime dollar limits on health care benefits. Many things could be improved upon but not gutted as a result of hatred and paranoia.

              From the Hippocratic Oath: I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it
              may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be
              faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must
              not play at God.

            • Wtch the Stossel video and you will find out who those Canadians were. They did receive the medical attention required to protect their lives, and it was care of which they probably would have been deprived to the point of passive euthanasia as has happened to others under hat system who could not otherwise afford themselves the luxury of coming here to receive care when the need was greatest. Hospitals are not refusing Medicare patients but they are refusing patients who have nothing to cover them other than Obama-non-Care. It has been in the news in recent months. The doctors who threatened to change professions or retire or leave the country were the ones who respected both the right of their patients to the care needed for survival and as well as the Hippocratic Oath and the foundational premise of all good medicine which is “primum no nocere/above all, do no harm” – the last I heard, practicing passive euthanasia by depriving anyone of needed care is a sure path to great harm. It is the best of doctors that we stand to lose in the process and the Kevorkians working for the state that will remain – may God save America from the slippery slope upon which we find ourselves today. Ted Cruz for President in 2016, to repeal every word of Obama-non-Care!

            • Victoria, you’ re still throwing around numbers and claims without verification. You don’t even give a link for Stossel (who is hardly an objective source). Try providing facts, and back them up with links.

            • Goethe, I have told you at least three times how to access that video from you tube – just type into the window “video on socialized medicine by John Stossel”. My grandchildren could pull that up at you tube and you seem to be quite proficient at handling yourself on this page so I am very sure that you know how to check it out for yourself. I have some items in folders and the point is that the information is out there so surely you could even google the rest. It is not hard to find.

            • It is customary to provide a link, and I don’t consider Stossel an expert, anyway.

              Anybody can blab on YouTube. Did you know that 89% of the people never change their underwear? Somebody on YouTube must be claiming that, so I wanna use it as proof that the economy is bad.

            • A Gallup Poll said:

              25% of Americans are “very” or “somewhat satisfied”with the availability of affordable healthcare. The number in Canada is 57%.

              Meanwhile, 44% of Americans are “very DIS-satisfied,”compared to 17% in Canada.

              As for quality, 48% of Americans are satisfied with health-care quality, compared to 52% for Canadians.

              Meanwhile, 17% of Americans are very DIS-satisfied with quality, compared to 13% in Canada.

              And here’s the link:

            • Sorry. We don’t cotton to criticism of Canada, eh.

              Michigan has the LONGEST border with Canada of ANY of the contiguous states (721 miles).

            • John Stossel has the distinction of having been considered sufficiently informed to be featured on a major news program – I think it was 20/20, through which he brought many topics to light for the public. This just happened to have been one of the subjects of his in depth investigations. If you prefer to remain ignorant, that is of course your choice. This is still America with a “c” rather than a “k”. Have a good day.

Comments are closed.